Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I think there is a clear difference re: door holding.  And I use door 
holding as a euphemism.  What I think most of this discussion boils down to 
is an issue of power and control.

Your description, Justine, especially of the man who 'guides' women through 
doors by touching us someplace is a phenominon that is described in detail 
in Nancy Henley's book, Body Politics, which has been reprinted and now 
available in your favorite local feminist (I mean strident feminist) 
bookstore.

BTW, I have also found that men need to guide women out of elevators with 
the same kind of physical contact that is also used to guide us through 
doors.  Elevator behaviour is the same.  It drives me crazy if a man is 
closest to the door and won't just get on with it so the rest of the world 
can get into the elevator without so much ado.  The same is true of getting 
out of elevators.  

Anyway, not to get derailed here, there are clearly a lot of issues around 
touch, time, etc., which are examined in Nancy's book.  How often do we see 
a male manager walk up to the (usually) female secretary who is perhaps 
seated in her chair and the man will put his hand on her arm or back as he 
talks to her.  This *is* power and an issue of who gets to touch whom.  
Would that secretary walk up to the male manager who is seated and put her 
hand on his arm or back as she talked to him?  I think not.

Time is another vehicle for exercising the issue of who has power or 
importance.  How many of you have been cured while waiting in the waiting 
room of a doctor?  You make an appointment for 2:00 out of your busy 
schedule, perhaps juggling work responsibilities or needing to pick up kids 
from school/daycare, or you have someplace else to be at 4:00, and then how 
long do you wait?  Isn't is more likely that you get seen at 2:30 or 
beyond?  I find that this behaviour is worse with male doctors.  Since I 
now only go to female doctors I have found that my time spent sitting 
around waiting rooms has been dramatically reduced.  In fact, if a doctor, 
either male or female, were to be habitually late with appointments, I 
would change doctors.

This same time tactic is used with interviewees for jobs.  How many times 
have you showed up for an interview appointment only to have the interview 
start 10 or 15  minutes late?  This is power also.  This says, your time is 
less important than my time.  Etc.

The same dynamics carry over to space, language, body movement, eye 
contact.  Nancy Henley's book was originally published in 1977 and it is 
still as timely today as it was in 1977.  And that's a sad commentary on 
how far we have supposedly come in 12 years.

Which reminds me of that 'delightful' advertisement for some cigarette that 
was marketed toward women..."you've come a long way, baby..."  Not too 
insulting.  Adult women being referred to as 'baby'.

Robin Tyler did a brilliant routine about this particular commercial and 
how these types of advertisements debase the fact that the equal rights 
movement is a civil rights movement.

As the old saying goes...I haven't travelled far, and I haven't travelled 
wide, but I've been a broad for all of my life...  Language, terminology, 
touch, time, economics, all can be used/abused for power and control.

Laura
                                            

    I guess I'm fortunate in that I'm confident enough in myself and
    who I am that these are not issues with me.  I'll go through a door
    no matter who holds it, and I find that I appreciate courtesy from
    anyone and I could care less about power plays or how it looks to
    others.  I'm me and that's what's most important in my life, being
    able to be myself.  Others know this about me, so they don't worry
    about manipulating me.  It feels good, and I hope that there are
    other women out there who don't have to put up with these kinds
    of problems.  I feel for you.
    
    In Sisterhood-
    
    Barb

    
    re (-.1)
    
    I agree!!!  I have read several of these notes on 'door holding'
    (though I must admit I 'next unseen'ed past most) and just
    shook my head.  Really, isn't common courtesy just that??
    While I readily admit it ISN"T very common anymore, why should
    one read into 'nice' actions something which probably isn't 
    there---and if something does underlie the courtesy my
    bi****ing about it certainly isn't going to enamor me to
    that person, or change their problems!
    
    Funny, though, when discussing door-holding...the only time
    anyone has ever not readily entered while I held...was shortly
    after I moved from Chicago to Tenn...and I held the door for
    an elderly lady.  I practically had to drag her through the
    door, as she was very disturbed by me holding it.  I couldn't 
    figure it out for several minutes....then I finally realized...
    I am white...she was black.   Now, maybe door holding has
    racial overtones too?  oh well...
    
    

    I'll go through a door no matter who holds it, too, but I also
    understand what .0, and .1, are saying.  I've noticed these things
    and I think they're right about some of the hidden meanings.  Just
    because a person (woman) feels good about herself, and is confident,
    and successful, and happy, because sexism hasn't managed to touch
    upon her life, doesn't mean that it isn't going on out there.  I
    think it's important to be aware of what's going on with other people
    in the world and not just ourselves.  I don't think it's fair to
    blame some women for being bothered by the fact that some men may
    be using courtly traditions to try to control them.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I don't think it is necessarily a power play. I mean how much power
    does holding a stupid door represent, anyway? I think that in the
    case where a man holds a door only because I am a woman, it is simply
    the way he was brought up. It may just be a (bad) habit. This doesn't
    tell me that he has a habit of discrimination toward women. 
    It can be annoying because of the physical
    awkwardness involved when somebody goes out of their (and your)
    way to hold a door, but I don't get offended as a woman. 
    
    I agree in general that little things can signify a lot when it comes
    to sexist behavior, but I personally don't think that door holding
    is one of those things. 
                          
    Roberta
    

    
    I've been reading the general discussion re "door holding".  I was
    struck by the comment that traditional manners can be used as power
    plays - and I've seen them used to put the little woman in her place.
    But what hit me was an incident from last fall which I knew annoyed
    me but I couldn't quite figure out why.
    
    I was invited to dinner at his house by a man I'd seen a couple of
    times before. He lived about 10 or so miles from  me and I knew how to 
    get to his house.  I asked what time I should be there - assuming
    that it made sense for me to drive myself over there - but he insisted
    that he would come and pick me up.  Seemed silly to me but I put
    it down to the courtly behavior of a 50+ year old man and sorta
    ignored the fact that it annoyed me.  I realize now what annoyed
    me - he used "manners" to attempt to control me.  Without my own
    car I had to be dependent upon him to take me home.  It became very
    difficult for me to make a graceful exit if things weren't going
    well, I got tired of his "advances", or I was tired( etc., etc.
    etc.)

    Re: .5
    
    >I don't think it is necessarily a power play.
    
    Me neither, but I rarely think that any action is *necessarily*
    anything else.  As I've said before, it's a question of what motivates
    the action.  The distinction is difficult (nigh unto impossible)
    to make on a casual level.
    
    >I mean how much power does holding a stupid door represent, anyway?
    
    It can imply an attitude of "Women need men to take care of them
    and shield them from all difficulties or exertions because they
    really can't cope."  The 'protection' can shift to control.  By
    not allowing a woman to do things by herself, you can limit her
    activities.  Rather like the stereotype of the over-protective mother.
    If you can't cross the street without mommy holding your hand, you
    don't get to go very far on your own.

    A man helping a woman on with her coat and then holding the door
    for her can mistakenly appear that they are a couple leaving
    together.
    
    At a singles function this can appear to be or be interpreted as 
    'scooping' on, the part of the male even though it may not be so.
    The woman thinks he is simply being polite.  While the man is
    getting visual credit for picking her up.  A man once told me
    that if he wanted to appear to be more popular than he actually
    was he would plan to be at the door at the right time and the
    other men would see him apparently leaving with a woman. 
     

I would be really interested if any of the women who think that door holding is
never a power play, and is always just politeness, have had the following sort
of thing happen to them:

1) woman gets to door first and holds door open for approaching man
2) man
	a) stands and stares/grins
	b) man reaches behind woman and takes door from her

It's happened enough to me to look like a pattern. And I must admit, I assume
it's because they can't let a woman hold a door open for them, for some reason
(I have never had a woman do either of the above to me).
	Mez

    as i was leaving my building tonight, i saw a manager talking to
    one of his direct reports (a relatively high-level woman). as they
    were preparing to end their impromptu meeting, he "playfully" whacked
    her on the shoulder with a rolled-up memo. in trying to figure out
    why this made me feel so uncomfortable, i asked myself a few questions:
    - would he have whacked a male direct report? (possible, but less likely.
      it still would make me feel uncomfortable)
    - would he have whacked a peer? (i suspect not)
    - would he have whacked his wife? (*sigh*)
    - would he have whacked his boss?
    - a dec v.p.?
    - k.o.?
    
    my suspicion is that the action was less playful and more an attempt to
    assert power. sad... and i consider the residents of my building to be
    relatively enlightened. 
    
    liz

    re.10
    
    Yes, I have seen the behaviour you describe [man standing back or
    reaching behind a woman] and have experienced it myself from time
    to time.  While I would agree that it is most probably a power play,
    it fails for me as I most certainly do not feel dis-empowered. 
    I merely feel that the gentleman is behaving like an ass, and a
    foolish one at that. I am mildly offended, much the same way I am
    offended by the distasteful sludge that inevitably accumulates under
    my refrigerator.
    
    Probably the most blatant example I have ever encountered of this
    behaviour is exhibited by a woman in my group.  No one, absolutely
    no one, can open or hold a door for her.  She always opens and holds
    doors for other people. Even when her hands are full she will execute
    gargantuan feats of juggling to get doors when others' hands are
    empty.  Even when our boss [another woman] had the door one day
    when the three of us were returning from a meeting, this woman would
    not, even upon gentle prompting, pass through the door.  I find
    the behaviour in a woman equally distasteful.

    I strongly agree that some men [and apparently women] are opening my
    doors for the wrong reasons.  However, I am grateful that these people
    are an overwhelming minority.  For the most part, my encounters with
    men, women & doors are pleasant little affirmations of the humanity of
    those around me.  When they are not, I do what feels right at the time
    -- usually walking through the door or relinquishing the door with
    what my ex-boss Bill used to call 'smirking wonderment.'
    
    As I have noticed a decline in patronising behaviour at doors, I
    choose to keep me good humour and just assume that the assistance
    is well intentioned unless blatantly otherwise.
    
    
    re.11
    
    I have most often observed the 'playful whacking' behaviour among
    male peers, generally young male peers.  Never at the end of meetings,
    usually in doors and hallways [why _do_ doors keep popping up?]
    
    I find the idea of whacking a subordinant an extremely offensive
    exhibit of power.  I suspect that the woman was gaining in stature
    and was being perceived as a threat to the manager's status, therefore
    he put her in her place.  I would imagine that this would happen
    to subordinates of both sexes, although more frequently to women
    as women have not traditionally been powerful and thus the perceived
    threat is heightened.  Such behaviour reflects poorly on the manager's
    self-esteem.
    
      Ann
    
    
    
  
    

    	One interesting thing that I noticed in the movie
    	"Wall Street" was that the character played by
    	Michael Douglas had the habit of "whacking" his
    	male subordinates (in what looked like a form of
    	affection.)  He "whacked" Charlie Sheen so hard
    	a couple of times that the actor himself (Sheen)
    	looked a bit like he was in pain, even though the
    	whacks were surely meant to be affirmative in some
    	way.
    
    	Michael Douglas did not whack his peers in this movie
    	(although he liked to whack his subordinates after
    	making DEALS with his peers.)  :-)
    
    	It looked like a combination between affection and
    	a power play to me (i.e., "Yes, you please me as a
    	subordinate, but don't forget for a single second that
    	I'm still the boss and that I can crush you if you screw
    	up.")
    
    	By the way, I don't recall seeing Michael Douglas whack
    	any women in the movie (but maybe because there were no
    	prominent women in the movie who were doing the kind of
    	work that Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas did.)

    re: .2
    
    Barb,
    
    I couldn't have said it any better.
    
    Thank you,
    Beckie

    I never really complain when men open doors for me, although if
    I'm walking and talking with a man and he opens and holds a door
    for me to walk through, I do the same for him the next door we come
    to.  Kind of keeps 'em off guard ;).
    
    However, now that I think about it, it does have something to do with
    power - when a man opens a door and holds it for a women. It must.  It
    is a sort of benevolent gift bestowed upon the woman, it is to be
    appreciated and acknowledged as such.  I guess I stumbled upon this
    realization after we started our recent discussion of doors and opening
    them here.  The next time a man held the door open for me (when we were
    walking in the same direction), I kind of looked at myself inwardly
    while it happened. And I noticed the most remarkable thing.  And I
    noticed it again the next time it happened.  And the next.  The man
    would put their arm just a tad above my head level.  This kind of
    encouraged me to lower my head a bit as I walked through the door.
    The declined head gracefully came accompanied by a "thank you" or
    sometimes a "chivalry is *not* dead" remark on my part (although
    I am kind of baffled by having doors opened for me, it's still new
    enough to feel like a compliment (perhaps a slightly backhanded
    compliment, but one nonetheless)), and a meekish looking smile on
    my part.

    I don't know how I got into this way of reacting - I never really
    thought about it.  A friend of mine who used to go to Georgia Tech
    told me there were some southern belles at that school who would
    stand up and stroll over to the door as if to leave, and then wait
    until a man got up and opened it for her.  She could NOT open it
    for herself (due to previous conditioning, no doubt).  
    
