ShaniFaye

that pretty much sums up my thoughts warrreagl, I guess when you're raised by old south parents and grandparents you have a totally different perspective on what being a "gentleman" means.

Sultana you said pretty much what I did in my post where I quoted the code of chilvarly....so thanks for that....and I agree on the skinny pants lol

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Toaster126

Let's not assume that everyone that disagrees is stubborn and thick-minded. People just think different things for different reasons. I'm not saying chivalry is wrong. I'm just saying you can't practice chivalry and entertain the notion that you are also for equality of the sexes (as far as that can go, of course) without some serious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonence.

I think this issue riles up feathers due to the investment people have in it, much like politics or religion. People have been living their whole lives with a code of conduct, and opposition to that is like a direct attack on them as a person.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

Willravel

I think the woman/goddess thing is hilareous. Whenever I watch those Venus leg shaver commercials, and they sing "I'm your Venis" I roll on the ground laughing. Your venus talks to you? That's incredible! Just in case anyone is wondering, a goddess is hardly somnething you want to be. Whether it be Greek or Roman, Asian or Middle Eastern, Northern European or American mythos, most goddesses are bitches.

The question: reporductive capabilites = better treatment?
Well, sorta, I guess. I mean it's gotta be part of the package in some cases, but it can't be the whole thing because I open doors for elderly men, too. That would raise all sorts of biological questios.

Carno

Haha, this is hilarious... Do you think you can have a baby without sperm? Men "give" the sperm to women, so maybe we're the "givers of life"!

In any case, you're not inherently better than men because you can pop out a baby.

Last time I checked I was from the South.

I think chivalry should die because it's a dated idea that has no modern relevance. Way to perpetuate the idea that Southerners are dumb, backwards hillbillies.

Nice. But maybe ... just maybe... you don't understand what's truly going on.

Lots of old south parents and grandparents are very racist too. Based on your logic, am I to understand that since you were raised by old south parents and grandparents that you hate minorities?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

filtherton

Tell that to the young ruffian whom i had to run through for making eye contact with my maiden.

raeanna74

There are so many different pictures that people have of chivalry. As it was years ago before my parents and women's rights and all - I would personally be content to go back to IF men were to treat women with the care and respect that men want. Some men were true gentlemen and cared for their wives and family. There were also those men who enjoyed the power trip of dominating their family. Back then though there was no way out for the women trapped in a marriage like that. Now there is. In the process though we've lost the freedom to enjoy the men who are caring and not power tripping.

I would be perfectly happy to play the submissive housewife, barefoot and pregnant even if they wanted, if I found a man who really did care for and respect me. Who appreciates the things done for him and his family. There's nothing wrong with allowing the man to lead and protect. As long as he IS protecting. Too many men are too self serving to do both. They want the power but not the responsibility. Step up to the plate guys and you might find a few women out there who'll gladly do just about anything you want in return.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

raeanna74

double post

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Carno

Well that's very nice for you, but I really don't want a woman who would be content with that, and I know many women who would not be content with that. Hell, the woman's liberation movement happened specifically because women were not content with that.

I'd rather men and women just be treated as equals.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

roachboy

wow, what a strange thread.

i only have a couple things to say here:
like many have pointed out before, it seems that much of the rancor that keeps appearing here is tripped by the word "chivalry"---so one direction of response has already been done several times above and i'll just do it again--being polite, particularly to folk that you do not know, seems an indication of respect. in this, i like to think i am pretty consistent, tho sometimes doors do slam in the face of the person behind me and i feel a twinge of embarrassment about having been such a fucktard in that moment--but it really is not about whether the person behind me is a man or a woman, it is more that there is a person behind me who probably enjoyed having the door slam shut in front of them about as much as i would. so there it is, for me at least. this has nothing AT ALL to do with "chivalry"...



