The Modern Gentleman's Etiquette

later12

Most young boys are taught the basics of male etiquette: always hold a door open for a lady, never sit before a lady sits, always walk on the kerb side of your lady friend; and so on.

However, my question is not quite so deeply based upon tradition.

What I really want to know, is whether it is about time that we, as grown men, developed our own social customs to replace these outdated chivalries; and fought for new traditions, forming a new social code that describes all things from paying for restaurant bills to endorsing social media statuses, all of which are compatible with our own world views.

If you could compose a 21st century handbook of gentleman's etiquette, I'd be interested to know what you would write!

Otis Driftwood

I have to say,I like these traditions and certainly dont see them as being outdated.

Any time Im with a lady friend,be it on a date,being out with a friend or in a relationship little things like pulling out her chair when she goes to sit down or holding her jacket to help her put it on always go down really well.

Some people may view them as being antiquated but I dont and as long as I live,I will continue to do so.

minidazzler

later10 wrote: »

walk on the kerb side of your lady friend; and so on.

Hmm, I've always lived by "The lady is always right" for me it's just comfortable to walk with a lady friend on my right.

I am generally a pretty good gentleman to women. I quite like the "old etiquette, it works and is generally the right way to go about things, I don't think a new code could really be "developed" it's more of an evolutionary thing that changes as time goes by.

That said, I was in a pub one night early enough, standing with friends at a high table chatting away when a girl, who was a bit worse for wear tried to take on of the high chairs which we weren't using anyway. I was gobsmacked when one of my friends said she couldn't have it and pulled it back. After I regained composure from his dickishness I made him carry the chair to where she was standing and say apologize by guilting and giving out to him in front of loudly in front of about 2 dozen people. The funny thing about it was we were having a "suit" night so we were all dressed up to the nines and basically when you look like that you should act the gentleman, he was swiftly dressed down.

The single most timeless thing in a gentleman's etiquette chest I think, is that you give your jacket to a lady when walking outside and it's cold.

TommyKnocker

later10 wrote: »

Most young boys are taught the basics of male etiquette: always hold a door open for a lady, never sit before a lady sits, always walk on the kerb side of your lady friend; and so on.
!

IMHO if this statement is true, then it appears to be falling on deaf ears.

I am a 49 yr old guy and I was taught to behave like this as a child by my parents and seen both my father and grandfather behave in this fashion.

However I have rarely if ever seen a teenager or 20 something guy of their own volition hold doors open, wait until a lady sits before sitting, Stand up if she leaves the table, walk with the lady on the right, give up seats when there is a lady standing, hold coats, give up their jacket when it's cold, hold the umbrella in the rain, carry bags, help ladies with prams/buggies on & off busses/trains etc.

And while most ladies appreciate the above acts, I have on more then a few occasions seen ladies appear shocked when a guy performs one of the above acts.

I would actually like to see this become the norm again as it's nice to be nice, rather than consign it to history and try to come up with another code of conduct.

MyKeyG

Yeah a lot of people (women as well as men) think that the evolution of equality should somehow start to negate custom but I quite enjoy the little chivalrous ways even if it is becoming less and less common. I think the only way you can change something like that is to cease educating in our children and I don't see myself doing that. I don't have kids but I'm 11 years older than my sister and I would often tell her that she should expect the man to be chivalrous.

On the other hand looking at the antics of a lot of the schoolgirls in town at lunch time young men would be forgiven for not realising there is a certain etiquette regarding 'ladies'.

Sauve

From a female point of view, I think chivalry is alive and well. Sure, the usual gestures like pulling out a chair and putting on a coat are a nice touch and always appreciated, but what I find among my group of male friends is a much more sensible down to earth approach.
If something happens to my car, they'll just take it and get it sorted, even though I'm perfectly able, it's what they're good at, and they seem to pride in 'rescuing' me.
If we're on a night out, it's as if they have a 'stranger danger' sensor! I could be at the opposite end of a bar, and as soon as I'm hassled by a drunken eegit, they appear out of nowhere.
If I leave somewhere alone late at night, I'll usually get a text from one of them to make sure I got home ok.

Tl;dr-

When I'm in the company of male friends, the most modern display of chivalry is them giving me the feeling that they 'got my back'.

ToxicPaddy

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

When I'm in the company of male friends, the most modern display of chivalry is them giving me the feeling that they 'got my back'.

I make a point of this when out with friends, male and female, especially if there are younger members of the group like work colleagues who have had a bit too much to drink..

As a result Im sometimes called the Daddy of the group :pac:

Sauve

I think every group has one of you TP
(I don't know why, but I thought you were in your early 20s'!)

It doesn't have to be in situations where alcohol is involved either, it applies to everything.

A poster above said that young guys have lost the chivalrous touch- I have to say I disagree. Around where I live, the young lads are a hell of a lot more mannerly than they were when I was a teenager. All it takes is one or two guys to do it and the rest seem to catch on fairly quickly.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Hyperbullet

I tend to hold doors etc for women because it's just a nice thing to do. I have encountered some odd reactions though.

Most women just smile politely or say thanks or whatever, but I have had several instances where "I don't need your f*cking help" or "I'm capable of opening a door you know" in a pretty sh*te tone have been uttered. Granted people are entitled to an off day but it does make me wonder sometimes if the notion of being chivalrous or the typical "gentleman's etiquette" are somehow perceived as patronising nowadays.

jaffacakesyum

In my opinion (as a female), I think it's an admirable trait to have, if a little outdated. It's a difficult one because on the one hand, I'd never be rude to somebody who held a door open, took my coat etc. I'd be very grateful and polite. But at the same time, it makes me feel sort of belittled. Like 'ah look at the little lady there, she needs me to make sure she's ok/needs me to give her a hand with the car/needs me to carry that box for her'

Hope I don't get bashed for this opinion as I know it is TGC, but I'm just giving a different side to it

EDIT: On the other hand, I was brought up to have good manners and I appreciate people who have that, be they male or female. So I wouldn't like to see this etiquette disappear. Rather I'd like people to do these things for people, regardless of gender. For example, I have held the door open for both males and females if, for example, they seem like they're in a rush or they're carrying something awkward.

Sauve

Don't let the odd wagon put you off holding doors open, most of us LOVE it

Jimmy Iovine

I hold the door open for everyone tbh. What really annoys me though is when people and in particular young women don't acknowledge it. It's not hard to open door, but it's equally not hard to say thank you.

Not every woman is ignorant like that but there are a small few alright. If they are looking for manners from people then the least they could do is be mannerly themselves.

/rant over

awec

This post has been deleted.

Seomra Mushie

As a female of the species, I find the holding the door thing tends to be unisex, depending on the way the door "goes".

If I'm heading out a door and it opens by pulling towards me, I'll often hold it open for whoever is coming through it, male or female. It just makes sense that way.

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Not every woman is ignorant like that but there are a small few alright. If they are looking for manners from people then the least they could do is be mannerly themselves.

/rant over

How do you ascertain that the stranger you're holding the door for is "looking for manners from people"? Honestly, sometimes I'm a world of my own and might not acknowledge someone holding the door occasionally. It's not intentional. We're all human! I've held doors for people with no acknowledgement but often, they just seem busy and distracted, not necessarily rude.

stupidusername

From a female perspective, there's certain things I do appreciate a guy doing. but at the same time most things I'd be fine with him not doing. like it's nice to be offered a jacket if I'm cold, but I will ask if I need it and it's not offered. (plus I don't tend to dress too scantily anymore )

things like holding a door open (a friend did it for me the other night) and I thought it was really sweet.but i know that particular friend would be like that in a lot of ways anyway.

they're the kind of things that I wouldn't miss a lot if they weren't there, but would find endearing if they were.

foxyboxer

What needs to be distinguished here is etiquette between a relationship with a platonic female friend and romantic female friend.

