The Modern Gentleman's Etiquette

18AD

People can be chivalrous if they want, but they don't have to. They shouldn't not have to do it either.

There doesn't have to be an existentially meaningful reason to do it. I don't talk to inanimate objects for a reason. It's just mad gas. You know, it would be honourable if you didn't do it and stood up for what you thought instead of folding to social norms. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

I highly value triviality. The superfluous stuff in life is usually the most serious.

Logical Fallacy

Hellrazer wrote: »

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.

I had a similar incident, once again with a pregnant lady!!

I don't do embarrassed though, so i just stopped her mid tirade and said "Look, if you are having a bad day fine, but i was just trying to be nice...so either take the seat or shut the **** up".

It kind of knocked her back and she apologised, sat down and we had a nice old chat the rest of the way.

later12

18AD wrote: »

People can be chivalrous if they want, but they don't have to. They shouldn't not have to do it either.

That's all very well to say, but the point is that we - as a society - do teach young boys that this is how men should behave. One cannot just state that perception is unimportant and voilà, it will be so.

Poor etiquette - even if the construction is entirely antiquated and irrelevant to true honour - can seriously lower a man's standing in the eyes of his employers or colleagues or his social circle.

I want to re-iterate that I have no desire to be unkind or discourteous, but some of the norms of male etiquette go way beyond the parameters of basic civility and into the exasperatingly outdated; particularly those that relate to women.

I highly value triviality. The superfluous stuff in life is usually the most serious.

I don't think so; explain?

Oddjob

I treat females in social situations the same way I'd treat a female relative. Would you sit on a bus or train while your gran/mother stood? Would you sit whilst your pregnant sister stood beside you?

As for ignorant people, you tell them to go **** themselves,the next person will appreciate it.

18AD

later10 wrote: »

Poor etiquette - even if the construction is entirely antiquated and irrelevant to true honour - can seriously lower a man's standing in the eyes of his employers or colleagues or his social circle.

That is fair enough. I haven't been subjected to this cold gaze of behavioural disdain. Hopefully soon.

I want to re-iterate that I have no desire to be unkind or discourteous, but some of the norms of male etiquette go way beyond the parameters of basic civility and into the exasperatingly outdated; particularly those that relate to women.

Understandable. But, sure, a bit of rudeness every so often never seriously hurt anyone. Especially to strangers. Intentionaly unkindness is the best kind, as opposed to subtle social knee-jerk responses.

I don't think so; explain?

If you want to be chivalrous for the laugh, then by all means. When chivalry becomes serious, it becomes hollow. I know you meant more the expectations from society to do so, and I'd agree. Someone being chivalrous because they think they're expected to do so aren't really chivalrous at all, are they? Someone commented earlier that they are annoyed that some people don't acknowledge their kindness. This position I find amusing. Being nice for the rewards. Here Pavlov, here boy... All the same, it's nice to be acknowledged. :pac:

later12

18AD wrote: »

When chivalry becomes serious, it becomes hollow.

I don't agree; it depends how you're defining chivalry. It we understand it as a code of respect and civility in our behaviour, then no, I don't think taking it seriosly is hollow. I would encourage all of my children, if I had them, to be chivalrous in their manners, and to adhere to such courtesy as a rather serious duty.

Someone being chivalrous because they think they're expected to do so aren't really chivalrous at all, are they?

Well yes, in fact they may be quite chivalrous for that reason. Duty and honour are finely interwoven because they both involve a sensitivity to other people's feelings.

For example, in my opinion it's daft and slightly condescending of me to help one of my sisters to put on her coat. But if I think she's going to feel displeased at my inattention I will do it anyway, because my minor bafflement with the endurance of this custom is of less consequence to me than her displeasure at my perceived rudeness.

amacachi

Sharrow wrote: »

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.

I'll remember to not mask my constant back pain when I'm in Dublin from now on, if a woman gives me a seat I'll know who it is. :pac:

jaffacakesyum

Oddjob wrote: »

I treat females in social situations the same way I'd treat a female relative. Would you sit on a bus or train while your gran/mother stood? Would you sit whilst your pregnant sister stood beside you?