2. on the word chivalry: jesus christ, why on earth is ANYTHING about the high middle ages an object of ANY kind of nostalgia, seen in any way productive of habits of mind or practice that are worth repeating?

chivalry was mostly about social power.
it was about the fetishization of ARISTOCRATIC women--commoners were just that--so you can find in "the knight of the cart" (from chretien de troyes,12th century i think) a bizarre rehearsal of some kind of sexualized repeat of the martyrdom of jesus on the part of lancelot of the lake, the predictable dynamic of fetishism/elevation to unlimited power and objectification/reduction to sexualized thing of the IMAGE of the lady carried out via the narrator's rehearsal of lancelots adventures in abjection (the journey) and subsequent engagement in yet another tiresome jousting tournament (battle of the penises)....but all of this is directed at the image of an ARISTOCRATIC woman...if you read de troyes text, you also find that good sir lancelot of the lake rapes a "common" woman along the way and that neither the character OR THE NARRATOR give this a second thought.
this because common folk were regarded as PROPERTY like a horse or the bridle you'd tie it up with---like the lackey that would wipe the shit off your shoes---they were not quite human beings----of course they were also not so other than human that you couldn't rape them----but they were not human enough to really worry about.

chivalry was a dick thing through and through.
the ordeal is about the dick: subjecting yourself to mortifications on behalf of an aristo woman who is not yet your property was about giving the dick a legend, increasing its size and value through stories. the idea was to get more property through the process of getting a more heavily ornamented penis. and getting the aristocratic woman was about getting status--if she was married, it was about getting status through patronage---if she was not, it was about getting the woman in order to get the property she represented.

all of this functioned within a system of property relations and assumptions that derive from that system of property relations that from any modern viewpoint was truly foul.

i have long been vaguely confused about how this flinstone notion migrated over time to mean something vague like being nice to women. i suspect it owes something to virginia cavalier society made up of the second sons of the british artistocracy each and every last one of whom was well and truly fucked within the system they aped here simply because they were born in the wrong sequence--primogenitur was a problem for second sons, you see. so cavalier society was in part a land of make-believe, of compensation within which certain aspects of aristo-life were reworked into markers of social distinction that functioned in the surreal little world of 18th century virginia.

the notion of "being protected" is at best a derivative of the logic of chivalry--a kind of late-period twisting around of the notion, which was not at all about protecting you from the world--on the contrary, it positioned you within the world, made you as aristo-woman an object within the world. it didnt even really involve you as a human being--it was about your image and the separate life of your image--which itself acquired its value as a function of the legnths to which various cretin aristo boys were willing to go to ornament their image-penises for you.

if by chivalry one is referring to the kind of stuff that the aristocracy did at the interpersonal level at a later phase of european history, then the situation is not much different or better--but the situation had changed and the aristocracy was largely defuntionalized (by the time you get to louis xiv in france at least, the kind of military organization that was being has left the feudal system far behind)--and even in that context, none of these rituals had to do with protecting women, with elevating women, not really. read some stuff from the period of louis 14--read "the princess of cleves," the letters of madame de sevigne, or even or the duc de saint simon's memoirs...geez....it seems to me that if you think chivalry was a good thing, you really dont know what you are talking about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

warrrreagl

Beware, ma'am. The panty-wad people are bursting blood vessels over this one, too. I'll hold my umbrella over your head for you while this horseshit continues to rain down on us from "above" (a little southern humor there). Can I get you a sweet tea while we wait? How's your mama and them?

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.

n0nsensical

i totally agree. this whole gender role thing bothers me, and thats exactly what chivalry is all about, gender roles. i don't want a woman who wants a permanent submissive role, and i don't want a permanent leader and protector role. my ideal is an equal relationship. the whole system is based on the assumptions that there are neither women who are more assertive nor men who are more passive than their predetermined gender roles suggest.

this discussion reminds me a lot of another one I've read on some blogs about who makes the first move in a relationship, something that's traditionally the man's place. women who never make the first move as a matter of principle, including many who have feminist ideals, say they assume that if the guy is interested, he'll make a move, and they don't want to risk rejection from someone who's not interested, and because leading the chase makes them feel, you know, desirable and appreciated. this seems to suggest that a guy will always make a move if he's interested, and, somehow in contrast to a woman, doesn't fear rejection and doesn't have a need to feel desirable himself. this may get me the typical tfp response that they should just get over it (and accept their role) and do it, but the reality is there are a lot of guys who aren't able or willing to get over it, and if she were the more assertive type who might otherwise approach him but for the assumption that it's the man's role, thats two people who could possibly be perfect for each other and together but aren't.

Ustwo

And many of these women, have come to the realization that what they really wanted wasn't to play the same game the men play but to have a family, only its too late. When I was 21 like you I felt the same way about my then GF, now wife. She was in engineering college, and I didn't want 'just a wife'. Well 15 years later, shes not an engineer, she has no career, and thats just fine with both of us.

I have several friends only a few years away from not being able to have children and I can see its effect on them. Its quite sad.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

analog

This sounds like you're asserting superiority over the male sex now...

And all the women in the world, fertile though they may be, can't make a child without a male. Women would die off just as quickly without men, as men without women. Neither sex is "more" important.

frogza

I read the posts in this thread a while back and didn't feel I had anything to say that hadn't already been said, then something happened that made me post in here today.

I sprained my ankle last week and spent a couple of days on crutches. The first day I was entering a building and saw a woman and a man coming the other way through the door. I opened the door and stood back so they could get through. (Which is no small feat with crutches) Neither of them acted as if they noticed that the door had been opened for them, much less by a gimp. Roughly the same scenario repeated itself 3 more times that day. Not one person offered to hold the door for me, despite the fact that I was on crutches and nobody thanked me for opening the door for them even though it was a great inconvenience to me to do so.

I wasn't looking for thanks or help or attention, it is simply second nature for me to hold doors for anyone, without regard to sex.

Anyway that got me thinking about this thread. Is chivalry dead in society? It's highly likely. Is courtesy dead in the general population? It seems so. Have they died within me? Not on your life.

stevie667

Well, i'm reading this thread in one window and typing this in another, everyones making such good points, but i'm gona be up all night reading and won't be arsed to respond when i'm finished.

To me chivalry is a difficult issue, common courtesy is a large part that seems to be thrown around and discarded.

Some aspects of 'chivalry' are starting to die for me, such as a man paying for a meal. On small things such as drinks e.t.c i will do this, but simple economics comes into factor with meals, because i'm usually broke. Other things to me depend on the situation. Going out for an evening (e.g. into town, theatre, meal e.t.c) requires holding doors, pulling out chairs (assuming the bloody waiters don't get there first), taking a hand when walking, simply because that is the way i was brought up. From where i'm standing that is what you do on a proper night out. Its a bit like going to see the queen, you damned sure don't go in anything but tails. You want to tell me not to do that, fine, i'm not gonna listen.

Simple nights out don't need that type of fuss, a trip to the cinema is a world away from les miserables, and doesn't warrant the same response.

I don't do it because i consider the female sex to be weaker or anything like that, i do it because it is my right and privilege to as an Englishman and a Gentleman. My father and grandfather taught it to me, i will teach it to my son and grandson. Now, of course, i will also teach them not to go out of their way for any old person woman mind you, so yeh, it does relate back to sex, but so does most of the rest of human behaviour. As for pandering to every beck and call of any woman who cries help, thats called being a tool.

Giving up a seat on the bus, holding doors, helping frail people around, thats all common courtesy and should be practised without thought.



I'm sure i've missed a few points, so lets see what the reponse to this is, and whether i'm on track or not.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

spectre

I was originally going to post similar experiences that I had when I had to walk with a cane and carrying a heavy backpack around a few months back. Very few people could say so much as a "thanks" for it, and a few people would just let the door slam behind them as I was right there. To me, it's not about the archaic code, but about not being an asshole.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

maleficent

I've given up a seat on the bus and held doors and helped little old ladies across the street more times than I can count.. because at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do... it's amazing to me the number of people that dont.. or will be sitting in the seats specifically reserved for the handicapped and senior citizens and NOT give up the seat...

What aggravates me more than anything is the sense of entitlement that some people (namely women) have about having men do things for them... I've been on more than one flight where this woman (usually blonde with cleavage) who feighs a struggle with her suitcase and getting it into the overhead, she always gets some gullible male to put it in the overhead... She was perfectly capable of doig it herself, and if she couldn't she should have checked the damn thing... It's the expectation that someone else would do it for her...

__________________

Pip

How do you hold up doors for others in Americaland?!? In Sweden we usually position ourselves so that it's obvious you expect the next person to "catch" the door, then when that person has "caught" it, you let go and move on, so you hold the door for the one after you - regardless of gender - and that's it. It's like a relay race, but with a door. Some idiots don't participate, but generally I think Swedes are pretty good at holding doors for eachother, and particularly at my university. Maybe that's because the main building mostly concists of corridors full of doors. *shrugs*

About the clothes as a reason for "chivalry", I've lived rough wilderness life in 14th century style dresses, I've carried a heavy standard in full ball gown regalia: high heel shoes, nylons, fluffy underskirt, gloves, silly hat. No problem. No problem at all. There are very few things I can do wearing trousers that I can't do in a dignified manner wearing a skirt. Like climb between rows of seats in lecture halls.

Anyways, I prefer common courtesy equal to all over chivalry. Because nobody wants the door in the face and if everyone holds the door for the next person, nobody will get the door in the face and nobody will be left holding the door for ages.

n0nsensical

hahaha, that's exactly what i do. maybe it's just that americans are much more into niceties like "thank you" and the ever-present totally vapid "how are you?" (as if they even want to know if you're miserable) and pointless small talk in general, and we expect a higher level of service from places like restaurants, so i guess some of that carries over into day to day life. americans are just very awkward with silences, they always feel it has to be filled and that includes the moment of someone holding the door i guess. myself, Ive never really expected a higher level of service from other people than what I'm getting. i find the whole small talk with strangers thing extremely awkward, and this is just a minimalist form of small talk. it doesn't have to be constantly acknowledged precisely because it is COMMON courtesy. (I suppose for certain definitions of common courtesy the thanking could be included, but not mine ;p)

i'll add that i'm sure there are "courtesy" situations where i would have acted differently in hindsight, but when its actually happening i often have this debilitating combination of anxiety and social awkwardness that causes me to do nothing or the wrong thing because i just don't know what is the right thing to do at the time. speaking for all of us, don't take it personally, i don't mean any disrespect, and i'd love to be a social butterfly managing all such situations smooth as butter, but unfortunately we are not all wired that way regardless of the lofty expectations of american society.

NCB

She's capable of deciding for herself who she wants without needing a man's protection [/cross thread reference pointing out filths hypocrisy]

__________________

jorgelito

I would describe your actions as chivalrous. And I would describe your actions as courteous. I would also describe you actions as considerate, helpful, nice, etc......

Your second point: How do you know she could have easily handled it? HOw do you know she was faking it? How do you know she expected someone else to do it? And what is wrong with someone coming over to help? I have often helped people with their carry-ons in the overhead bin regardless of gender. If someone needs help they need help... usually, it's the stewardress that comes over to help anyways. Once, I had a stewardress come over to help me with my bag in the overhead (the problem wasn't my bag, it was small, it was the other oversize bags already inside the overhead bin).

maleficent

you pack the bag - you lug the bag.. you put it in the overhead.. or you check it -- no discussion after that...

__________________

Sultana

Just for the sake of arguement, I usually don't hold my bags overhead after packing to ensure I can easily stuff it into a overhead bin already full of baggage....

Just sayin'.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

jorgelito

Um, some people are short and have difficulty reaching the bin.

Lady Sage

Your opinion you are entitled to but I would never make you a sandwich

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

ShaniFaye

Im too short....I always have to have help

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Lady Sage

I cant give birth and you missed my point I think. It was simply a general definition of what chivalry meant back then.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Carno

I missed your point also.. can you say again what it was?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Lady Sage

I redefined it in the above post. Perhaps you could read it again.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Carno

Yeah, but what was the point of you saying that chivalry is supposedly about treating women as "givers of life that most men can't live without"?

What were you trying to say by telling us that?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Lady Sage

It is a point I am tired of trying to make instead I shall simply ignore it.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

ShaniFaye

you know what? we all have our opinion on what chivarly, gallantry and courtesy is. People were raised differently and believe different things. Just like when arguing politics just because "you" dont think a person should think a particular way isnt going to change how they feel.

Just like mine and Supple Cows differing opinions on what reading romance books means...to me escapism and enjoyment, to her its deplorable....nothing either of us says to the other is going to change our minds. Its one thing to let YOUR opinion be known, its another to belittle someone for how they think and I truly believe a line is being crossed here and some of us need to back up and just say....bless your heart....I dont agree with your thinking on the subject matter.

I prefer men to act like the gentleman that my daddy is, I was raised to believe that if I was respectful to people I deserved that respect back...the thing is I have to remember Im in a different age group than a lot of the "opposers" to this topic and I was raised a different way (ESPECIALLY being in the south).

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Charlatan

Clearly there is a divide here.

Simply put both sides are in agreement that people should be courteous to one another regardless of gender.

The only difference in position is whether or not this courtesy should be extended because it is the right thing to do (i.e. common courtesy) or the thing to do because it's what men do for women.

In the end, does it really matter so long as we are all courteous?


I do resent a woman who expects preferencial treatment because of gender (hell, I resent anyone who expects it, for example because you are wealty or nobility, etc.) but that isn't going to stop me from being courteous to them (unless they really push my buttons).


Can we all just take a step back and see that none of us is all that far off from each other's position on this issue?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Lady Sage

You are right Mr. Charlatan.

I tend to wonder one thing. For all the people who are swearing we should be courteous so vew are practicing what they preach.

If we were all a tad bit more courteous there would be virtually no attacking in this thread.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

SugahBritches

It is easier to pay insult than to hold one's tongue. It seems (by reading most posts here) that many do not have an open mind to use any form of courtesy. Although, I find many here that seem confused on "chivalry" and even though I have mentioned other words that describe it like, gallantry, gentlemanliness, courtesy, fairness and politeness; have yet to associate these words as meaning the same thing. Many have described what they think it is and the original post is about one word and it has nothing to do with medieval times or knights.

Now...after reading the posts today, all I can think of is the word Respect. If you have no respect for others or what they say (in a respectful manner), how do you ever think you can even learn about chivalry, gallantry, politeness and just downright good manners? And don't tell me they don't have that in the east, west, north and waaaay over yonder! Because I don't believe it. And if this is really true, and how mankind is fast becoming, then it's going to be a inhuman world. And if you think it's bad now, just wait until there is no respect for any humankind. Meaning man, woman, child or animals.

When I started this thread, it was suppose to be "fun".........opening thoughts/opinions/discussions...........not insults to each other.

And with this, I close. I have no other thoughts in which to give. But, if you are truly interested in what I may say, I welcome you to ask me in a PM.

Good evening,
SB

JumpinJesus

Disagreement has nothing to do with courtesy. I don't see much attacking in here with the exception of a few comments describing people who aren't from the south.... There may be some jabs being thrown, but to say this is indicative of a lack of courtesy is mistaken logic, in my view.

This thread is heated because there are many women who have responded here who don't think we've come far enough in the realm of equal treatment and they're seeing some women who they think are all set to turn back the clock all in the name of a someone tipping their hat and saying "Evenin' guv'nuh, ma'am."

While I recognize that as an oversimplification, I think it fantastical that there are those on here who think that simply because we weren't raised on a plantation in Savannah we have no refinement.

We're all guilty of a little slinging in here, I just find it ironic that we're now attempting to backpeddle on that slinging in the guise of courtesy.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

shesus

*EDIT* Some points were cleared up while I was typing. So I deleted the middle section but left the opening and closing. This is why I should have stuck with my instinct and left this thread alone.*EDIT*

I haven't touched this thread for a few reasons. One, I don't think that the topic is relevant and I think that the argument is going to go round and round for ages. Two, I think that people are not seeing each other's points. Three, there are so many people talking and I'm still not sure why there is still an argument. It seems everyone agrees that people should be nice to everyone. However,

Honestly this thread has so many points, cross points, and tangents, it is hard to organize a response. I think the definitions need cleared up and responding to others by saying see previous post, when there is only one sentence isn't a way to clear up confusion. I'm not sure if people in this thread want armor and damsels back or if they want to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking and cleaning for their husbands. Either way, I know that I don't want either of those things. I like being an equal in my marriage and being an independent person while going through life together. There is power in knowing that you can make it on your own if need be and I can't believe some women would want to turn back time and get rid of that.

__________________
Whatever did happen to your soul?
I heard you sold it

Choose Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company

Gilda

To be clear, I wasn't attempting to justify the different treatment so much as explain that there was something more to it than just what reproductive organs the relative people posessed.