Holding doors open and giving them the 'inside' seat would be appropriate with a platonic friend yet helping them with getting their jackets on and offering your jacket might seem inapproriate or worse a bit....forward.

Standman

I find this idea of chivalry really confusing. I mean I've been taught to respect women as equals but at the same time people here are saying that women need to be protected by men on a night out, that they should be given the coat off your back when they are cold, that doors and chairs should be pulled out for them. Is this not a case of women having their cake and eating it too?

jaffacakesyum

Standman wrote: »

I find this idea of chivalry really confusing. I mean I've been taught to respect women as equals but at the same time people here are saying that women need to be protected by men on a night out, that they should be given the coat off your back when they are cold, that doors and chairs should be pulled out for them. Is this not a case of women having their cake and eating it too?

This is my problem with chivalry too.

I am a woman. I am (or should be) equal to a man. Therefore, I don't need you to protect me on a night out, or give me your coat when I'm cold or have doors and chairs pulled out for me.

However, good manners are respected from both genders! I guess what I'm saying is everybody should be chivalrous to everybody!

minidazzler

foxyboxer wrote: »

What needs to be distinguished here is etiquette between a relationship with a platonic female friend and romantic female friend.

Holding doors open and giving them the 'inside' seat would be appropriate with a platonic friend yet helping them with getting their jackets on and offering your jacket might seem inapproriate or worse a bit....forward.

I think it really depends on A) How good a friend and If they are colder than me (which they are given I'm rarely cold). Offering a jacket isn't forward when you're outside on a winters night, even for a female friend only I'll throw my arm around to try to keep them warm. I wouldn't do it to a girl I'm friends with that I barely know, but to a friend, no problem. And if they thought it inappropriate, I'd be taken aback TBH.

smallBiscuit

Am I chivalrous? I don't know if I am. Holding the door open, I would do for anyone, regardless of sex. chivalry doesn't come in to it. It's just basic manners!

I'd give up my seat on the bus to older people, again regardless of sex (but to a woman before man), again manners, with a bit of chivalry thrown in.

I'd give a woman my coat, but tbh, she'd have to ask, wouldn't occur to me, I'm a bit ditsy like that.

I always say please and thank you.
I don't think I'm chivalrous, just good mannered

Victor Meldrew

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

This is my problem with chivalry too.

I am a woman. I am (or should be) equal to a man. Therefore, I don't need you to protect me on a night out, or give me your coat when I'm cold or have doors and chairs pulled out for me.

However, good manners are respected from both genders! I guess what I'm saying is everybody should be chivalrous to everybody!

There is an element of "when is a woman not a woman?" like in work situations. I'll hold doors, but you don't want to do too much or you'll be seen as smarmy / sleazy.

I also used to do scuba diving. Lots of heavy kit, lots of girls in the Diving club. you'd carry a diver's kit if you were going up the slipway from the boat to the cars, but some girls used to play up the little girlie thing to get a skivvy to do the lifting.

This would get very annoying...

Cossax

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

I hold the door open for everyone tbh. What really annoys me though is when people and in particular young women don't acknowledge it. It's not hard to open door, but it's equally not hard to say thank you.

Not every woman is ignorant like that but there are a small few alright. If they are looking for manners from people then the least they could do is be mannerly themselves.

/rant over

Get this a lot around uni - women just walk on whereas guys will always, almost without exception, thank you.

later12

minidazzler wrote: »

Hmm, I've always lived by "The lady is always right" for me it's just comfortable to walk with a lady friend on my right.

I've never heard of that. According to Debrett's the tradition is that men walk on the street side of the pavement; it was originally intended to shield women from splashes of mud or dirt, and it just developed into a custom.

It's true that it's generally more comfortable for someone to walk at your right hand, but of course this applies to both parties anyway.

I am generally a pretty good gentleman to women. I quite like the "old etiquette, it works and is generally the right way to go about things, I don't think a new code could really be "developed" it's more of an evolutionary thing that changes as time goes by.

