Opening doors for women

Vox, whom I’d describe as being pro-women in that he has the lovely Spacebunny as his partner and seems to have little trouble connecting with the female of the species, nevertheless does take the point of view, as Moggsy put it, that they can’t have it both ways … or indeed have it all.

He poses the question of opening car doors for women:

I open building doors for men, children, old women, and young women who don’t carry themselves with an attitude. I used to open car doors for women, but I don’t anymore because I got tired of feeling stupid every time I went to the other side of the car only to stand there uselessly as the woman, already in the car, closed the door herself. I suspect remote door entry might play a role in that, but it might also be simple female impatience.

The thing which puzzles me in that was that he “got tired of feeling stupid every time I went”

Pardon me, Vox but we seem to operate along different lines. As a member of Mensa, you are certainly not a chump and yet, PG Wodehouse wrote: “The best husbands are chumps,” i.e. they are happy to be ignored and browbeaten ad infinitum and she “trains him” over a period of time.

Phillip Marlow, in Farewell My Lovely, had a trialogue between the cop Nulty, a horrible woman and himself. He kept putting up theories, to which she interrupted with something along the lines of: “Pardon me, young man but can’t you let someone get a word in edgeways?  This gentleman over here has no trouble keeping his mouth shut until someone’s finished.”

“He’s married – he’s had practice.”

Ive had practice too but at the same time, never became house-trained that way and so here we are.

You see, to write: “I got tired of …” presupposes that you continued that behaviour after either 1. mentioning it to her, including why you were doing it or 2. failing to mention it and just continuing it.

Now 2 seems illogical to me. If you mention something to her she’s doing, with a view to stopping or modifying it, she either 1. heeds it and tries to modify her behaviour or 2. fails to heed it at all, for a variety of reasons.

Therefore she is not listening to you on what are either 1. important matters to you or 2. not important matters to you. But I’d argue that if she doesn’t heed you on the minor matters or even the philosophical matters, e.g. chivalry, then she is going to do that on matters which are central to you. It’s not a good sign.

Also, what you consider important or not important now comes into sharper focus. Add to this Dr. Phil McGraw’s Ten Lifelaws and you have: “We teach people how to treat us.” 90% of what she wanted, she got in my case but by that stage, when part of the 10% came up, she was so used to having her own way and ignoring what I wanted, she simply couldn’t see we reached a hard place here.

So I’d trained her to take the p***.

Now either, Vox, she 1. loves you like crazy and will modify her behaviour for fear of losing you, or 2. won’t modify it because a. she’s so up herself that she can’t see anyone else or b. thinks she would lose Power in the relationship by conceding on something, anything – in other words, it would undercut her house-training process.

In this case, it’s the chivalry she won’t abide. I’d suggest that is a very bad sign because it’s chivalry which gives her her real power, as distinct from her imagined, PC-narrative Power. Femininity in itself accrues for the woman enormous clout to use with the man.

But it also involves sacrifice on her part.

Now if she cannot concede anything whatever, e.g. allowing the car door to be opened for her, then you will continue with her because of all the other factors – yes, including loving her like mad -. but I won’t continue.    I give notice.   I don’t fear solitude or street vagrancy so much that I would abide wrong actions in a continued pattern.    Not from women, not from men, not from the State.

It’s a fundamental.

If I’m to take on the PC narrative at face value and I did try to – that is absolute equality – then women will get the sharp end of my tongue just as much as men.    That’s equality at work.    I’ll bring my full oppression to bear.    However, now the men come in and say I’m not being chivalrous, that I’m attacking a defenceless woman and shame on me.

Yes, I agree, so therefore I am going against my own belief by treating her equally and not chivalrously and creating a cognitive dissonance in my mind.   Therefore I must not treat her equally because society will ostracize me if I do but the State will incarcerate me if I don’t.

So all this oscillation, this wild swinging between equality and chivalry must cease. As Moggsy said, we can’t have it both ways. Therefore I opt for chivalry, except in the case of the Harmans and Mensches of this world who affect our livelihoods and therefore need to be brought down.

Now, chivalry says that whatever behaviour a woman gets up to, a man will 1. ignore it, 2. accommodate it and 3. forget any petty grievances in the interests of remaining loving towards her, which brings us back to chumps. It’s better, most men have found, to be a professional chump, even if not actually being one. It creates peace, with her in charge.

That’s chivalry in action, which actually empowers a woman, rather than the opposite. However, to adopt my 2006 – 2011 experiment – i.e. to treat a woman as a man and give her hell if she strays – most would see that as ungallant, particularly gallant and/or married men with good marriages.   In fact, one or two have come in and taken me to task on it.

So perhaps we should be chivalrous most of the time but stand firm on occasions – my current stance. Which is precisely the stance which saw me walked over by a woman who knew I loved her and that that gave her a lever. There is a Russian proverb from Pushkin about the one who loves too much and too little and it’s widely believed in Russia.

My misfortune has been to love too much in some cases and in others, when she did, I never entered a relationship with her and so the issues did not arise.

