Originally Posted by Buzzov*en

Just thought I would point this out. Morals are subjective. Thanks.

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

I (being a woman) have no problem with feminism in and of itself. I think it should be fairly obvious that women deserve equality in terms of work, societal and political respect, and the like.

With that said, there's a great deal of the mindset of many "feminists" I've encountered which seems quite appalling to say the least.

There are a lot of wonderful organizations striving to secure equal rights for women, and their mission statements clearly state that it is for equal rights. I have, however, in my travels encountered many a radical feminist. The way in which they describe what feminism is all about has little if nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with their conviction that women are superior to men in every way.

Many of these so-called feminists will attribute all of the problems currently going on in the world to men, claiming that if women were totally in charge and men were to adopt the more submissive role generally perceived as feminine, that the world would be a far better place. This seems to me to be both unrealistic and somewhat ignorant; human error, pride, and all manner of other purportedly negative things contributing in part to the state of the world is not exclusive to men. Women aren't perfect, and men aren't perfect. It has everything to do with individuals, regardless of gender.

I understand that this probably seems to be rambling on a bit, but my point is that feminism should legitimately be about equality. The reason a lot of people have given me for their opposition to the feminist movements is due in no small part to the radical feminists whose agenda seems to be the eradication of men and not equal rights.

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're a terrible dictionary.

Originally Posted by tore

Some have a moral standard where, if you let a door hit someone on purpose, they consider that wong. Your standards are not up to that level, but hers are and so she got angry. I would get angry too.

Originally Posted by Buzzov*en

Key word some. Again subjective. If you said to me earlier that you can do it yourself I would let the door close and obviously it would hit. So that would be your own fault just like it was her's for not getting the door herself like she said she could earlier.

Like I said before I hold the door for everyone, but if you want to get an attitude (make your assumptions because I know you were there) about it then I'm not going to hold it for you on the way out.

Originally Posted by tore

She didn't get the door because you were holding it open and did not expect you were going to let go of it. When you did, she did not have enough time to react in order to catch the door and so it hit her. Basically, you figured it might hurt her, but thought you could do it because in your own head, you felt excused because of her comment. In my opinion, you weren't excused. It's just not something you do.

I am aware you have standards that morally allow for actions that I consider wrong. You don't have to argue that fact.

Originally Posted by tore

To me, yeah - it does. I've also been in the situation where I hold someone's door up/is willing to carry stuff and get told that they're not handicapped and can do it themselves. Although these comments may have been a bit confrontational, I get them and I wouldn't call them angry. I doubt the girl you're talking about was really angry too, it just makes your point look better if you make it seem like she was.

Of course she gets angry when you let the door hit her. That's because you did something which is not morally okay. Why are you being chivalrous in the first place? Reading your post, I get the feeling it's only a vague attempt at masking the unchivalrous person you are underneath. When a little thing challenges your interest in behaving right, you do the opposite. Chivalry on you is like a nice coat of paint on an ugly car, although probably less permanent.

Originally Posted by Sansa Stark

I'm down with Jesus, in that case.

Originally Posted by AwwSugar

Wait so what do you do when someone tells you not to hold the door open for them? I think that's rude as **** for someone to say they can do it themselves. I know I can do it myself but I'm not going to throw a fit if someone holds the door open for me. You say you "get them" and I'm just kind of curious as to what you understand about them. I'm just trying to think about what situation would make it okay for me to tell someone I'm not handicapped and that I can open a door myself. I think holding doors open is something EVERYONE should do. I do it for everyone. A woman told me the other day that I was a part of a dying... I forgot the word she used, but I'm sure you get the picture. I think it's inappropriate and rude to tell someone **** off when they're trying to be nice. All chivalry aside.

Originally Posted by AwwSugar

Wait so what do you do when someone tells you not to hold the door open for them? I think that's rude as **** for someone to say they can do it themselves. I know I can do it myself but I'm not going to throw a fit if someone holds the door open for me. You say you "get them" and I'm just kind of curious as to what you understand about them. I'm just trying to think about what situation would make it okay for me to tell someone I'm not handicapped and that I can open a door myself. I think holding doors open is something EVERYONE should do. I do it for everyone. A woman told me the other day that I was a part of a dying... I forgot the word she used, but I'm sure you get the picture. I think it's inappropriate and rude to tell someone **** off when they're trying to be nice. All chivalry aside.

Originally Posted by tore

If it was me and someone got pissy because I held the door open - which I also do for men and women - I would not let the door go so that it hit her on purpose. To me, that is an immoral action. The fact that she was obnoxious has nothing to do with it. My sense of morale simply tells me this; You don't let go of the door so that it hurts someone on purpose.

I don't believe that just because someone's obnoxious, that makes it alright for you to be as well. Two wrongs just makes more wrong.

edit :

You ask what I mean about "get them" and what I would do if someone told me to not open the door. What I mean is not that I defend her getting mad, just that I understand her point. In the situation, maybe I'd say something like "alright, I'll let you hold the door open for me next time".