Yes. Tiassa pretty much freaked on the word expectation. Which was never used.
They're different.
Hope is an enduring part of human nature. We hope for attention, love, world peace. You try to turn it to mud.
And you are trying to excuse your own behaviour of trying to change the subject and yes, make excuses for behaviour that is creepy and sleazy.
The "creepy" card is an invalid argument in an academic discussion. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem. Address the issue, not the issuer.
I did not compare women to winning a lottery, and you know that perfectly well. We are distinguishing terms here, for the benefit of Tiassa, who requires clarification.
If I said "Blonde is the colour of a banana but red is the colour of a firetruck. His hair is red." Would you accuse me of calling him a firetruck?
Right. You weren't trying to muddy the waters by comparing buying a lottery ticket and saying you hoped you would win, with opening the doors for women and women only in the "hope" they would smile at you.. And then gave some spiel about how you did not expect to win or get a smile, just "hoped".. Which frankly, is self serving of you.
You are offended at finding your behaviour is creepy to women? Then perhaps you should look at said behaviour and then realise how you are coming across. Yes, it is creepy.
Let me remind you of your exact words:
Hope and expectation are two different things.
I hope to win the lottery but I don't expect it. I hope for a smile, but there is no obligation placed upon her.
You aren't holding doors open for people to be polite. You are doing it because you "hope" to get something out of it for yourself. Just as you buy a lottery ticket in the hope you win it. So creating another strawman to try to change the subject again is not going to work.
Yes. This is how basic human interaction occurs. One makes an overture, another responds, or doesn't. It's not evil.
You are targeting women with what you described as "chivalry" in the hope you get some benefit from her out of it. That, sir, is not how basic human interaction occurs.
The example was not in this discussion where misogyny is being discussed; it was in the real world, at a doorway. If you wish to carry this misanthropy with you everywhere, and see it in everything, that's no one's responsibility but your own.
Let's see. You went out of your way to try to change the subject of this thread around and basically defend behaviour that most view as a negative. And in changing the subject matter, you twisted yourself into a proverbial pretzel and then advised of your own behaviour which, as a woman, I think is creepy and plays directly into the subject matter of this thread. You created a strawman and now you are stuck with it. You provided examples based on your strawman, of your behaviour, and it is creepy. No, really, who goes out of their way to open doors just for certain women in the hope that they get something from the woman out of it? You are like the guys in the street harassment video.
But choosing to do it because a woman has caught your eye is identifying her by her gender, as a person you'd like to see smile from. It is sexist, in that his behavior is gender-specific, but it is not contemptuous.
This is creepy.
I don't hate people Dave and trying to turn this one on me just makes your stance here more pitiful.
But keep digging. You are simply proving our point about misogyny.
Faulty analogy. Deliberately so.
The rest of what you say is a digression from your deliberate corruption of the meaning of words and resulting ad hom.
Coming from you, that is rich.
And as I said before, if you don't like having your behaviour described as being creepy, then perhaps you should look at your behaviour.