The reason I didn’t was because I was already in one and that was one of the motivating factors in her pursuing it – that I was already taken. I don’t call this lack of logic – it’s actually quite logical. During the times of being on my own, on the other hand – interest dried up, which is also logical.

Interesting, isn’t it?

To wind this up, I’d go for that Chivalry Lite stance – seems to be the most efficacious overall.

11 comments for “Opening doors for women

  1. NickM
    August 12, 2012 at 14:05

    I am sure that not all young women are as thoughtless, shallow and selfish as you portray. I agree there are too many who seem to derive their world view from Cosmo, but that is mostly because they are in their 20s. By the time they reach 30 they have usually become more like a human being. Stop winding yourself up, and just be kind to people and don’t expect anything back. Easy to say hard to do I know.

  2. jmb
    August 12, 2012 at 18:13

    LOL. Well said NickM!

  3. August 12, 2012 at 18:45

    Well obviously I’ll be misrepresented here – that’s par for the course:

    I am sure that not all young women are as thoughtless, shallow and selfish as you portray.

    Nope, never said that, never intimated it. Nick is making just as many blanket assumptions here as he accuses me of. Unfortunately, many men have found as I have stated but as I mentioned in the text, it cuts both ways.

    The bit on “Therefore she is not listening to you on what are either 1. important matters to you or 2. not important matters to you. But I’d argue that if she doesn’t heed you on the minor matters or even the philosophical matters …” could apply equally to men. In fact, it is one of the main complaints reported by women about men.

    What was stated in the text is not untrue – it just doesn’t give the whole picture – that is where the criticism should be. As far as it goes, it is quite true. It just doesn’t go into what women have to put up with as well.

    As the post is about chivalry, then it had to keep hovering around that theme. So what was the point of the post? It was a post for men on the problems of chivalry and how far it should be subscribed to. I concluded that it should be to a great extent.

    The two comments so far go at a tangent and attack me personally, which is what the left do of course. As for the attack – that not all young women are like that – well of course they’re not. But the PC narrative induces them into that nonetheless and as Nick admits, many do fall for it.

    And JMB [welcome by the way] – LOL is not an argument. It is an unsubstantiated assertion.

  4. jmb
    August 13, 2012 at 02:24

    I didn’t come to argue or debate James. LOL is indeed not an argument nor is it an unsubstantiated assertion. It is merely an expression of amusement. Obviously not welcome at all.

  5. Moggsy
    August 13, 2012 at 08:06

    I do think Nick’s “Stop winding yourself up, and just be kind to people and don’t expect anything back.” in lots of ways cuts to the heart of how to live life well and are wize.

  6. August 13, 2012 at 08:12

    JMB – that is rubbish. It was a direct comment on what the man wrote and it agreed with it. The LOL, taken in isolation might be seen as neutral but as you rarely comment here [though you’re always welcome, especially so now], then htere had to be a reason to comment and there was – you were agreeing with Nick. And what did Nick say that you would agree with? Roughly as Moggsy said. So that LOL was meant as support for Nick’s comment but you brought no evidence for that view, whereas I did support my view.

    Moggsy, that response is predictable.

    This is a major issue in society, this sexism in reverse and in a new post, I’m going to detail something which happened the other day locally, to illustrate the point.

  7. Moggsy
    August 13, 2012 at 14:47

    Predictable? Maybe… but so is the answer to the question ‘what is two plus two?’, does not mean it is not right also.

    I was just thinking Nick’s comment was maybe just a good way of looking at life. Like ‘do unto others’?

  8. August 13, 2012 at 16:22

    Moggsy, what has two plus two to do with what was in the post? Nick’s way of looking at life might be good on an even playing field but it is far from an even playing field and that is the point.

    Monty Python had something on that when Cleese had killed many of the guests in Holy Grail and the baron said let’s not bicker over who’s killed who – this is meant to be a happy occasion.

    People who say those things are being disingenuous – they know things are very wrong but because they’re part of them, they say, let’s all get on together.

    Sure we’ll get on together, in Nick’s manner – once we’ve effing well got back to some sort of sanity in the society. Then we’ll gladly say that lovey dovey being kind and nice and all that is wonderful.

    Not while there are still rank injustices being perpetrated by the very people who are calling for us to love one another. And they know it full well too!

  9. August 13, 2012 at 21:14

    “I used to open car doors for women, but I don’t anymore because I got tired of feeling stupid every time I went to the other side of the car only to stand there uselessly as the woman, already in the car, closed the door herself.”

    That statement doesn’t make sense to me…

    If he was by her side he would have got to the door at at the same time as the lady if not slightly before. So there may have been a chance for her to open the door and climb in. But whilst she was climbing in he would have had plenty of time to take control of the door to close it for her! So what took him so long to get to the door?

  10. August 13, 2012 at 22:41

    Maybe she ran for the other side.

  11. Moggsy
    August 14, 2012 at 04:45

    OK James now I know you are just messing with me with this stupid “not getting” my simple point, because if you really can’t work it out, well I don’t want to be insulting… Step too far James.

    Cherry I figure not a whole lot makes sense here just now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *