« Annika interviewed me... | Main | "Further up, further in" and moving towards veganism »

February 04, 2005



I don't know what Godwin's Law is, but I am wondering whether Obtestor is even participating in the same discussion everyone else is. Who said anything about the existence of good women excusing human rights abuses against men? I thought this was a discussion on gender based manners?


Godwin's Law = the longer a discussion thread gets, the probability of someone using a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one. The corrolary is that the person who used the comparison to the Nazis automatically loses the argument.

Just FYI.


Makes sense to me!


Is it time to cite Godwin's law here?

The sophomoric use of Godwin's Law doesn't dismiss the fascist connection between Nazism and feminism. That is just a leftist method to bail on an important debate when feminism is explored for its evils. Since feminism is fascism, what better anaology is there to describe it than Nazism (another fascism)?

So rather than discuss the truth that you had a 'daughter', and thus are adding to the majority population of the United States that claims it is a minority (fascism), you would rather cower away from that truth as an emasculated American male and invoke "Godwin's Law". Tell you what, wouldn't it be easier to just say you felt uncomfortable about talking about the issue and that you were already compromised by the fact that you have a daughter?



Godwin's Law = the longer a discussion thread gets, the probability of someone using a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one.

That is logic fallacy. We are talking about feminism, a political ideology with its roots in fascism. Since Nazism is also a fascism, the comparisons in logic are thusly not only reasonable, but a predictable outcome.

Do you have any more junk science terms like Godwin's Law to invoke?

Think of it this way. If you lived in Nazi Germany and disagreed with the police state fascist nature of the National Socialist Party, would it be logical for a Nazi Party member to invoke Godwin's Law over you?

To some of you, that is reasonable. I think it is pretty laughable myself and simply demonstrates the deterioration in critical thinking in modern American universities and public schools (houses of horrors).



I don't know what Godwin's Law is, but I am wondering whether Obtestor is even participating in the same discussion everyone else is.

Well maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills a bit. Aaaron disliked the fact that I pointed out that women in America deserve scorn because they are silent to feminist evil, because he has a 'daughter'.

That would be no different, logically speaking, than saying the Nazis didn't deserve scorn if the person complaining had a child in the Hitler Youth Program.

So the analogy is extremely pertinent to this discussion. If you want to censor me, just admit it, don't use leftist sophomoric deceptions.




"Godwin's Law = the longer a discussion thread gets, the probability of someone using a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one. The corrolary is that the person who used the comparison to the Nazis automatically loses the argument.

Just FYI."

So what do you do if the discussion is ABOUT Hitler and the Nazis?


"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

That is a quote by a US Marine General in charge of all US Marines in a theatre of war.

This is the link to the article:


So what this general is saying, in essence and with great clarity politically, is that it is not unreasonable to kill men who reject feminism. He is also saying that the killing of these men by the millions is for feminism (fascist goals).

They are already doing it in America. It is only predictable that feminist fascism would now do it in foreign countries.



So what do you do if the discussion is ABOUT Hitler and the Nazis?

You would invoke Roe-V-Wade Law or some other junk science to complain lol. (teasing)

Craig, you are pretty smart. I like you.


Ron O.

I think Hugo nailed it when he said manners are designed to make people more comfortable. And I would add make life easier for another, like pausing a moment to hold the door for the next person. But some things done in the name of manners I think is either ridiculous or rude. Like standing & greeting grandma properly when she arrives is good, but if grandma is able-bodied I think standing every time she enters the room or gets up from the table implies she is not and she might find that annoying.

Another thing is when women get served first in restaurants just because of their gender. Do women need more time for thier food to cool? This too is kind of cruel because if she has good manners she will wait until the men have been served. So invariably she has to spend more time with her food right in front of her, smelling the delicious aroma, yet not eat.


But some things done in the name of manners I think is either ridiculous or rude.

Ron, a US Marine General is ordering his men to kill foreigners because of chivalry. When foreign men ignore women wearing veils (ignoring a female's rights not to wear one), US soldiers then are being ordered to put bullets into those anti-feminist men's bodies.

I think that is a ridiculous and rude thing to do in the name of manners. Since I am an anti-feminist, maybe it is time I purchase some body-armor since US troops are now indiscreetly and openly killing such men on the altar of feminism.



Oh my.
How many times have I pondered this quandary without coming to any conclusions.
Excellent job, Hugo, for nailing this one on the head! Fascinating....

I am a woman who has always appreciated the chivalrous manners of men. I have not appreciated the angry reactions (note: reaction, not action) of feminists that were insulted by men opening doors for them and chastizing them for it!
I dated one fellow who REFUSED to hold the door open for me, EVER! He said his ex had yelled at him for it so now he won't do it. I explained that I was not her and that it would mean a great deal to me if he wanted to do it (he never did). I found it disrepsectful that he wouldn't. Argh!
One time I sat down to lunch with a man, and it was our first date. He asked me, point balnk, if I was a feminist and was I going to be insulted if he paid for lunch? I told him no and asked him if he was going to be insulted if I let him? We laughed, but I was kind of sad that the poor thing felt like he had to ask.
I think the empowerment of women is in our own actions and assertiveness, and not so easily cast aside by an opened door.
It's just strange to me.


I think that you are right Ron, that formal aspects of manners should not be taken to ridiculous extremes. I am fascinated by the topic of manners generally. My view has always been that the more civilized a society is, the less necessary it is to have a rigid code of manners. In many circles, it is not as important as it may have been hundreds of years ago to have the man always open the door for a woman-- because civilized men have absorbed the more important tenet that a man shouldn't use his greater physical strength to take advantage of a woman. Therefore, the formalities are no longer necessary (at least in the adult professional circles I run in!)

The corrollary of that is that perhaps it would be a good idea to train young people in the formalities if they are getting out of hand. (Those awful boys in the TV show "Growing Up Gotti" could definitely use some etiquette lessons in order to learn basic respect.) Training in etiquette can also be a great confidence builder; learning etiquette when I was a child and a teenager helped me to feel that I could navigate new social situations with some ease because I knew what the "rules" are and more importantly the basic principle of respect that underlies the rules.


Obtestor: Your anger appears to me to be self-defeating. Yes, there are feminist extremists who fit your description. Andrea Dworkin is their poster child, and there are many in her cohort: Robin Morgan, Catherine McKinnon, Valerie Solanas (RIP), Susan Griffin, Barbara Smith, and many more. It can be expected that extreme hate from one camp will provoke an extreme response in kind from the object of that hatred, and that is what I see in you. The battle here will not be won by the extremists, however. It will be won by those who strive to understand the other side, and to be understood by them. And the result will be a victory for the human race, and not for women or for men.

When you see others as your enemy, and treat them as your enemy, do not be surprised when they behave as your enemy. Expressions of scorn do not facilitate progress, even in cases where you may perceive the scorn to be well-earned.


When I was a little girl, I was taught to hold the door open for _anyone_ who was behind me, within a reasonable distance. I also offer my seat to _anyone_ who, in general, looks like they need the seat more than I do...elderly women, elderly men, pregnant women, moms or dads dragging their young ones around, people with big bags of stuff, whatever. All I was told was "it's the polite thing to do," and I've never thought much about it.


Most of the customs we file under "chivalry" evolved during the Victorian period. The overriding rule is that a proper lady never shows ANY exertion in public. Opening doors and pulling out chairs was just indecorous of proper ladies, so men had to do it for them. Some of these manners have stayed and some have drifted.

According to Miss Manners, the proper rule of thumb with gendered distinctions in etiquette is that they are acceptable in social circumstances and unacceptable in professional circumstances. Men are never to stand when a woman enters an office to conduct business--this is an insult and implies that women do not belong in the boardroom. However, in social circumstances where differences are considered entertainment more than statements on ability, it's fine for men to stand, open doors, pull out chairs. It's a great rule of thumb that makes a lot of these uncomfortable situations easier to navigate.


I am a woman.

I was taught to hold the door for anyone behind me, especially if they were carrying someting or would otherwise find it hard to make it through the door. Since I am in the Northeast, most buildings have double doors, and if a gentleman holds the first door open for me, I hold the second open for him.

I also decided to give up my seat on public transportation to those who needed it more than me (older, pregnant, etc.). I am in good health, but when I am sick, I appreciate the courtesy.

I sometimes split the bill with my boyfriend when we eat out, sometimes he treats, sometimes I treat- it varies.

The thing is to treat the other party with courtesy and respect, which includes not making a woman feel "smaller" by condescending to her because she is female, and not berating a man because he holds a door for you. And not refusing to walk through a door because a woman is holding it open, if you are a man.

Ron O

CMC, Oh I agree, they are important skills I'm also glad I learned. Growing up we learned good manners & I expect to teach my child the same. Things like looking people in the eye when you talk to them, knowing how much pressure to use when shaking someone's hand, offering to get others a refill on thier drinks when heading in to the kitchen. I think being gracious is a good trait and try to be that way.

