In the article called Oppression by Marilyn Frye I will talk about a few quotes that bring up discussion.
"It is common in the US that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right."
This is referring to the idea that women are shunned when it comes to the topic of them being sexually active. They are shunned, or seen in a bad light when they ARE sexually active, and also when they ARE NOT sexually active. They can't win. They have a much harder time in gaining respect in this area - either way that they act. How other people perceive them is actually the opposite of how people perceive men in the same situation. If women ARE sexually active, than (at first thought) this is seen as a bad thing. For men, sexual activity is a good thing. But it is kind of a bad thing (or negative thing) for both sexes, to be sexually inactive (men moreso).
I think that "touchy subject" is just part of being a woman, and a lady. Sexuality to women is just a much more sacred thing than it is to men. It is something that is very deep and fragile in respect to what it means to them. And they should feel this way because what it means to them classifies, or says a lot a bout them - in most cases.
This is definitely something that effects all women on a regular basis, but they should try to look past the oppression and take it to mean that women are simply given a separate set of rules than men because they are much different and should be treated much different than men. They should be happy that everyone sees them, and treats them differently then men - because that is what makes a woman a woman: that she has a whole separate context. Women should be proud to be woman, and proud to have this which sets them apart and accounts for the fact that they are so much more complex and thus, admirable to those of less complexity (like myself for example!). Women have all these separate rules because there is much more to account for - men are much more simple in nature.
Then later in the reading, "Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first." Maybe in some cases it's really this extreme and obvious, but I think overall, this action is not really a big deal and is a simple, meaningless gesture of politeness and friendliness for anyone to hold the door open for anyone (male/female). Since it is a part of our culture for men to hold the door open for women I don't think this really carries any deeper meaning. Its just a nice thing to do. Personally, in my life and my experiences, holding the door open for the person behind you (regardless of sex) is simply good manners. And maybe I'll go out of my way now and then to hold the door for women, but its only because I was taught that you're suppose to treat women with respect and care - and that you should be nice and gentle to them. It's not that I think they're less capable of opening the door themselves, but that I admire them, so I like to help them. I think that's the case for all men. They simply want women to like them, so they try to help them.