As for ignorant people, you tell them to go **** themselves,the next person will appreciate it.

:rolleyes: And what if the woman in question finds it patronising, demeaning and sexist? Will you tell them to go f** themselves?

Why would you offer up a seat on the bus to a perfectly healthy young woman, but not do the same for a male? What is the difference?

18AD

later10 wrote: »

I don't agree; it depends how you're defining chivalry. It we understand it as a code of respect and civility in our behaviour, then no, I don't think taking it seriosly is hollow. I would encourage all of my children, if I had them, to be chivalrous in their manners, and to adhere to such courtesy as a rather serious duty.

But when you're doing all these things because it's a serious matter of civility and dutiful respect I think it's just a fad. How, at all, can respect be something that is enforced? That's an oxymoron.

I'm not saying taking it seriously is hollow, but that the activity itself is empty of any content if it's just a rule to be followed. You don't play good music by reading the notes off a page, they need some spark behind them.

Well yes, in fact they may be quite chivalrous for that reason. Duty and honour are finely interwoven because they both involve a sensitivity to other people's feelings.

For example, in my opinion it's daft and slightly condescending of me to help one of my sisters to put on her coat. But if I think she's going to feel displeased at my inattention I will do it anyway, because my minor bafflement with the endurance of this custom is of less consequence to me than her displeasure at my perceived rudeness.

So you actually don't want to help your sister put on her coat? That to me, is the crux of the issue.

The Corinthian

18AD wrote: »

But when you're doing all these things because it's a serious matter of civility and dutiful respect I think it's just a fad. How, at all, can respect be something that is enforced? That's an oxymoron.

What you describe reminds me of Luigi Pirandello's play il berretto a sonagli, of which a central concept is the idea that people are marionettes hanging on three strings; rational, social and emotional (mad).

The oxymoron you describe, according to this model, would be the former two stings pulling in different directions. Naturally this is not good, because eventually something will snap; which incidentally is how Pirandello's play tragically ends. As such most people tend to follow such customs at face value without really thinking about it, because if they did they'd be caught between either choosing the hypocrisy of adhering to such pointless customs or the status of a pariah who rejects them and is in turn rejected by society.

Of course, some actually do try to rationalize these too - that there really is such a thing as a 'fairer' sex, for example. Fortunately, very few of these exist over the age of 25 and those that do can generally be found populating the left-hand wedge of most bell-curves that depict intelligence.

later12

18AD wrote: »

But when you're doing all these things because it's a serious matter of civility and dutiful respect I think it's just a fad. How, at all, can respect be something that is enforced? That's an oxymoron.

Eh, like the law of the land? I respect the law, even though it is enforced.

I'm not saying taking it seriously is hollow, but that the activity itself is empty of any content if it's just a rule to be followed.

Not at all; it's not rule following for the sake of rules; it's rule following because the code of social etiquette is arguably designed to inhibit offense, vulgarity or embarrassment, therefore their transgression 'allows' the injured party the right to displeasure or irritation, as he perceives that he has been offended.

Therefore, if I break a silly rule on vulgarity, like talking about the price of my host's home during a dinner party, for example, I know that my deviation from this point of etiquette may cause my host to be offended or displeased.

In this case, I would decline to pursue such a conversation not because it is sensible to do so, but because its pursuance is (i) of little consequence to me personally and (ii) 'against the rules' and breaking the rules may be upsetting to some people.

So you actually don't want to help your sister put on her coat? That to me, is the crux of the issue.

No, it's not that I don't want to. Whether I help her with her coat or not is of no consequence.

The point is I find the durability of the antique etiquette we must display towards women perplexing and irrational.
I do it because I don't want to cause someone displeasure and anyway it's no skin off my nose to pull up a chair or get the door for someone. But that doesn't mean I can't nevertheless think it strange and obsolete per se.

18AD

@The Corinthian. That's an interesting take. My own opinions here are heavily influenced by the Tao Teh Ching, of which I have been reading recently. the basic jist is that if you are simlpy following rules you miss the point of acting virtuously. It is quite an anarchic take, in that it suggests that rules actually get in the way of proper functioning. Beautiful stuff!

later10 wrote: »

Eh, like the law of the land? I respect the law, even though it is enforced.

That's arguably a different kind of respect. People must possess characters worthy of respect before I respect them. Also, to not respect someone doesn't mean you act like a complete moron towards them. No respect doesn't mean disrespect.

Therefore, if I break a silly rule on vulgarity, like talking about the price of my host's home during a dinner party, for example, I know that my deviation from this point of etiquette may cause my host to be offended or displeased.

In this case, I would decline to pursue such a conversation not because it is sensible to do so, but because its pursuance is (i) of little consequence to me personally and (ii) 'against the rules' and breaking the rules may be upsetting to some people.

No, it's not that I don't want to. Whether I help her with her coat or not is of no consequence.

The point is I find the durability of the antique etiquette we must display towards women perplexing and irrational.
I do it because I don't want to cause someone displeasure and anyway it's no skin off my nose to pull up a chair or get the door for someone. But that doesn't mean I can't nevertheless think it strange and obsolete per se.

To these cases I would, ideally, not care whether someone was offended. If people can't handle opinions then I would seriously question why I kept their company. Not that I shy away from disagreement, disagreement provides for the most interesting exchanges.

Now I gather that some of these situations are unavoidable, as you mentioned work and family earlier. These are a great shame, and I would simply adhere to rules to advance my own position. There's nothing more to this than placation and usery. Which is great.

I mean, you can look at it the opposite way. It's not a terrible thing you have to endure through, it's just some small thing you can do to make people like you. Easy. :pac:

The Corinthian

18AD wrote: »

@The Corinthian. That's an interesting take. My own opinions here are heavily influenced by the Tao Teh Ching, of which I have been reading recently. the basic jist is that if you are simlpy following rules you miss the point of acting virtuously. It is quite an anarchic take, in that it suggests that rules actually get in the way of proper functioning. Beautiful stuff!

I've made two principle observations.

The first is that gender-based chivalrous etiquette originates from historical chauvinistic values that are essentially incompatible with modern gender equality. I further hypothesized (also partially from experience) that men who particularly practice chivalrous etiquette will have a propensity towards chauvinism.

This seemed to upset one poster, I might add, who enjoys being treated as a lady, when it suits I suspect, and treated as an equal, when it suits - classic 'cake and eat it' post-feminism.

My second point was that most people do these things without thinking twice about it - they're "simply following rules" as you put it. The first few pages of this thread are a testament to this; later10 opened a debate on the subject and then most that followed simply posted 'me too' descriptions of what they like to do, without really questioning why.

This is probably a good thing, because otherwise they would be forced to choose between hypocrisy or acting 'anti-socially'. Delusion is also a third option for a small number of people (coincidentally completing the Pirandellian model).

From these I would conclude that chivalrous etiquette does need to be dropped, but social convention dictates that this can only happen slowly, thus leading us to a situation whereby some of us will have to be hypocrites while this process take place over a few generations and the others follow (without thinking about it).

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what is happening as the number of chivalrous customs being followed are slowly but surely vanishing.

18AD

The Corinthian wrote: »

From these I would conclude that chivalrous etiquette does need to be dropped, but social convention dictates that this can only happen slowly, thus leading us to a situation whereby some of us will have to be hypocrites while this process take place over a few generations and the others follow (without thinking about it).

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what is happening as the number of chivalrous customs being followed are slowly but surely vanishing.

I think they are somewhat unnecessary. The idea that someone has made a social gaffe while not doing these things is ridiculous. I can't help but think though, that just the new norms of social interaction are just as vacuous as these ones. I'm ever weary of notions such as respect everyone and some others that escape me just now.

I think the old traditions are quaint and deserve repetition should the time warrant it. How I long for someone to put my jacket on and take my shoes off before bed! :pac:

Why wait a few generations!? We can start a revolution in no time. Next person to desire their chair pulled out, I will pull too far! Next time someone desires the door held, I will shut it in their face! Join me, good sir and gents of tomorrow!

There was a funny surrealist game I remember reading about. You must assume that the host (who is of your preferred sex) of a party or gathering wants to sleep with you, and you must make that the goal of your evening. Genius.

beks101

TommyKnocker wrote: »

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.

Yeah I have to agree with this. I'm living in Canada a year or two and never realised how uncommon these sort of gestures were in Ireland until I moved here and was overwhelmed at the level of chivalry you encounter even on a day-to-day basis.

I guess it ties in with the over-politeness Canadians (or at least, Torontonians) practise, but IME it's pretty much a taboo for a guy to not hold a door for a woman over here, or let her through first, and you get a hell of a lot more coat-holding and seat-sacrificing then I ever witnessed back home. I just realised the extent of it when I was getting off the plane in Dublin at Christmas and some early-20s Irish dude nearly knocked me over in an effort to get out in front of me. In contrast to about three Canadian guys who help me with my bags, let me in and out in front of them, etc on the other side.

I love chivarly. I don't get when some women get offended by it. I'm an independent adult and fully capable of opening doors for myself and carrying my own bags, putting on my jacket, lifting heavy things etc, but sometimes the willingness of a perfect stranger to do it for me, whether it's out of old-fashioned values or just kindness, can really make my day.

yawha

beks101 wrote: »

Yeah I have to agree with this. I'm living in Canada a year or two and never realised how uncommon these sort of gestures were in Ireland until I moved here and was overwhelmed at the level of chivalry you encounter even on a day-to-day basis.

I guess it ties in with the over-politeness Canadians (or at least, Torontonians) practise, but IME it's pretty much a taboo for a guy to not hold a door for a woman over here, or let her through first, and you get a hell of a lot more coat-holding and seat-sacrificing then I ever witnessed back home. I just realised the extent of it when I was getting off the plane in Dublin at Christmas and some early-20s Irish dude nearly knocked me over in an effort to get out in front of me. In contrast to about three Canadian guys who help me with my bags, let me in and out in front of them, etc on the other side.

I love chivarly. I don't get when some women get offended by it. I'm an independent adult and fully capable of opening doors for myself and carrying my own bags, putting on my jacket, lifting heavy things etc, but sometimes the willingness of a perfect stranger to do it for me, whether it's out of old-fashioned values or just kindness, can really make my day.

Would it not make your day if the stranger was a woman?

And, as a guy, why should strangers not do random nice things for me?

The Corinthian

18AD wrote: »

Why wait a few generations!? We can start a revolution in no time. Next person to desire their chair pulled out, I will pull too far! Next time someone desires the door held, I will shut it in their face! Join me, good sir and gents of tomorrow!

Society does not change so rapidly. Look at the post that followed yours, for example and quoted below, and you'll see that most people still judge this issue on the basis of not reason, logic or any higher intellectual function, but on what they feel. No amount of argument is going to change that, which is why such changes can only realistically take place incrementally.

beks101 wrote: »

I love chivarly. I don't get when some women get offended by it. I'm an independent adult and fully capable of opening doors for myself and carrying my own bags, putting on my jacket, lifting heavy things etc, but sometimes the willingness of a perfect stranger to do it for me, whether it's out of old-fashioned values or just kindness, can really make my day.

Have you ever asked yourself why they are being so chivalrous? I don't mean some idiotic concept such as they're simply 'nice' (if they would they would not limit their behavior to only women) or some cliche about the 'fairer' sex.

Don't get me wrong; I get how it can 'make your day' and make you feel good, I just don't get how anyone can not question why it is done or makes sense.

beks101

yawha wrote: »

Would it not make your day if the stranger was a woman?

And, as a guy, why should strangers not do random nice things for me?

Hell yeah it would make my day if it was a woman, it's the 'pleasant surprise' aspect of the act that I like, not that fact that it may be a male carrying it out. In fact the kind stranger who stopped and helped me to free my heavy case when it got jarred in the subway gate a few weeks back was female, that put a smile on my face for about half an hour after the horrible day of travelling I'd had.

I strive for and admire these acts of generosity and affection towards strangers, the problem is you throw the word 'chivalry' in the mix, which is loaded with cultural and historical baggage, and everyone jumps to the defence. I get it, guys don't like the double standards, or the burden of obligation based on their gender alone - grand so, don't bother with these gestures, it's hardly a massive social expectation in this day and age anyway. I'm just telling you as a woman how it makes me feel. There's a hell of a lot worse happening in the world today than a man pulling out a chair for a woman.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Have you ever asked yourself why they are being so chivalrous? I don't mean some idiotic concept such as they're simply 'nice' (if they would they would not limit their behavior to only women) or some cliche about the 'fairer' sex.

Don't get me wrong; I get how it can 'make your day' and make you feel good, I just don't get how anyone can not question why it is done or makes sense.

Well why don't you enlighten me on why a man would hold a door open for me then? Because he thinks I am the weaker sex, because I don't look capable of looking after myself, because some 'social norm' is holding a loaded gun to his head, because he's asserting his masculinity,because he wants to shag me?

Seriously, I just hate this idea that it can only be a sinister motive, or it's based on some sort of fcuked up, outdated world view. In this country it appears to just be a form of social behaviour that is far more accepted than the alternative. Just as 'please', 'thank you' and 'sorry' are employed to almost an obsessive level - am I wrong in not over-thinking those ones too and coming to some conclusion that they are in some way wrong or offensive? I find it endearing, so sue me. Perhaps not born out of genuine love and care for the world, but a rare societal pleasantry that makes me smile on occasion. Nothing invalid about that.

TBH I think it's far more fcuked up for someone to actively avoid the gestures out of 'principle' - if you're not bothered, fair enough, most lads aren't these days anyway, but to not do so out of a sense of pride or perceived 'inequality'? Give me a break.

The Corinthian

beks101 wrote: »

Well why don't you enlighten me on why a man would hold a door open for me then?

I already did so.

Seriously, I just hate this idea that it can only be a sinister motive, or it's based on some sort of fcuked up, outdated world view.

In reality there's no conscious motive for most men who act in a chivalrous manner, it's only habit learned in youth, just as the response it elicits in women is learned. Even chauvinistic males don't really think about it.

However, it does perpetuate a subconscious message that women are damsels in distress who need to be saved. That women should be treated as 'ladies', which naturally means that if they don't behave as such then we reclassify them in a far less complimentary manner.

You may 'hate' this, but then again I remember hating the idea that Santa Claus didn't exist too. Just because you 'feel' something, doesn't make it right.

am I wrong in not over-thinking those ones too and coming to some conclusion that they are in some way wrong or offensive? I find it endearing, so sue me.

It's not that you're not over-thinking, but simply not thinking at all. Your entire response seemed to be about how you 'feel', after all. This is the thing I find curious in people; that they spend so much time avoiding mention of the elephant in the middle of the room.

Maybe it's because ignorance is bliss. Or because it suits either or both participants. Either way, it's a bigger question about the human condition, because we have a tendency to do this for a lot more than just custom.

TBH I think it's far more fcuked up for someone to actively avoid the gestures out of 'principle' - if you're not bothered, fair enough, most lads aren't these days anyway, but to not do so out of a sense of pride or perceived 'inequality'? Give me a break.

Logically, is the 'principle' of not acting in this manner any worse than the 'principle' of doing so?

Of course it is anti-social - going against accepted custom - which is why I don't think it will change for a few generations still. There are too many people who would 'hate' the idea of change.

smallBiscuit

The Corinthian wrote: »

Society does not change so rapidly. Look at the post that followed yours, for example and quoted below, and you'll see that most people still judge this issue on the basis of not reason, logic or any higher intellectual function, but on what they feel. No amount of argument is going to change that, which is why such changes can only realistically take place incrementally.

Have you ever asked yourself why they are being so chivalrous? I don't mean some idiotic concept such as they're simply 'nice' (if they would they would not limit their behavior to only women) or some cliche about the 'fairer' sex.

Don't get me wrong; I get how it can 'make your day' and make you feel good, I just don't get how anyone can not question why it is done or makes sense.

OK, so why be chivalrous? I'm sitting here and thinking. So I look up it's definition in Wikipedia, that's a bust. According to wikipedia, Chivilry has more to do with knights and honour.
"Chivalry is a term related to the medieval institution of knighthood which has an aristocratic military origin of individual training and service to others. Chivalry was also the term used to refer to a group of mounted men-at-arms as well as to martial valour. It is often associated with ideals of knightly virtues, honour and courtly love: "the source of the chivalrous idea," remarked Johan Huizinga, who devoted several chapters of The Waning of the Middle Ages to chivalry and its effects on the medieval character, "is pride aspiring to beauty, and formalized pride gives rise to a conception of honour, which is the pole of noble life."

So I looked for it's definition on dictionary.com The term Chivalry in essence is
1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.
2.the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.
3.the medieval system or institution of knighthood.
4.a group of knights.
5.gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.

Again, not really what we are discussing, apart from courtesy and that (or manners) is what I think of chivalry as being. Not holding a chair for a woman (which I've ever done, apart for children, or the oh when she was pregnant). Not Standing when a woman leaves the table (nope never). Not talking on the curb side of the path (Apart again for children, when I do it as a matter of course, unless I'm holding said childs hand).
I don't know what the OP, or indeed anyone else thinks being chivilrous means. But for me in simply means common curtesy. Regardless of which is the 'weaker sex', be curtious. Which I hope I always am.
Hold a door open for anyone coming behind me(regardless of sex/age/race/creed).
Give up my seat on the bus/train, to older people. The only time I can think of that I gave my seat up to someone young(ish), was on a busy train, and she had a 2 year old child with her.
Say please and thank you, always. It's so automatic that I think I would thank somebody for robbing me blind! Although, when I really mean it, I look the other person in the eye, smile and emphisise the thank.

So there it is, my humble opinion on "is chivalry alive". For me it never really was but curtesy always was and always will be.




Note: I've just looked back at the actual question, I'm afraid we've (or at least I've) been sidetracted from Etiquette to chivalry, which aren't the same thing at all. The Wikipedia article for Etiquette states "Etiquette is a code of behavior that delineates expectations for social behavior according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class, or group." and it also links to the article on manners which is, as I've stated, what I believe in.

A quote from a Robert A Heinlein book on manners
"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."

The Corinthian

smallBiscuit wrote: »

So there it is, my humble opinion on "is chivalry alive". For me it never really was but curtesy always was and always will be.

I agree with you, but then again I'm not criticizing courtesy, charity or etiquette. All I've done is criticized gender-based (chivalrous) etiquette - in fact, I've probably criticized people's emotional attachment to it more than the customs themselves.

A quote from a Robert A Heinlein book on manners

Ironically Heinlein has been accused of chauvinism in the past, although this is a matter for debate.

yawha

beks101 wrote: »

Hell yeah it would make my day if it was a woman, it's the 'pleasant surprise' aspect of the act that I like, not that fact that it may be a male carrying it out.

And it would make my day if something similar happened to me.

What you like is simply random kindness, which everyone likes. Nothing to do with chivalry, which is the expectation on men to perform certain gestures exclusively towards women.

smallBiscuit

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically Heinlein has been accused of chauvinism in the past, although this is a matter for debate.

Oh he was definitely a 'chauvinistic pig' at least in terms of today's society (going from his writing). Definitely believed in the' fairer sex'.
Great writer though

Gandalph

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 consider myself someone on the right side of proper male etiquette although I have never once heard of this "side of the kerb" job.

I believe holding the door open for anyone is just proper life etiquette to be honest and even if no one ever acknowledged it I dont think it would refrain me from doing it.

Although I do see were this is coming from in the sense that I know a vast amount of guys dont know how to treat girls, and I am not talking in the courtship sort of way.

Standman

Gandalph wrote: »

I consider myself someone on the right side of proper male etiquette although I have never once heard of this "side of the kerb" job.

I believe holding the door open for anyone is just proper life etiquette to be honest and even if no one ever acknowledged it I dont think it would refrain me from doing it.

Although I do see were this is coming from in the sense that I know a vast amount of guys dont know how to treat girls, and I am not talking in the courtship sort of way.

Could you expand on the part in bold? In what way do a vast amount of guys not know how to treat girls outside of courtship and in what way should they treat them?

later12

Gandalph wrote: »

I consider myself someone on the right side of proper male etiquette although I have never once heard of this "side of the kerb" job.

Surely anyone on the right side of proper male etiquette owns a hardback Debrett's.

No?

Well I guess sweeping statements about male etiquette are probably best avoided then.

Although I do see were this is coming from in the sense that I know a vast amount of guys dont know how to treat girls, and I am not talking in the courtship sort of way.

Gandalph

Standman wrote: »

Could you expand on the part in bold? In what way do a vast amount of guys not know how to treat girls outside of courtship and in what way should they treat them?

I guess like some guys dont even care if a girl walks home on her own at night after a night out. Some over use curse words in the presence of women. Just other non gentlemanly things I suppose. I am no golden gentleman myself but I do consider myself better than a lot that I have seen.

Gandalph

later10 wrote: »

Surely anyone on the right side of proper male etiquette owns a hardback Debrett's.

No?

Well I guess sweeping statements about male etiquette are probably best avoided then.

Ok sound like you know best

The Corinthian

Gandalph wrote: »

I know a vast amount of guys dont know how to treat girls

I'm sure you know how, but do you know why?

later12

Gandalph wrote: »

I guess like some guys dont even care if a girl walks home on her own at night after a night out. Some over use curse words in the presence of women. Just other non gentlemanly things I suppose. I am no golden gentleman myself but I do consider myself better than a lot that I have seen.

I don't care if you decline from swearing around women yourself, we all construct our own social rules and surround ourselves with friends who usually abide by our code.

But it is rather daft of you to apply this very personal construction to male society and regard yourself as better because they (we) do not care for your (apparently irrational) interpretation of how to behave around women.

yawha

Why shouldn't we curse around women?

Babybuff

Just read the opening page and I have to admit to doing all these things and I'm female. I do them mostly for my daughter, I always have done and not because anyone taught me nor was I trying to being chivalrous (consciously) but because I care for her. I will walk on the outside of the footpath because I'm willing to put myself between her and an oncoming vehicle, seat her before I am seated because I've been feeding her since she was old enough to be fed and that's just how it's done, open doors for her because she's my charge and she always comes first. I tend to do this with other people now that I think about it. Maybe it's more than a social construct, more like a natural desire to protect the people you care about.

Pawwed Rig

yawha wrote: »

Why shouldn't we curse around women?

I have always found habitual swearing to be very off putting whether it be around women or not. There is a place for swearing in the language but use it for empasis rather than for every second word.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have always found habitual swearing to be very off putting whether it be around women or not. There is a place for swearing in the language but use it for empasis rather than for every second word.

Agreed, but a lot of the rebuttals being given here are frankly straw men. No one is questioning that we should not show courtesy to people. No one is questioning if we should swear in front of people.

What is being questioned is why either is more acceptable, or less, on the basis of gender alone.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Agreed, but a lot of the rebuttals being given here are frankly straw men. No one is questioning that we should not show courtesy to people. No one is questioning if we should swear in front of people.

What is being questioned is why either is more acceptable, or less, on the basis of gender alone.

Exactly.

I don't understand why some people think that when you say chivalry is outdated that you are saying that manners or courteous behaviour in general is outdated and that everyone should be rude to everyone else.

It's either that or "I'm old fashioned and will not accept any challenging of any of my opinions".

travelledpengy

Hate when you open a door for a woman walking behind you and she doesn't even acknowledge, stuck up much?

yawha

travelledpengy wrote: »

Hate when you open a door for a person walking behind you and they don't even acknowledge, stuck up much?

FYP.

patdshaker

cruizer101 wrote: »

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.

At 6ft 4 not a problem although because of my size I would feel more concious about opening doors helping with prams etc generally I would feel awkward sitting down with a woman standing on a bus to be honest, it happened once though when I pulled a muscle in my back, I was in utter pain and getting dirty looks from a woman :rolleyes: it took me about 10 minutes to get out of the seat though

CIARAN_BOYLE

I don't like chivalry for the sake of chivalry

That said I hold doors for anyone close by, I'll offer a lady my jacket (if she mentions the cold) because I am pretty good at ignoring cold and tend to wear a coat jacket so I don't look odd with just a shirt on. I'll keep an eye on female friends in a club not because I feel a need to mind the poor girls but because they are friends of mine and sometimes people need someone to have their back. I'll look out for male friends as well. Everyone needs someone to watch their back on a night out, be it too much drink or some creep trying to pick you up or something else entirely.

travelledpengy wrote: »

Hate when you open a door for a woman walking behind you and she doesn't even acknowledge, stuck up much?

Some young women seem to expect men to open doors and its not worth thanking them any more than it is to thank an automatic door. Men don't seem to take it for granted so much.

Fear Uladh

I open doors for anyone really, I would treat women the same as I do my mates. I do curse a lot too.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

The first is that gender-based chivalrous etiquette originates from historical chauvinistic values that are essentially incompatible with modern gender equality. I further hypothesized (also partially from experience) that men who particularly practice chivalrous etiquette will have a propensity towards chauvinism.

Totally agree.

Sexism comes in many forms, one of which is 'benevolent sexism', and chivalry is an example of this.

Other examples are men who say they "love women" or "women should be cherished" or talk about women as princesses or goddesses, or make it clear that they believe women need protection from the world.

More subtle than obvious, hostile sexism, but still attitudes that need to be challenged.

Pawwed Rig

awec wrote: »

Nothing says "I'm annoyed" or "it isn't working" like a good loud curse.

True but when you hear some people talking every second word is a curse.

later12

True; I don't mind it if they're being passionate myself, but it does rather get on your tits a bit when they're just using f*** and c*** as punctuation, or to avoid having to tap into their vocabulary bank.

It can be a little distracting, a bit like having someone shouting at you all the time.

bradyle

I'm a female and would act in i guess a kinda chivalrous manor...always hold open doors, give up seats on transport, offer to help people that are carrying too much or look lost. I don't really see it as chivalrous just common courtesy.

Saying that I probably fall under what The Corinthian called have your cake and eat it post feminism I prefer a lad to offer to carry my stuff and offer me their jackets, I very rarely let them do it because I don't think it's really fair but I think them offering shows they've been brought up well and are respectful towards women.

One of my friends is a "gentleman" and doesn't realise it at all...his mam clearly bet it into him as a child, he'll open car doors, automatically give up his seat to any girl, go out of his way to ensure you don't walk on your own, offers to carry stuff and all that stuff. If you ever ask him why he did it he just gets a blank look and says he didn't realise he did. I wouldn't say he thinks women are less equal because of it I just think his parents thought him women deserve respect.

Why some people think women need more respect probably goes back to when we were viewed as "weaker"...so I guess it's technically not good for woman's equality...but I still like it...

The Corinthian

bradyle wrote: »

Why some people think women need more respect probably goes back to when we were viewed as "weaker"...so I guess it's technically not good for woman's equality...but I still like it...

At least you've asked yourself 'why', which is more than many in this thread have done.

Feisar

Gandalph wrote: »

I guess like some guys dont even care if a girl walks home on her own at night after a night out. Some over use curse words in the presence of women. Just other non gentlemanly things I suppose. I am no golden gentleman myself but I do consider myself better than a lot that I have seen.

I'm just playing devils advocate so take it with a pinch of salt but why should I apply a higher duty of care to a female in my group in terms of getting home after a night out? She is supposed to be my equal.

py2006

I wasn't brought up respect women, I was brought up to respect everybody.

Without having being told by my parents, I always hold the door open for somebody, would offer the last seat on a bus to whoever. Be it man, woman, child, dog or even a cat.

The age of chivalry should have gone with equality should it not? I mean, pulling a seat out a restaurant for a women and taking her coat or putting her coat on for her and all that sounds like something out of an old black and white movie.

If you look at those old movies, the men would stand up and take off their hat if a woman walked into a room and alter the way the spoke.

From scanning through this thread it is suggested that doing these things is showing respect to women. Is it really though?

Would a man be disrespecting a woman if he didn't do all or some of the above? To disrespect somebody refers to lying or abusing not treating them like they are simple.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

If you look at those old movies, the men would stand up and take off their hat if a woman walked into a room and alter the way the spoke.

From scanning through this thread it is suggested that doing these things is showing respect to women. Is it really though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Manach

Having a Victorian era mindset myself, and in reaction to over-progressive types who would wish to create a gender neutered world as part of some idealised academic project, I'd on occasion open the odd door.