That a Brock or Badger hath the legs of one side shorter then of the other, though an opinion perhaps not very ancient, is yet very generall… Which notwithstanding upon inquiry I find repugnant unto the three determinators of truth, Authority, Sense, and Reason. — Sir T. Browne
I recently read this, and as a good Killjoy here give my response:
Upon opening a door for a girl, though one is liable to earn a dirty look, a young man derives a great sense of pleasure and joy. We must kill this practice, though we must not do so by opposite reform. Instead of opening doors for men, we ought to stop opening doors completely: Best if we can remain the mindless moderns we are and only use automatic doors, but we have not progressed so far yet in society, and today, walking inevitably leads to a door at some point. The problem does not arise when one is walking alone, for he (or she) must simply open every door for him(or her)self and be done with it, disregarding humanity altogether if strangers are present. No more looking around to see if a poor soul is carrying books or bags or babies or a basket of Balloons; no more awkwardly holding the door while you are halfway in the building, watching as your fellow man (or woman) trots his (or her) way up to the door with a thanksgiving on his (or her) lips; no more finding yourself for seconds upon endless seconds holding the door for people you do not know let alone care about; no more, I say, no more.
Now this becomes a bit more complicated when walking in small or large groups which may include both sexes. The tendency in the past has been for the men to open doors for women, but I suggest nobody hold the door for anybody, under any circumstances, and for any reason, disregarding any duty, and distancing ourselves from the old fashion vices of charity and kindness; for we should each take turns through the door, if but for the sake of equality, we seek to mend this horrible, joyful practice from our lands, we should seek to aggravate people upon entering a building, as much as possible, going even so far as to closing the door in another’s face, especially if they are carrying a cradle, especially during the snow and sleet.
I see already a possible complication with this theory.
It follows that if we are to continue walking in groups, we ought to do away with this whole notion of holding the door for women. It’s sexist. It’s degrading. It’s patriarchal. It’s evil. It’s joyful. So let’s do away with it. Of course, in defense of fairness we certainly ought not open doors for men either. I say in defense of fairness, but really we shouldn’t open doors for men because they are men; there is nothing worse than being a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Thus, upon approaching a building, the best way to go about the door situation is to slowly begin forming into single file as in elementary school; doing so will make the above situation easier to accomplish, each person in line promptly shutting the door, the next in line patiently waiting his (or her) turn; doing so is the only sure-fire way of knowing that no doors will be opened for women; doing so requires a straight succession of people as naturally happens upon entering a building with a large group, the only difference being in the holding of the door; and so logically a line should be formed.
If anyone has ever been in a line, one knows that some form of precedence inherently finds its way into a line, one must be first, another second, and one is always last; thus, the definition of a line. This requires some form of leadership to bring about, which we should note should always be carried out by a woman, whether she’s qualified or not, for she is independent, and the men are mere apes.
Now women should not be first in line, as if they could not handle the back, treated as if they are superior (though we all know they are). But neither should men be at the front, as if they are superior (for we all know they are not). The best way to figure out the line situation is to draw straws. Now men are inherently violent, so one should not have them cut the straws, so to keep them from fostering violent tendencies, and to insure that they are cut correctly, as men inevitably screw everything up: Women are better at men in all things anyways, so the women should cut the straws, ensuring everyone’s safety, guaranteeing each one’s peace of mind. Now as to who holds the straws for the drawing, this also ought to be a woman; the men should do nothing but gather around each other and grunt, as they are wont to do; they should not seek to have any influence whatsoever over the situation, to solidify the outcome as being nearly as perfect as it can be.
Perhaps the best way to go about the drawing of the straws is to have the elected woman leader of the group do the holding, as she picks another (equally, mind you) capable woman to cut the straws.
If one believes that allowing men the opportunity to proceed first in line will only encourage them to hold the door, it is best to do away with the whole notion of drawing straws altogether; I say this only to ensure that no door will be opened, by any man, at any time, for another person. As men are incapable of following directions, completely hopeless without the female sex (as is too true), it is likely that any man who finds himself ahead of a woman in line will, what seems natural to him, open the door for the lady behind him; this is unnatural, degrading, upsetting, and purely insulting, as if a woman is unable to open a door by herself, while carrying two babies in her arms, while battling the wind and snow and sleet, while fumbling for keys. Thus, if there is any indication that this would be a temptation for a man in the group, the line can be formed easily enough, by having all the women proceed the men, with a declarative and explanatory panegyric given before entering the building, that the women are being placed first in line only due to the weaknesses of men, not in any sense due to the chivalric code, the horrible societal construction of the middle ages which longs for a construction of something else entirely to replace it; with this proclamation of explanation, with the line formed, with the men entirely and forever emasculated, the group can now proceed into the building, in uniformed style, with a sense of practical purpose.
Concerning forgetfulness, we must address the possibility that one, upon accident, holds the door open for their fellow men (or women). It should be noted, in all cases, no matter what, that if a woman is found opening the door for a male, it is perfectly forgivable (though not acceptable), given that she has been suppressed from doing so in the last billion years or so of our blessed planet; But the man has no right to any excuse, and when one sees him opening the door for a girl, or suggesting the despicable practice of “taking the door” from her, gallantly gliding toward her as she so self-lessly offers to hold the door for him, he should be thoroughly punished for his bad behavior, by having the door shut in his face, and if possible, locking it behind him, or, better yet, in the case of the automobile, driving off while he pitifully looks after you in dismay; for the man holding the door, or offering to hold the door, or thinking about holding the door, or even dreaming about holding a door at some point in his existence for a lady, is doing so out of his constructed sense of patriarchal importance; he is doing so not out of the goodwill of his heart, but out of the black lusts of his depraved soul. But, ultimately, that seemingly shining knight who is holding the door open for a girl is doing so because of charity, because he sees the women as a weaker vessel, because he knows that sacrificing himself for a weaker person is one of the highest forms of charity, and this charity that swells up in his soul produces far too much joy, of which all Killjoy Critics are sent out into the world to destroy, a joy most unique to those gallant gentlemen upon opening a door for a girl.