HB@prime.acc.virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) (09/28/89)
This is an attempt (the first of several, I hope) to move a subject of
discussion out of the unmoderated soc.<gender> groups into a moderated
forum, in the interest of generating a less inflammatory discussion.
In the recent thread on chivalry in soc.{women,men}, Valerie Maslak
posted the following story, which generated numerous followups:
# Recently, I, a single mother, was in New Orleans to deliver my
# youngest daughter to college. We went out to dinner one night with
# her roomate and her roomates's parents. So we take a cab, and roomate's
# father refuses my offer of half the cab fare. Then we go to dinner,
# and roommate's father insists the dinner reservations have to be in
# his name, not mine. When the bill comes, he loudly in a voice that
# carries across the whole room declines my offer to pay at least half
# of the check with the words "When I'm at the table with beautiful women,
# I ALWAYS pay the check."
#
# So I decided that what he deserved was to do just that.
#
# As Cindy says, if it isn't reciprocal, it's condescending.
I'd like to make a couple of points on this as it relates to feminism.
First, it seems to me that if feminists want to be successful in
eliminating this sort of behavior we need an accurate understanding of
the underlying motivations. So what were the reasons for the man's
behavior? It's pretty clear he was trying to impress someone, but
whom? The women at the table? Or the rest of the people in the
restaurant?
In a later article, Valerie wrote:
#Problem was, he didn't want to treat me as head of my family. I was JUST A
#WOMAN. TO BE TREATED AS HE TREATED ALL HIS WOMEN. Phuiii. No one is
#impressed by someone who has to grab for the check. It's grandstanding.
Agreed. But grandstanding how and for whom? By grabbing the check to
impress the women? Or by calling attention to the women _and_ his
paying the check to impress others in the restaurant? Was he treating
the women like children that needed to be taken care of, or was it
more that he was treating them as chattel, as an entourage that might
be useful to impress other _men_?
A few questions, Valerie:
You said in another artice that this was a "successful businessman."
Where? Local to New Orleans? Successful enough to travel there
frequently? Was there any reason to believe he had been to that
restaurant before, or would go there again? And could he have thought
for any reason that his name on the reservation would carry more clout
than yours, irrespective of gender?
It seems to me that we need the answers to these questions for a full
and correct interpretation of what happened.
Secondly, Phil Wayne wrote an article suggesting that neither Valerie
nor the man was "wrong", but just "operating out of entirely different
mental and social sets", which Valerie then suggested was like saying
that "asking blacks to sit only in the back of a bus is not wrong".
I think we need a more precise definition of what is meant by "wrong"
in this context. If we look at it from a feminist perspective, we can
fairly easily come up with an objective set of standards for behavior
which are gender-neutral, and according to which the man's behavior as
described above is clearly "wrong".
But if "wrong" is meant to indicate an evil character, or a
deliberate, willful attempt to condescend or to transgress against the
rights of another, then it is at least possible that the man is not
"wrong", but continues to act based on an outdated "mental and social
set" simply because those ideas have never been successfully
challenged. That may be hard to believe in this day and age, but it
is not impossible.
Which brings us to the question of how to challenge sexist behavior
and ideas such as this man displayed; what do we do? Valerie
obviously thought it wasn't worth the bother to confront this man in
this particular situation, but what determines this? How do we decide
whether we should confront the offender or let it pass? If we decide
to confront them, how do we do it? What are the chances of achieving
a positive result and how do we determine those chances? Or are there
non-confrontational strategies for dealing with situations like this?
I'd like to know other folks' answers to these questions.
Please post followups to soc.feminism.
Hank Bovis
(hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)foy@aerospace.aero.org (Richard Foy) (10/12/89)
In article <890927.013338424@Prime> HB@prime.acc.virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: ># carries across the whole room declines my offer to pay at least half ># of the check with the words "When I'm at the table with beautiful women, ># I ALWAYS pay the check." ># ># So I decided that what he deserved was to do just that. One might also respnd in such a situation, " Thank you. I will donate the money I save to National Organization for Women." /|\ | The above opinions are all my own. Richard Foy
avery@well.UUCP (Avery Ray Colter) (10/24/89)
foy@aerospace.aero.org (Richard Foy) writes: >In article <890927.013338424@Prime> HB@prime.acc.virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: >># carries across the whole room declines my offer to pay at least half >># of the check with the words "When I'm at the table with beautiful women, >># I ALWAYS pay the check." >># >># So I decided that what he deserved was to do just that. >One might also respnd in such a situation, " Thank you. I will donate >the money I save to National Organization for Women." And these opinions are my own: WHAT THAT MAN DID WAS NOT REALLY CHIVALRY. At least not by the definition I carry in my noggin. To me, a chivalrous man will learn, by direct and discreet communication, how his "damsel" <no, no, please, put down that pruning pole!> how she wishes to be treated, and will loyally and gallantly act within those bounds until notice of their change. He will not make grandiose presentations to others about his supposed chivalry. A truly chivalrous man is satisfied that both he and the people he knows intimately are aware of it, and will only make such things public if actively challenged or called into question first. A chivalrous man sure as hell would not do something that any walnut-headed peasant knows would embarrass the lady <deftly dodging the pruner again> with whom he is dining. Now, maybe this isn't the classical form, and maybe it intrinsically assumes women to be human companions instead of "property", but beyond that I can see little difference. Perhaps this man still thinks of women as objects and interprets chivalry on this basis. I assert that if one thinks of women as fellow human beings and proceeds to build a system of honorable conduct from there, it will produce quite different results in situations like these. -- Avery Ray Colter (415) 451-7786 | Now, class, repeat after me: {apple|ucbvax|pacbell}!well!avery | ICH LIEBE DIE BELEIBTEN LEIBEN, avery@well.sf.ca.us | UND HUPFENDE HUEFTE HABE ICH GERN!