    Now, NONE of this is malicious.  I doubt many people open doors
    with malice aforethought - or with the intent to disempower someone.
    But I'm glad we're looking at this, it brings to light how subtle,
    daily things can be questioned, and perhaps even changed if enough
    people are uncomfortable with it.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re: .8
    
    Yes, I understand what people are saying about the attitude implied
    in door holding. I was only saying in .5 that I think people are
    reading too much into it. If a man is taught that holding a door
    for a woman is "being polite", then that is why he does it. Not
    because he is trying to retain power over her. I agreed that it
    is sometimes silly, when the man goes out of his way to hold the
    door (coming up behind you, as someone mentioned), I just don't
    think it indicates a power play. I still maintain it is usually
    just a habit from years of training and should be taken that way.
    
    I do agree that if a man wanted to pick me up in his car just to
    bring me back to his house, rather than having me drive myself over,
    I would consider it a power play!
    
    Roberta                                                          

    re:  .16
    
    I agree.  I think politeness is all too often thought of as
    'powerplay' when *most* of the time its just courtesy...
    like giving your seat on the bus to an elder/disabled/pregnant
    person who would otherwise have to stand.  (not being gender
    specific here, as I have often given up my seat to an older
    man...)  Courtesy should live...but chilvalry...that's another
    story.  The comment about 'being driven' for no reason is 
    one of those chilvarious things which I agree IS a power play.
    
    fine line, I know, but maybe one could test their action by
    simply asking "would i do this for a person of the same
    gender/age/race/whatever" or am I doing this to be 'courtly'...
    And in the business context, 'courtly' isn't wanted, or needed.
    If you are dating...maybe that's different....but maybe not...
    
    deb
    

    re: .2
    
    I don't think that these issues have anything to do with how secure
    or insecure a woman feels, vis a vie men.  Also, the courtly behaviour
    stuff is a euphemism.
    
    All these rituals, however, set the stage whereby it becomes easier
    for certain lines to be crossed.  The examples of men touching women,
    managers touching their direct reports, etc., are demonstrations
    of power.
    
    I don't know about other women in this file, but I sure as hell
    don't like being touched by a total stranger, as is the case when
    a man holds the door and guides me through it by touching me, or
    guides me out of an elevator.  I have not experienced totally unknown
    women taking such liberties with my person by touching me.  In fact,
    I view this kind of behaviour as a *violation* of common
    courtesy...strangers should keep their hands to themselves.  Managers
    should not touch direct reports (other than handshakes), etc.
    
    I have been a manager for 6 years and have not found it necessary
    to 'paw' my direct reports.
    
    Laura
    
    
    

I agree that door-holding, of itself, is not the world's most important 
issue.  However, I don't think that we would have had the storm of 
highly emotional responses to that topic if it did not somehow represent 
a larger issue that IS important.  Our lives are mostly made up of
seemingly insignificant activities, but just like looking at the 
behavior of sub-atomic particles can give us insight into the nature of 
the universe, so can looking at these "insignificant" details we give us 
insight into the more universal fabric of our lives.  

I think Justine's analysis in .0 is quite accurate.  I can't imagine all
this excitement being generated over acts of simple human courtesy; but
the phenomenon of "courtly behavior" deserves another look. I realize
that many people who engage in "courtly" behavior are merely following
custom, without any particular personal motivation.  However, if we look
at the implications and effects of the custom, whether or not they are
personally intended by the participants, we can see a more 
institutionalized social message that is not just about politeness.

Jody's note on looking at how she felt inside while being the recipient 
of this harmless custom might be very interesting and useful exercise 
for all concerned.  For myself, I have noticed that although politely 
intended, being the recipient of "chivalrous" behavior can make me feel 
quite uncomfortable.  First of all, it points out the fact that I am
WOMAN and the other is MAN, and that this distinction transcends any  
merely human interaction we may have based on the particular 
circumstances.  I am proud to be a woman, but in some ways this 
kind of thing seems to erase my identity as an individual person, who is 
a woman, with a socially-designated WOMAN identity that may or may not 
have anything to do with me as an individual person.  I experience this 
kind of erasure as a sort of suffocation.  My physical body
has become the public determiner of what I will do, how I will be
treated, and who I will be in this interaction.  At no time am *I* being
acknowledged as the one who should decide these things for herself. 
Denying anyone the right to determine their own identity is the essence 
of oppression, no matter how polite it may seem to be or how much for 
"one's own good".  Granted that oppression in the matter of doors and coats 
is itself extremely trivial, but it does not exist in a vaccuum any more 
than electrons exist without all the rest of the space/time continuum we 
know.  It is a completely normal and consistent expression of a larger
social universe.