I appreciate the nicety of male etiquette, but it's just not what being a man is about,nor does it realistically help to define a gentleman.

In the 21st century, I find it a little absurd that we are still rating gentlemen on the emptiest and most symbolic of gestures (standing up from the table, holding open a doorway and allowing a woman through first, etc). Any cad can do these things, it takes minimal effort, and quite frankly is only very minimally indicative of gentlemanly repute.

Tesco Massacre

I still do that old thing of using my jacket to cover a puddle if a fair maiden is passing by. Sometimes I'll do it even if she isn't that fair.

I'm that kind of guy.

The Corinthian

I suggest people pick up a copy of Modern Manners, by P. J. O'Rourke, which humorously covers these changing dynamics.

In it he asks the interesting question; "how much fame, money and power does a woman have to achieve on her own before you can punch her in the face?"

Pawwed Rig

I was in Thailand a couple of years ago on a train where all the seats were full and it was fairly packed. An older lady got on and stood a bit aways from me. I was surprised when noone offered her their seat. So I stood up and gesticulated to her to sit herself down and the look of appreciation she gave me gave me made my day. The dirty look she gave all the local lads was priceless.

As far as holding a door open I would do that for anybody, not just a woman but I would expect some acknowledgement. It annoys me when they just breeze through and tbh men are more likely to say thank you than a woman.

I definitely don't do the man always pays for the lady and it was a deal breaker when i was dating if the girl didn't at least attempt to put her hand in her purse. Like I would generally pay for the first date out of politeness but if I thought the girl expected it she would go into the selfish column and not be contacted again.

minidazzler

later10 wrote: »

I've never heard of that. According to Debrett's the tradition is that men walk on the street side of the pavement; it was originally intended to shield women from splashes of mud or dirt, and it just developed into a custom.

I learned it from Irish dancing in the Gaeltacht, it was drilled into us by the muinteoiri. And works well for me.

And RE things not being representative of gentlemanly behavior because anyone can do it, that's the point, anyone can, but it's those that do that distinguish themselves, I think.

TouchingVirus

I'll hold a door open for anybody, doesn't have to be a woman. A smile, nod or a simple thanks is more than enough satisfaction but I'm not going to hold it against the person if they're in a rush and don't acknowledge; it makes me feel the same either way - it's just a nice act of courtesy. Similarly for assisting somebody with a pram/heavy suitcase or whatever, man or woman I don't care; if they need help then I'll provide it if I can. I'll readily give up my seat on a bus for older people/somebody with a disability, but if it's a 20-something who's on the phone to her other half or whatever then I wouldn't bother.

Most of the other things mentioned I would apply only in formal or date situations - walking kerbside, sitting down after the ladies have sat, pulling out their chairs, taking their jackets etc. I don't stand up when a woman is leaving the table though, that one just seems very odd and very antiquated to me.

Back in the day this was how women expected to be treated. Nowadays there's always the chance you'll get somebody with a real "I can manage myself" attitude, as if you're undermining their equal status is society or as a human at which point you just have to let go of the etiquette and let them at it, lest you offend them. Even so I still try to apply it and only stop when they tell me to, for some girls it's quite the surprise.

Jimmy Iovine

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Most of the other things mentioned I would apply only in formal or date situations - walking kerbside, sitting down after the ladies have sat, pulling out their chairs, taking their jackets etc. I don't stand up when a woman is leaving the table though, that one just seems very odd and very antiquated to me.

It reminds me of Boardwalk Empire. I'd say it's get very annoying if you had to do that the whole time. You'd never get to finish your dinner at all if you were out at a restaurant :pac:.

awec

This post has been deleted.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Like what a lot said I hold the door open for anyone, simple manners.

I remember giving my jacket to a girl a few times. I also give up my seat to people that need it e.g. people on crutches, old people, people with a baby etc. regardless of sex.

The other things seem a little overly formal and/or antiquated.

I'm chivalrous to my girlfriend but not sickeningly or condescending so (I think) .

awec wrote: »

Presumably the woman you are with is not going to be constantly getting up and down.

Must... resist... crude... sexual... comment...

awec

This post has been deleted.

Sarn

I don't focus on chivalry, I just believe in good manners. As many have pointed out, holding a door open will be done for someone regardless of sex. Likewise if someone needs a hand with a bag or buggy, or sharing an umbrella. The same applies to seats, I don't offer up my seat simply because a woman is standing, but offer it to someone in need.

As I work predominantly with women, and have done for years, it would seem that my more chivalrous actions have atrophied over time. That's not to say I don't display the occasional gesture.

reap-a-rat

I'm a woman and the course I do in college is pretty much full of lads. Have to say most of them treat me like a lady. They always hold the door (most of them would do it for anyone), if I say I'm cold it's common they'd offer me their jacket, if we go out they will never let me walk home alone!

My boyfriend is very chivalrous, but it's just normal for him, he does the things he does for me for all women (in the etiquette context;)). I'm happy with the company of men I keep, because I really like a chivalrous man, I don't feel entitled to it or anything but I think it's a nice trait for a man to have all the same and I hope it won't die out!:)

aaronjumper

later10 wrote: »

Most young boys are taught the basics of male etiquette: always hold a door open for a lady, never sit before a lady sits, always walk on the kerb side of your lady friend; and so on.

I hold open doors, offer my seat and if it's cold outside my jacket to women because that was the way I was raised and old habits die hard.

As for walking on the curbside and getting up every time a lady leaves the table? Most of the women I know would either make fun of me or get freaked out by it. It's good to be chivalrous (hope I spelled that right) but I try not to take it too far. As for keeping to the curbside of the footpath, I had never heard of that before I read the OP

Sorry for the sloppy delivery of the post but my brain is tired and I wanted to throw in my two cents.

Fenian Army

I thought the correct side to walk on was the side on which she has her handbag, thus offering protection from those who might snatch it?

How far away from a door is too far for you to hold the door open for them?

I too have noticed that young women tend to completely blank you when you hold open a door while lads or older women would nigh on universally thank you.

It's nice to be nice but occasionally I've come across women who get offended, I recall one time when I offered to help a woman put a bag of compost in her boot and got my head bitten off; "I'm perfectly capable!! I don't need a mans help!" But wagons like that are a minority though. (Fwiw, she wasn't capable, she dropped it and compost ended up all over the carpark)

I don't get up everytime a woman leaves the table though thats a bit weird.

In the workplace you should leave your chivalry at the door, all it takes is one wagon to get you for sexism.

Fenian Army

I only offer my seat on busses or trains to elderly/disabled/pregnant people, healthy young woman? You can stand.

yawha

later10 wrote: »

Most young boys are taught the basics of male etiquette: always hold a door open for a lady, never sit before a lady sits, always walk on the kerb side of your lady friend; and so on.

What age are you? I certainly wasn't. Never sit before a lady? Walk on the kerb side of the path? wtf?

I'm a nice person to other people. Gender doesn't come into it at all. Having this attitude where there are certain "nice" things which you do solely for females seems patronizing as fuck.

cruizer101

Fenian Army wrote: »

How far away from a door is too far for you to hold the door open for them?

This is a tricky one to judge alright, you don't want to seem like a dick for not holding the door open for someone.
But if they are to far away it just feels awkward you waiting or them having to do that little half walk half run to the door so your not waiting too long.

Then the other one is doors that open away from you with someone coming opposite way. Do you go through and hold open from their side or open it from your with your arm streched out to hold the door open, even worse if its on a spring and your struggling to keep it open.

Them is some proper first world problems

In fairness wouldn't be mad on the whole chivalary thing, nice bit of respect for all others in holding doors open or helping if they need a hand but some of the other chivalry stuff is a bit mad.

Morag

Fenian Army wrote: »

I only offer my seat on busses or trains to elderly/disabled/pregnant people, healthy young woman? You can stand.

Offering a seat in that situation was to do with the fact she could be in the early stages of pregnancy or suffering cramp due to having a period.

yawha

Sharrow wrote: »

Offering a seat in that situation was to do with the fact she could be in the early stages of pregnancy or suffering cramp due to having a period.

I'd say that these days, what with women having children older, and the fact that young women are likely on hormonal contraceptives, that that's not much more likely than a man happening to have some sort of non apparent ailment which would entitle him to a seat.

(Also, I don't believe it was ever for that reason. Is that an established historical fact?)

I would not offer a random woman my seat on public transport. An elderly or injured person or a pregnant woman, certainly.

Otis Driftwood

On public transport I wouldnt give up my seat for someone that was able bodied but have and would give it up for an elderly male or female,thats just good manners,its staggering how many young people both male and female that dont/wont do this.

If Im in a bar with friends and female friends join us I always offer my seat up but wouldnt for strangers.

The Corinthian

This thread has degenerated into a "me too" sharefest, which was not the original purpose of the OP, from what I can see. Maybe I can bring it back on track?

The question is whether notions of 'chivalrous' etiquette that were expected a century ago are relevant or even desirable any more.

In this regard, I would put forward my great-grandfather; whom I knew as a child and was born in the last decade of the nineteenth century. As an officer and minor aristocrat he certainly ticked all the right boxes in the chivalrous department as he would have followed such etiquette religiously. I remember how he taught me how to greet a lady by 'kissing' her hand. But there was a flip side and that was that he was incredibly chauvinistic, prone to keeping mistresses and I even remember once his telling me not to mind what my mother was saying as she was "only a woman".

And that's the thing with chivalry and chauvinism, they do go hand in hand, because the whole idea behind chivalry is that you behave in that manner because women are not your equal and that while you must show deference to them, you also reserve privileges that should not be extended to them - on that basis, I would hypothesize that the more chivalrous the man, the more prone he will be to resenting his wife having any career. Or less likely in sharing traditionally female roles such as housework or child care. Or more prone to infidelity.

So where it comes to the old or otherwise disadvantaged (sick, old, pregnant, carrying a heavy load, etc), chivalry still makes sense in many ways, but when it comes to perfectly healthy people, who just happen to be women, you're actually perpetuating a bit of a gender identity crisis that we have developed post-female emancipation. That is, while it may make one feel good about themselves that someone has opened the door for them or they've opened the door for someone, you're perpetuating a principle that is in contraction with modern gender values.

Is that a good thing?

Morag

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

On public transport I wouldnt give up my seat for someone that was able bodied but have and would give it up for an elderly male or female,thats just good manners,its staggering how many young people both male and female that dont/wont do this.

If Im in a bar with friends and female friends join us I always offer my seat up but wouldnt for strangers.

There are people who have what is called 'hidden' disabilities. Personally if someone looks like they need a seat, no matter age, gender I'll offer.

That goes both ways, there are people who look abled bodied, who will be seated who are not. I've seen an old lady shame a young man into giving up his seat and then he looked rather unwell after standing for 10 mins as the bus went over ramps. I offered him my seat and it turns out he'd pins in his back from being in a car crash in the previous year.

Steamer

The Corinthian wrote: »

This thread has degenerated into a "me too" sharefest, which was not the original purpose of the OP, from what I can see. Maybe I can bring it back on track?

The question is whether notions of 'chivalrous' etiquette that were expected a century ago are relevant or even desirable any more.

In this regard, I would put forward my great-grandfather; whom I knew as a child and was born in the last decade of the nineteenth century. As an officer and minor aristocrat he certainly ticked all the right boxes in the chivalrous department as he would have followed such etiquette religiously. I remember how he taught me how to greet a lady by 'kissing' her hand. But there was a flip side and that was that he was incredibly chauvinistic, prone to keeping mistresses and I even remember once his telling me not to mind what my mother was saying as she was "only a woman".

And that's the thing with chivalry and chauvinism, they do go hand in hand, because the whole idea behind chivalry is that you behave in that manner because women are not your equal and that while you must show deference to them, you also reserve privileges that should not be extended to them - on that basis, I would hypothesize that the more chivalrous the man, the more prone he will be to resenting his wife having any career. Or less likely in sharing traditionally female roles such as housework or child care. Or more prone to infidelity.

So where it comes to the old or otherwise disadvantaged (sick, old, pregnant, carrying a heavy load, etc), chivalry still makes sense in many ways, but when it comes to perfectly healthy people, who just happen to be women, you're actually perpetuating a bit of a gender identity crisis that we have developed post-female emancipation. That is, while it may make one feel good about themselves that someone has opened the door for them or they've opened the door for someone, you're perpetuating a principle that is in contraction with modern gender values.

Is that a good thing?

I would have to completely disagree with this idea.

Being 'chivalrous' (to me, a lady) is basically being thoughtful and considerate to the fairer sex. To me it's appreciated and I would never think that someone thinks less of me because of it.

The Corinthian

Steamer wrote: »

Being 'chivalrous' (to me, a lady) is basically being thoughtful and considerate to the fairer sex.

But why are women the 'fairer' sex? Indeed, what exactly does that mean? Sugar and spice and all things nice? In reality the term 'weaker' sex is also used in exactly the same way as you've used 'fairer', but I suspect you would find it less complementary.

So while it may your opinion that there's no link between chivalry and chauvinism, you've not really not supported this opinion in any way. Might I suggest you look a little bit deeper at why chivalrous etiquette developed in the first place?

Ultimately, you may appreciate 'good' sexism, but if so, you really can't complain down the line when 'bad' sexism starts to manifest too.

yawha

The "fairer sex", oh lord...

I think you just proved The Corinthian's point...

um7y1h83ge06nx

While we're talking about "the fairer sex" -

http://prospect.org/article/myth-fairer-sex-0

The Myth of the Fairer Sex

Courtney Martin

July 22, 2010

Women, especially self-proclaimed feminists, must own the truth about our gender's capacity for violence if we are ever going to be effective in ending it.

According to new research unveiled this month, women were far more involved in the atrocities committed during the Holocaust than previously thought. Wendy Lower, an American historian living in Munich, uncovered that thousands of German women ("a conservative estimate") willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories to take part in the "war effort," otherwise known as genocide.

This news is disturbing, to be sure, but it's also not surprising. Anyone who reacts with shock to the reality that women have the capacity to be immoral, malicious, and violent -- just like the guys -- hasn't paid enough attention in history class, much less to the nightly news.

Yes, men are behind some of the most violent moments that make headlines, but women also have the capacity for violence and are so often passive observers in the face of it -- particularly when it's structural, not physical. The "banality of evil," as Hannah Arendt described it, is alive and well in the women who sit by as their co-workers are sexually harassed or their neighbors are racially profiled or as the social safety net is cut out from under our most vulnerable citizens (usually women and children). It is present in the double speak becoming more and more common among "mama grizzly" politicians who claim to care for women but then legislate and budget in direct opposition to their interests and rights. This is violence without a clenched fist and a busted lip. It is the less visible violence of detachment and deceit.

Women the world over, especially self-proclaimed feminists, must own the truth about our gender's capacity for violence if we are ever going to be effective in combating it. With our recent past of cowboy presidents and reckless money men, it's tempting to sit smugly in our stitch 'n bitch circles and surmise that if we were in charge, we would never do what they have done.

Bitch Magazine co-founder Lisa Jervis wrote of this tendency in her powerfully original 2005 piece, "If Women Ruled the World, Nothing Would be Different." She describe a disturbing rise in "femmenism," in which all women, just by virtue of being female, are to be elevated and glorified. Instead of focusing on gender, as radical feminists should, she argues, feminists have become obsessed with women. This, she writes, "causes sloppy thinking, intellectual dishonesty, and massive strategic errors."

When it comes to violence, femmenism is alive and well. Just because the violence most often perpetrated by women doesn't take such obvious forms (rockets exploding! oil gushing! guns popping!), it doesn't mean we aren't part of the problem. Forty-eight percent of us supported the administration that started a preemptive -- and now seemingly never-ending -- war. We are the majority purchasers of all consumer products, including the ones that destroy the environment, pay foreign workers slave wages, and toxify our own bodies. It would be nice if we could wrap ourselves in a pink flag of immunity, but we would be denying both our past (slavery, for starters), our present, and the possibility of a more honest, less violent future.

There has been a lot of buzz in international development and feminist circles as of late about the rise of girls and women. Last year a video called "The Girl Effect," produced by the Nike Foundation, went viral faster than a cute-cat clip, solidifying the suspicion that development dollars in the hands of girls and women are more bang for the buck. Microlending, Greg Mortenson's girls' schools, and community-education models like Tostan -- all of the most beloved trends in the social change of the moment -- are fueled by a belief in the goodness of girls and women.

As they should be. I, too, am perched upon "the girl effect" bandwagon, feminist flag flying high, wallet open, and heart happy. But just because we champion the notion that girls and women, when empowered -- economically and educationally, have the capacity to change the whole dang world, it doesn't mean that we have to deny their twin power for destruction. Just as we take female empowerment personally, we must take female cruelty and immorality personally. We must, at the very least, admit that it exists.

In her 1996 commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley, Nora Ephron told the graduates: "One of the things people always say to you if you get upset is, don't take it personally, but listen hard to what's going on and, please, I beg you, take it personally. … The acquittal of O.J. Simpson is an attack on you. Any move to limit abortion rights is an attack on you -- whether or not you believe in abortion. The fact that Clarence Thomas is sitting on the Supreme Court today is an attack on you."

Ephron was mostly speaking about the ways in which the political is personal, how even seemingly disconnected D.C. politics are very much the stuff of our everyday lives. But I think she was also warning the young women with their big dreams and wide eyes against the ease of locating evil in someone else's actions -- or as the case may be, in some else's gender.

We must take injustice and violence personally, not just because we want to be part of the solution but because we are morally bound to own the ways in which we are, at this very moment, in myriad ways, part of the problem.

Hellrazer

I m all for this "male etiquette" stuff and would have been quite chivalrous as thought to me by my dad and grandad but I gave it up a few years back after an incident that quite surprised me.

I was on this Bus heading into the city centre and this pregnant lady gets on struggling with a couple of bags of shopping.
No one moved to offer her a seat so after a couple of minutes I did the gentlmanly thing and offered her my seat.

Well she goes ballistic--Started shouting at me "Do I look like I cant stand on my own two feet,do I look inferior that I need you to give me your seat--its the year 2001 and I dont need your seat etc etc"

This went on for a good few minutes with her having a freaker--all because I offered her my seat.
Talk about me being red faced with everyone looking at me on this bus.Had to get off and get the next one I felt that embarrassed.

After that I gave up being chivalrous--I`ll only do it now for an eldery lady or gent and or a person with a disability.Im actually afraid now to offer anyone a seat in case I get bollicked out of it again.

later12

yawha wrote: »

What age are you? I certainly wasn't. Never sit before a lady? Walk on the kerb side of the path? wtf?

I'm 102 years old. Thanks for asking.

If you read the OP (and as The Corinthian pointed out), I am not defending these points of etiquette. I only adhere to them out of habit and social custom, but they don't make much sense to me either. I'm asking what the point of them is, are they irrelevant?

I suggest that they are irrelevant, but I have no intention of making myself look like a cad in front of a group of mates, work colleagues or pretty girls by violating the boundaries of social etiquette. I think it's a question that we in society need to ask ourselves more carefully: what defines an honourable man?

Pointing to Victorian examples of etiquette that our grandparents upheld is just lazy and evasive. It's also utterly fallacious: holding a door open or pulling a woman's chair out for her are two of the most trivial tasks one can undertake.

Such meaningless simplicities should not help to define the weight of a man's honour, which is far more precious than some cheap and tiresome social token.