When I was dating, a real turn off happened a few times. I'd be invited on a date, something very flattering, but then expected to pay. I always did without complaint, but would not reciprocate with another date. As a general rule, whoever asks should pay. If you like the person who just paid for your date, offer to pay next time and it'll all be even.


We must NOT confuse common courtesy with "chivalry."

Common courtesy is something that should be practiced BY everybody, TOWARD everybody, regardless of gender. "Chivalry" is a sexist, anti-male practice in which one group of people is coerced into kind gestures while another group is told not to bother.

Everyone argues about whether or not chivalry is sexist toward women, and I'll agree that it is. But no one seems to mention how sexist it is toward MEN. I don't appreciate being told that, because of my gender, I am less entitled to a seat on a crowded train than someone with different anatomy from mine. I despise being told that I am ALWAYS expected to let this other person go first, while not receiving the same consideration in return.

So -- yeah, chivalry IS sexist, but to BOTH genders. It's condescending to women and it treats men like servants, or like second-class citizens.


"You would invoke Roe-V-Wade Law or some other junk science to complain lol. (teasing)

Craig, you are pretty smart. I like you.


Thank you, but it's funny that you and NYMOM have in common calling me Craig.

It's Craic (pronounced crack)which is an Irish word.

From urbandictionary:

.The craic (pron. "crack") is the feng shui of a se’siun. It is the combination of the music, the drink, the conversations, the spirit of the surroundings, and trying to make headway with people of the opposite sex. The craic is what drives all emotion and music that comes from the soul.
"How's the craic going?"


"3) I do feel strongly that men should be willing to allow women to pay for dates. Before I got married, I never hesitated to ask men on dates, and when I did the inviting, I always paid. To me a man who insists on ALWAYS paying is essentially saying that I as a woman cannot take the initiative in dating. I understand that some men may feel uncomfortable allowing the woman to pay, but it would be mortifying for me to invite someone out and then have the invitee pay for dinner!"

I don't understand a man who would be angry if the woman offered to pay. I'm a boy (albeit an old one) and I'd be grateful that she was treating me as her equal, not as her meal ticket.

Before Hugo or anyone else goes accusing me of "blaming" feminism or women for something else, I'll point out that the fault for these ridiculous gender distinctions doesn't come from anyone in particular. Part of the problem is that, yes, too many women expect to be treated like princesses and to get everything for free without showing the same tokens of kindness, but there are also too many men who consider it an affront when women TRY to show those tokens of kindness. If I were on a date and she said she'd pay for her half and hold the door for me every other time, I'd be GRATEFUL, not angry.


Amanda, Ron, and syfr -- All great common sense comments! If only more people understood all this.

Amanda, I am new to this whole blogging phenomenon but I have quickly identified your blogs and Hugos as favorites. Keep up the good work!



I haven't had a man get angry when I try to pay for a date. But I have had men act very uncomfortable about it and absolutely insist on paying.

My father (who is in his 60s) told me that he would be mortified to have a woman pay for a date. His reasoning was that a man looks bad when a woman pays for him. When I pressed him further, he told me (much to my horror) that to take money from a woman is too much like being a pimp. Aaargh.

But again, I think the common sense rule in this day and age is for the person who does the inviting to pay the bill or for people to go dutch. And I think women should do the inviting more often rather than moping by the phone waiting for a call-- being the initiator always worked nicely for me, and I was surprised to learn how many men were too nervous to make the first move.


I suppose it's a little late to interject this, but silence is the best troll repellant.


"I don't what significance this has but I just saw the movie "Anchorman" five days ago and I don't even remember any female-on-male violence. Apparntly it didn't even register with me!"

-- and you're not alone. From what I understand, there's also a scene of graphic sexual assault in that film -- you know, a woman kicking a man in the groin for something he said. And yet, if I tell people that this is why I refuse to see that film, many probably wouldn't even remember that scene: that's how desensitized we've become to female-on-male violence.

A very close friend of mine said she had to read the Tom Stoppard play, ARCADIA, for school. I said that I had read part of it in a bookstore and would never audition for it because of the scene of violence. She didn't remember any such scene; then I reminded her of when the female lead slaps the male lead across the face. There are probably loads of people who wouldn't remember that scene right away, but I can guaran-damn-TEE you that they wouldn't have forgotten it if it were a man slapping a woman's face, or a man kicking a woman in the genitals.

I'm against chivalry and all gender-based distinctions, although I'm not alleging that those who favor them also support women beating up men. But I will say this: the double standard on violence (both on the screen and off) exists in part due to chivalry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004