The guy paying for the meal is a custom that is now more commonly a formal courtesy based on sex that should likely be abandoned, but it originated in an era when men worked and women generally didn't, and the women who did work made significantly less money than men. Men paying grew out of a difference in ability to pay that was sex linked--it was a product of a circumstance that was linked strognly to sex and thus became associated with sex, even when the circumstances changed.

This doesn't mean men should be expected to pay--that is a custom that should be abandoned in favor of something more equitable, or to truly reflect the origins of the practice, if one person, regardless of sex, is significantly more able to pay than the other, she should be the one to do so. I'm really fine with either arrangement.

My point was that there's something a little more complex going on here than women expecting to get pampered and protected simply because they're women--there is very often a practical history to a custom that may have been lost after the custom was established, and by looking at this, we can find a more equitable way of finding ways to offer each other courtesy.

I'd like to see it made functional. To use the overhead bin example for a moment, instead of framing it in terms of sex, frame the circumstances in a gender neutral manner. If a person is having difficulty loading a piece of luggage for whatever reason--strength, height, a disability, age--and you can be of help, the courteous thing to do is to help this person without stopping to evaluate your relative sexes, ages, and so forth, but that this is a person in need of help and you are capable of giving it.

Two of the factors, height and strength, are sex-linked traits, which would result in a disproportionate number of such incidents being men helping women, which was part of the sex linked norms I referred to earlier, but this would not mean that a man helping a woman meant that he was doing so because he was a man and she a woman, but because height or strength made it more difficult for her than for him. We should evaluate based on individual capabilities, not on superficial irrelevancies.

Obviously, there are going to be times when it goes the other way--Grace, being tall and unsusually strong for a woman has done this many times--and that's fine, it's a good thing, so long as she's mindful enough to think of doing this (most women in my experience aren't) and he's not the sort to get his feelings hurt by being helped.

Apply this general criterion, helping others who seem to need help because they need help and you can give it, and you get a sex-neutral form of courtesy, that, on occasion is going to produce the appearance of sex biased behavior.

Opening the door is something that is almost entirely free of sex-linked built in bias, so we should see roughly the same number of females and males doing this. Sadly, too many women expect to be the recipients of this type of courtesy without being willing to offer it back.

This morning I was going into my office, which is in a building without a handicapped door. Those doors are quite convenient for me--I hit a button with my thigh and the door opens. This building doesn't have this, so I have to approach, put down my briefcase and portable file, and pull open the door shortly before a couple of students, one of each sex, got there. I held the door for them, the gentleman said "Thank you," then propped it open while I retrived my things and went on in. I enjoyed the thank you. It's nice to feel useful like that.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Gonth

This is the core here. Respecting everyone equally. I'd think North, South, East, and West can agree on that.

Making baseless remarks about southern people being more courteous than northern people is as bad as Carno making the generalization that every single woman wanted the womens liberation movement to happen. They didn't. There are plenty of women that <gasp> WANT to be stay at home mothers with no job.

*EDIT*
(Note here for Charlatan, and whoever else might confuse this, I guess i didn't differentiate the two, sorry 'bout that. I don't mean to say that all home mothers are against women's lib, just that I'll bet there are some that are. Which makes Carno's comment an incorrect generalization.)
*END EDIT*

Shocking I know.

Generalizations are bbaaadd, mmm'k?

And there is not a massing of crazy northerners on the mason-dixon line just salivating at the opportunity to march down in wave after wave and grind common courtesy into dust warrrreagl. Trust me. I'm from the south and going to school in the north. I've met just as may nice people that hold open doors and extend umbrellas in the north as in the south. They are few and far between no matter where you go.

__________________
You are the most important person in your world

Charlatan

Hold on there...

There is a big difference between wanting women's lib and saying that women who want to stay home are not in support of women's lib.

The key difference being choice.


Frankly, the crux of this thread is the big bugaboo of "FEMINISM". I can't imagine that *anyone* here would argue against the concept of equal opportunity and equal rights. The problem is that Feminism is a political football that has been abused by all sides of the debate (like most political footballs).

There is anger and resentment still lingering in the Feminism debate on all sides.

This thread is a product of that ongoing debate.


As I said above. We all agree that we should be considerate to others. It's only in the reasons why we should be considerate that we disagree.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke