Chivalry

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ahnowbrowncow

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/a-lot-of-people-misuse-the-word-chivalry.jpg

No I don't give women preferntial treatment, I'm courteous to both genders so I'll hold the door open for people, it's not something I do based on their gender.

If anyone was stuggling with their suitcase I'd offer assistance, it just so happens that those who would need physical assistance are more likely to be women than men.

Pepe LeFrits

Mostly B.

Generally I try to adopt the policy of being courteous to everyone, not just women, although there's still gender bias in it. Sometimes I just don't have the energy to defy the expectation to do the chivalrous little nonsense things. A common one is the lift in work - you'll see guys who'll always wait patiently for all the ladies to exit. If I'm beside the door and she's at the back, I'm going out first. Unless she's practically adopting the sprint position. Though sometimes you can kind of feel a bit of judgement and just think, **** it, I'm not in a hurry anyway.

Makes me smile when a woman holds the door open for me. I feel like she's agreeing with me, chivalry is ****ing stupid.

riffmongous

I'd still do those things, although only letting the woman order first would I think of as a chivalry thing, the rest would fall under just being pleasant to everyone I hope.

Although one thing that has been getting on my nerves lately is holding a door for someone following you and they just walk through rather than taking it, but in general so far I've never got a bad reaction to being courteous to women

Pepe LeFrits

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

If anyone was stuggling with their suitcase I'd offer assistance, it just so happens that those who would need physical assistance are more likely to be women than men.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Although with men I wonder if I'd be wary of offending them or something. Have helped women with their suitcases on planes before.

Mostly I think it's just a case of being nice and helpful to people as long as it's reasonable. i.e. not being the first to get to a door and then holding it up for 15 women to walk through while your icecream melts.

ancapailldorcha

Context, as with many things is everything. I tend to hold the door open for people in general regardless of their gender. If I saw someone struggling to load a heavy bag into the overhead compartment, I'd offer to help anyway. Same goes with giving up seats on the bus to elderly people, pregnant women and the disabled.

Not sure with giving up my coat. If its cold then it's down to the individual to prepare accordingly I would think.

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd certainly consider myself chivalrous, and it's something I instill in my own son. I don't think they're quaint, outdated notions at all, nor has any woman I've ever met complained about it. I do think there's a general "death of courtesy" thing though, among both genders tbh, as I've sometimes witnessed behaviour that's either ungentlemanly, and unladylike.

There's a small minority of people who pride themselves on how miserable they can make other people's lives, but I think there's nothing outdated about chivalry, and from my own experiences offline, I haven't picked up on all that much resentment of such traditions that fly in the face of "gender equality".

Chivalry is a good thing IMO.

El_Duderino 09

It's not really on in a lot of contexts nowadays. In work you can't treat people differently if you treat them the same. Should a man pass up a promotion for a woman? Should a woman pass up a promotion because she's a woman?

Good manners dictates that you hold doors and allow other out of the elevator first. The trick is to not make a big song and dance about it.

I was climbing a mountain with some fellas, one of whom was a Chinese army officer. He was always at the back of the group and I was questioning the fitness levels of the Chinese army. It turns out he was keeping a protective eye on us all because he was expert at hiking. That's ultimate chivalry, purposeful and subtle.

With my partner I'll behave differently but that's down to our division of labour. I'm more likely to be traditionally chivalrous with her, Holding doors and all that jazz. I know whether she would prefer to lead the way, in which case I'll hold the door. If she preferred me to lead the way, I will

eviltwin

I'm a woman and I don't expect a man to be chivalrous and I wouldn't like it personally especially from a stranger. Manners and being a nice person is totally different but expecting a man to pay for dinner because he's a man, hold a door because he's a man etc is a ridiculous notion imo.

Wibbs

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course. My point was that I would consider chivalry in the modern sense to extend beyond gender.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've done the same myself the few times it's come up. I tend to be fairly resistant to cold so it isn't a problem. It's all well and good my saying that someone should prepare but when you see someone struggling with cold or whatever, it's natural to offer assistance.

eviltwin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would you give your coat to a man?

ahnowbrowncow

Wibbs wrote: »

Meme

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

Would you give your coat to a man?

Ah here ET, stop with your probing of the obvious, you fecker you.

Radiosonde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem with that is being a woman isn't a disability. It's appropriate to offer to help people who are visibly struggling, but a man shouldn't assume a woman can't manage to a lift a bag into an overhead compartment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why is that do you think? I'm curious why you feel it's necessary to be extra mannerly to a woman.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Be fair though. You're treating women as you would treat elderly or disabled people. I believe it comes from good intentions, but it's not really a compliment to treat someone as if they are too old or physically unable to do normal things. It was once considered a compliment to treat a woman as a delicate little flower and now it is a compliment to treat people equally.

If you wouldn't offer your coat to a man... why not?

Some chaps can do the chivalry gig without people batting an eye lid. Other's try too hard, holding doors for ladies that are 100 yards away etc and passing comments aspiring to be witty to get a thank you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Along with that, traditional formal male dress usually involves a shirt and jacket, ie 2 layers. Women tend to wear dresses which won't provide much insulation.

eviltwin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And if her feet were hurting would you carry her home?

I understand the intention but that's her problem. Why should anyone go cold because someone didn't bring a coat and why should the onus be on a man to offer his?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Helping a person who needs it is just good manners. Feeling that men need to be extra mindful of women and help them because they are women is unnecessary.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

You are old fashioned and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Along with that, traditional formal male dress usually involves a shirt and jacket, ie 2 layers. Women tend to wear dresses which won't provide much insulation.

Fair point, a person is cold so you offer your clothes but now you're in the position of needing to justify the more random parts of chivalry such as allowing a woman to order food first or get out of the elevator first.

Without a good reason to offer assistance, can you see why someone who was raised to treat everyone equally could see it as patronising? Or quid pro quo, 'I'll open the door for you and you shut up when I'm talking, ok flower'?

Why not just be mannerly? Why base it on gender at all?

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair point, a person is cold so you offer your clothes but now you're in the position of needing to justify the more random parts of chivalry such as allowing a woman to order food first or get out of the elevator first.

When I'm dining with friends, I always order last. I like to know what everyone else is ordering before I decide. Same with being offered a drink. My answer is always "What are you having?"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Without a good reason to offer assistance, can you see why someone who was raised to treat everyone equally could see it as patronising? Or quid pro quo, 'I'll open the door for you and you shut up when I'm talking, ok flower'?

Why not just be mannerly? Why base it on gender at all?

As I said above, my approach on such things is largely independent of gender. The giving up a coat example is slightly different because of the different ways men and women dress.

El_Duderino 09

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

No you wouldn't be complimenting them, youd be a d1ck. Same as if you watched a man or child struggle to lift something. You can just treat people equally.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Fair play, I didn't see that until after I posted. The point stands though. If you would do it for either gender, where's the need for manners based on sex discrimination?

If you're so chivalrous, why only help women? And if you help men an women equally, how would you have time for chivalry?

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote:

When I'm dining with friends, I always order last. I like to know what everyone else is ordering before I decide. Same with being offered a drink. My answer is always "What are you having?"

This isn't chivalry, it's your own preference and has nothing to do with manners (certainly not unmannerly though).

ancapailldorcha wrote:

As I said above, my approach on such things is largely independent of gender. The giving up a coat example is slightly different because of the different ways men and women dress.

Again this isn't chivalry. It's just reacting to other people's needs. That's the sensible way to approach things.

If someone looks like they need help, offer help. Being a woman does not equals needing help.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You are old fashioned and it's not necessarily a bad thing.



Fair point, a person is cold so you offer your clothes but now you're in the position of needing to justify the more random parts of chivalry such as allowing a woman to order food first or get out of the elevator first.

Without a good reason to offer assistance, can you see why someone who was raised to treat everyone equally could see it as patronising? Or quid pro quo, 'I'll open the door for you and you shut up when I'm talking, ok flower'?

Why not just be mannerly? Why base it on gender at all?

Chivalry isn't necessarily based upon gender at all. In fact throughout history it has been a code instilled in men to be virtuous and noble, to be mindful of the needs of others, to care for people regardless of their gender. It's been interpreted by different civilisations in many different ways throughout history.

I would give another man the shirt off my back if he were more in need of it than I was, a coat wouldn't cost me a thought, and I often have given my coat to homeless people. I'd often hold doors or gates open for people, I'll be the last person to sit down when everyone else has a seat. These are things I do unconsciously at this stage. I was never told nor taught by anyone to do these things. It was simply something I picked up myself from being aware of other people.

It's really nothing at all to do with being patronising of anyone, and like I said above, I've never met anyone yet who didn't appreciate a small gesture that simply made their life just that little bit easier, and it didn't cost me anything (except a few jackets :pac:).

silverharp

equality for me makes for a simple rule of thumb and I dont see anything to pass on to my son in this regard, however on a side note I will make a point of saying to him not to get involved in random street violence just because a girl might be involved. My observation is that guys getting involved just escalates a situation.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This isn't chivalry, it's your own preference and has nothing to do with manners (certainly not unmannerly though).

The question of letting women order first was raised. I was responding saying that I normally prefer to order my meal after everyone else.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If someone looks like they need help, offer help. Being a woman does not equals needing help.

I never said it did!

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

It's really nothing at all to do with being patronising of anyone, and like I said above, I've never met anyone yet who didn't appreciate a small gesture that simply made their life just that little bit easier, and it didn't cost me anything (except a few jackets ).

You sound like a mannerly person to have around.

The OP was very much talking about treating women differently and calling it chivalry.

jimgoose

I used to entertain such fool notions as a younger man. Nowadays, I have the same attitude towards humans as the Predator - I completely ignore them, unless they pick up a weapon. That would be a paddlin'.

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote:

This post had been deleted.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I never said it did!

We're speaking at crossed purposes

The OP was about giving preferential treatment to women because they are women.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

discus

I reckon most blokes on the internet who bang on about how chivalrous they are are the types who eventually tend towards some sort of male internet fads/religions; They get angry that men mock them and that their 'nice guy' act gets them no-where, so they go MGTOW or Redpill. Or maybe they try some no fap challenge. Or failing that, they go feminist and continue licking women asses for pats on the head, internet points or even just occassional female company.

Let go guys, it's [current year], grow up and realise that everyone is laughing at your 'chivalry'

discus

"or are some men so mired in gender warfare that they aren't willing to lift a finger to help a woman?"

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That's ridiculous. It's not a binary solution set of "you are either chivalrous or hate women". Just go about your lives and help out where its needed, not kissing womens arses because you are 'chivalrous'[/font]

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You sound like a mannerly person to have around.

The OP was very much talking about treating women differently and calling it chivalry.

That would though ironically enough, be a modern notion of one single aspect of chivalry, which is why some people consider chivalry an outdated notion and associate it with sexism. I'm sexist anyway and it's not that I would be conscious of being sexist, it's just that I do see men and women as different, and therefore I do treat men and women differently. I'm absolutely not the same person with men as I am with women.

Chivalry would be only one aspect of that where I would absolutely be more conscious and considerate of a woman's needs than those of a man, so for instance if I were sitting on the last seat in a train carriage and there's a man and woman standing, I'll offer my seat to a woman before I'd even have thought about should I offer them both the same seat and let them fight for it between themselves? I'm already thinking the man would be thinking like I do and would have the courtesy to offer the lady the seat before himself.

Pat Mustard

The whole idea of chivalry is well intentioned and all but it seems a bit sexist, these days.

I'll hold a door for a woman but I'll hold it for man too.

Last time I helped a stranger change a wheel, it was a man.

It's nice to be nice but why treat men and women differently, if it appears that they could do with assistance?

One eyed Jack

discus wrote: »

I reckon most blokes on the internet who bang on about how chivalrous they are are the types who eventually tend towards some sort of male internet fads/religions; They get angry that men mock them and that their 'nice guy' act gets them no-where, so they go MGTOW or Redpill. Or maybe they try some no fap challenge. Or failing that, they go feminist and continue licking women asses for pats on the head, internet points or even just occassional female company.

Let go guys, it's [current year], grow up and realise that everyone is laughing at your 'chivalry'

Bizarre post :pac:

jimgoose

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...if I were sitting on the last seat in a train carriage and there's a man and woman standing, I'll offer my seat to a woman before I'd even have thought about should I offer them both the same seat and let them fight for it between themselves?...

Why would you take a blind bit of notice, unless one of them was obviously infirm or heavily pregnant?

One eyed Jack

jimgoose wrote: »

Why would you take a blind bit of notice, unless one of them was obviously infirm or heavily pregnant?

It's simply being aware of other people is all, though I will be honest and admit that even if the man were elderly or infirm*, I'd likely offer the girl my seat first anyway.



*can be hard to tell, I used the example of the train carriage because I myself stood for three hours in the space between the carriages once when the train was full after I gave up my seat to a girl, and I wouldn't be the most firm on my feet with rheumatoid arthritis, had to lock my knees like a horse for the whole journey :pac:

jimgoose

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's simply being aware of other people is all, though I will be honest and admit that even if the man were elderly or infirm*, I'd likely offer the girl my seat first anyway...

Well then you're a bigger buck-ape!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

Manners are good just not taken to extremes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

Only that some people can get a bit uppity with manners. People have to be respectful without falling over themselves to be kind to strangers.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

*can be hard to tell, I used the example of the train carriage because I myself stood for three hours in the space between the carriages once when the train was full after I gave up my seat to a girl, and I wouldn't be the most firm on my feet with rheumatoid arthritis, had to lock my knees like a horse for the whole journey

The mind boggles. You actually though the woman needed the seat more than you, just because she's a woman? Sounds like hardship for hardship sake. One poster gave a rational for offering a coat to women more often than men. Did you really think a man with rheumatoid arthritis, would be better at standing than a fully functional woman?

If I thought so little of women's abilities, I'd resent if one of these creatures got promoted over me in work. Even if hey were paid the same as me since you seem to think you're better at things even with a disability.

One eyed Jack wrote:

That would though ironically enough, be a modern notion of one single aspect of chivalry, which is why some people consider chivalry an outdated notion and associate it with sexism. I'm sexist anyway and it's not that I would be conscious of being sexist, it's just that I do see men and women as different, and therefore I do treat men and women differently. I'm absolutely not the same person with men as I am with women.

Ah, the answers are contained in this paragraph above. So it isn't based on rationality, it's based on arbitrary rules you were taught and you can't change your thoughts about it now. Fair enough. No point arguing about it.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The mind boggles. You actually though the woman needed the seat more than you, just because she's a woman?

I don't remember saying that?

Sounds like hardship for hardship sake. One poster gave a rational for offering a coat to women more often than men. Did you really think a man with rheumatoid arthritis, would be better at standing than a fully functional woman?

I don't remember saying that either. I wasn't thinking of myself, I was simply thinking it was basic manners to give up my seat for a lady. Whether she actually needed it or not is her choice.

If I thought so little of women's abilities, I'd resent if one of these creatures got promoted over me in work. Even if hey were paid the same as me since you seem to think you're better at things even with a disability.

I don't remember saying I think so little of a woman's abilities at all, but you made that leap from your first misjudgement. I personally don't consider my disability a mitigating factor in having consideration for a woman. It's just basic manners as far as I'm concerned, but you seem at pains to find ulterior motives. There aren't any.

Ah, the answers are contained in this paragraph above. So it isn't based on rationality, it's based on arbitrary rules you were taught and you can't change your thoughts about it now. Fair enough. No point arguing about it.

There's no point in arguing about any of the above because you made a completely irrational leap based upon your own rationale, certainly not mine, which says more about your rationale than anything it says about mine. I already said I wasn't taught basic social etiquette as I see it. I learned it from interacting with other people. It's completely rational as far as I'm concerned, and my experiences tell me that it's completely rational as far as anyone I've ever met has been concerned. I have no need to change my thoughts on it when I have yet to experience anyone who doesn't appreciate social etiquette. In fact it's been commented on as though it surprises people that I and my son understand what most people would consider basic manners.

It's not harming anyone, it's beneficial to society, it doesn't have any ulterior or nefarious motives, so other than you making it a "gender equality" issue, I'm not sure what your problem is tbh.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

*can be hard to tell, I used the example of the train carriage because I myself stood for three hours in the space between the carriages once when the train was full after I gave up my seat to a girl, and I wouldn't be the most firm on my feet with rheumatoid arthritis, had to lock my knees like a horse for the whole journey :pac:

Now that's taking it to extremes. TBH I don't even…

I break it down to; do I see you as weaker, a more vulnerable member of society? In which case if I can help I will. Children, the infirm, the old, heavily pregnant and so forth. Gender no. Save for when a woman is clearly physically weaker of muscle. Otherwise if you want me to act like a 1950's man, act like a 1950's woman(which I wouldn't be into. At all).

For me it just reinforces sexist attitudes towards women and is contradictory with it. So I offer to let you sit on a bus just because you're a woman in need of my deference to your gender, yet at the same time I'm supposed to regard you as equal in other scenarios? Does not compute for me.

It does compute if you're of a gender traditionalist bent and that's fine and to be fair to OEJ, he has straight up self described as that*. It does compute if you're one of these so called "feminists" who wants to have her hypocrisy flavoured cake and eat it too(and post a pic of it on instagram). Or you're like the chap I describe below. It doesn't quite compute if you're none of the above and see women as equal members of society.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Only that some people can get a bit uppity with manners.

With some they're more a social comfort KB. It's not them being uppity. I know a chap, very high functioning aspergers(diagnosed) and he is extremely mannerly and etiquette driven to the point of near farce at times. We've had conversations about it before and he loves all that stuff because it gives him rules he can learn and follow so he can otherwise fit in socially, in ways that might otherwise be lost to him. Informality freaks him out to some degree, though because he's extremely clever he has learned to disguise any discomfort. As I say the person may not be "uppity" at all.




*Though for myself I will admit one difference in how I regard women. I would generally tend to give a woman way more leeway with emotional stuff, stuff that I would likely find repellent if not sectionable in a man.