    
    I see your point. If I had been exposed to more overt sexism in my life,
    I might feel threatened by a man going out of his way to hold a
    door (courtly doorholding as opposed to normal polite door holding).
    Instead I just see these men as relics of another time. Eventually
    they will all die out like the dinosaurs!
    
    Maybe if most or even many men did this it would upset me, but it
    happens so infrequently I can't take it seriously as a threat.
    
    Roberta
    

    Re: .19  first (?) paragraph
    
    I was pondering something along those lines myself.  My problem
    with much of this discussion is based (as usual) on the language
    used.  I don't agree that men in general use courtesy to control
    women.  This implies a conscious decision/intent by the men and
    I don't think this is the case.  Rather, I would have said that
    the courtesies men are taught to use can reinforce the perception
    of women as inferior.  So it's not that men aren't exerting control
    over women, but that they're creating the effect without (in general)
    malice aforethought.
    
    This ties into something else that has been bothering me.  It's
    taken a while to articulate it to my satisfaction.  In the original
    topic, one man said, "I'm not going to risk getting my head lopped
    off for opening doors -- I just won't open any more doors for women."
    And one response was "Oh, so if you can't control the situation,
    you'll just get out of it?  Can't stand being out of control?" 
    This seems to be a manifestation of the idea of men as THE ENEMY.
    Men are assumed to have machiavellian motives for any action.  I
    doubt the man was worried about control, at least on a conscious
    level.  If you did a study of the effectiveness of reinforcement
    techniques, it's a good bet that random negative reinforcement is
    a pretty effective way of discouraging a behavior.  Rather than
    seeing the man's reaction in terms of human behavior, one person
    decided to view it as a devious response of THE ENEMY.
    
    The "man as ENEMY" attitude crept into the rape vs withholding rathole.
    Analogies are a way of approximating the unknown.  I don't understand
    something, so you compare it to something I do understand in hopes
    of helping learn the new concept.  Mike was very explicit on the
    point of similarity in his analogy.  He's not female and he's never
    been raped, so his understanding of that concept is not as complete
    as a woman's or a rape victim's.  However, he does understand the
    concept of victimization and the idea of sex being used as a weapon.
    So, while he might not have a woman's understanding of rape, he
    has begun to approximate it.  He was criticized for trying to discount
    the severity of rape, to 'soften' it; this was seen as insulting
    and denigrating.  Part of this arose, I think, from a misunderstanding
    of what the analogy was trying to state and/or accomplish.  Part
    of it is attributable to the fact that Mike cannot see rape in quite
    the same light as women.  Because it's not as threatening to him,
    he can have difficulty in expressing the idea in terms satisfactory
    to those with a different understanding.

    As I said in the "day and night" note - good manners requires that
    the act being performed makes EASIER the life of the "perform-ee".
    IF the act embarrasses the receiver, calls attention to the doer,
    or if the doer cannot perform it smoothly and unobtrusively (perhaps
    "unINtrusively is better) , then it shouldn't be done. 
    
    RE: power plays vs politeness
    
    Body language speaks volumes. More than words, in fact. If we feel
    that something is a power play, it probably is, even if we can't
    put our fingers on exactly *how*.
    
    When I taught school, I had that marvelous extra duty of patrolling
    the cafeteria during lunch time. (You can't *imagine*! Don't ask!)
    Anyway, I had come across a particularly rowdy table and told them
    to stay put after the rest were dismissed.
    
    The principal dismissed the room, and they started to get up (worth
    a try, you know). I told 'em "Sit down and stay sat." The principal
    looked over and saw they weren't moving, kept motioning them to
    leave, all the while I was shaking my head "no!" at him. He totally
    ignored me, and didn't stop until they left the room.
    
    I went up to him later, in the hall, and told him I had wanted them
    to stay, as I had a few choice words about their behaviour. He
    apologized. Profusely. It was downright heart-rending.
    
    Only thing was, he was 6'3" - I'm 5'5" - and the whole time he was
    apologizing, he was leaning over me with his hands on the wall above
    my head - I was trapped against the wall.
    
    Was he being polite? Yes. Verbally. According to the Rules of Good
    Behaviour, he was apologizing for his action.
    
    But what did anyone *watching* this scene see? A powerful male hovering
    over a female in a semi-threatening manner. What did people *think*
    was happening? That *I* was being called on the carpet. That *I*
    was being yelled at. That *I* had screwed up.
    
    That's the thing about power plays. They're subtle.
    
    --DE
    

    <--(.21)
    
�     If you did a study of the effectiveness of reinforcement
�     techniques, it's a good bet that random negative reinforcement is
�     a pretty effective way of discouraging a behavior.

    Actually, Chelsea, *constant* negative reinforcement is needed to
    eradicate a behavior (unless it's never very satisfying to begin
    with).  Random positive reinforcement will increase the behavior,
    but the reverse isn't true. 
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .21
    
    Chelsea, you quoted something that was similar to something I said
    in another note. If you were, indeed, quoting me, please do so
    accurately and in context.
    
    If you weren't quoting me, ignore the previous sentence.
    
    Thanks,
    
    --DE
    

    
    re: last paragraph of .21
    
    I don't want to go down this rathole again, but since I was one
    of the people who responded to Mike's statement, I want to make
    it clear that I understood PERFECTLY what his analogy was about.
    I think that is beside the point. My previous opinion of what he
    said still stands.
    
    Roberta
    

    Re: .24
    
    I have no idea who I was referencing.  I don't consider that as
    important as the ideas expressed, so I'm not interested in tracking
    down the exact notes and quotes.
    
    So, just to make things clear, both the male and female voices were
    paraphrased and were not quotes.

    Re: .23
    
    >*constant* negative reinforcement is needed to eradicate a behavior
    
    But what is needed to discourage it?  I'm well aware that the
    effectiveness of random negative reinforcement in any case depends
    on the value of the action, the negative value of the reinforcement
    and the individual's assessment of the risks.  So I'm not going
    to claim that behavior can be eliminated by random negative
    reinforcement.  I do believe that the incidence of that behavior
    ove the group will drop, though, as some individuals decide that
    it isn't worth it.

    Well, you've put your finger on it:  what's the *perceived*
    cost:benefit ratio.  That's true whether for discouraging or
    eliminating a behavior and is pretty independent of the level of the
    organism (but not of prior experience). 

	If a certain behavior gets the doer attention - and any kind
	of attention is the doer's goal - then the only way to possibly
	set the doer to stop is by ignoring the doer when exhibiting
	the unwanted behavior.  The problem with this is that the 
	ignoring has to be universal and constant.

	Now if the goal is not to "just get attention" then a resonable
	request presented in a rational manner should get the doer to
	stop the unwanted behavior - atleast when the doer is interacting
	with the requestor.

	IMHO

	If you value a person then you will respect their wishes, if you
	do not value that person then not only will you not respect their
	wishes but you will probably flaunt your disrespect whenever
	possible and that is most certainly a power play.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			I think I am in deep water here....

    Justine,
    
    Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about!  The first kind
    of door handling (human courtesy) feels really nice. It's 
    a courtesy being shown by one person to another. 
    
    The second, ("courtly") feels gross, icky, or just plain uncomfortable
    depending on the _yuck_ factor of the person holding the door.
    
    I also agree with Laura in .2.  It's _definitely_ a power issue.
    Sometimes, I want to laugh right out loud when it's so _obvious_
    that, that's what's going on!
                                 
    To deal with the "courtly" behavior, I think it helps to find your own
    way of turning it around to be a self-empowering experience.  Whether 
    that is to wait until
    the other person walks through the door first (til the sun sets or
    rises again, if necessary; trust me it works! :-) ) or to draw a protective 
    mental "shield" around yourself and walk through the doorway. You can 
    even visualize the weird feeling being deflected off of you back to
    the sender or anything else that works for you.
                                        
    I haven't run into door handling situations as much as the "arm
    around the shoulder" buddy routine in
    the hallways (at two of my former jobs).  There, it was definitely
    a power issue being played out.  
    
    It happened to me 4 different times and every man moved his arm when I 
    put mine around his waste. And all 4 of them had a weird, puzzled look on
    their face as they removed their arm like they couldn't figure out 
    what just happened.  But, none of them ever tried it again! :-)
    
    - Mary