Chivalry

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't remember saying that?

You're right. I gave yj the benefit of the doubt that your behaviour was based on some form of logic. I was wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

As above. I jumped the gun by giving your behaviour the benefit of the doubt.

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

Again, I apologise. I didn't realise it was an arbitrary rule you apply to women.

One eyed Jack wrote:

...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.

You picked up these social norms in another era. I bet you have realised that certain other social norms from that era are gone too such as paying women and men equally for he sane job.

One eyed Jack wrote:

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.

Treating people differently based on gender is harmful in general, though it is undoubtedly well intentioned.

There's no need for inverted commas around gender equality. Same as there's no need for inverted commas around race equality, religious equality or age equality. (Manner are manners and can be applied to anyone. If you see a person struggle, it's your job to offer help)

Wibbs wrote:

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.

Spot on.

eviltwin

Wibbs summed it up perfectly for me. If a man thinks being female is enough of a reason to offer me a seat on a bus why would I have any confidence that he would treat me as an equal in other areas. I like to be seen as a person not just a woman.

Maguined

The important part of this was the question of resentment towards expectation and I would definitely fall into this category though it applies to all manners rather than specifically chivalry. Appreciation over expectation is a very important distinction I look for more and more in life. Expecting people especially strangers to do something for you is just a sense of entitlement in most regards. You don't appreciate the things you feel you are entitled to.

Last week I was given out to for not being a gentleman in the Foggy Dew in town. I left my table to go to the bathroom and there was a narrow spot in my path due to people/tables and I could see a woman walking in my direction but I was much closer to the narrow choke point so I continued to walk towards it and then I was moving to the side of her to allow her to go passed me when she stopped me to talk to me. She took her time explaining to me that I was not a gentleman because I should not of kept walking towards her instead I should of stayed back and allowed her to pass first. I couldn't believe it, I was already out of her way and not blocking her going through but this was still not gentlemanly enough for her and she had to go out of her way to stop me to give out to me.

Thankfully she is a minority of people that only have expectations in life. The majority of people do not expect but rather appreciate manners in life.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I get that it can appear irrational without explanation, but in that situation I had a choice - I could either sit and watch her grimace for the next three hours, which would have made me extremely uncomfortable, or, I could give up my seat and not have to watch her grimace for the next three hours. It really wasn't any skin off my nose to have to stand for that length of time. I've stood in the one spot for longer so I knew I could do it, whereas I couldn't bear to be looking at a woman grimacing for any longer than the few seconds.

I think some people are reading far too negatively into the idea, as in like any idea - there are both positive and negatives to it. One can adopt the positives of an idea and discard the negatives, it just depends upon perspective. I think sometimes there's a tendency (online particularly) to over-analyse these things and ascribe negative traits to the ideology based upon how it has previously been applied in practice historically.

The same view could be applied to feminism or gender equality or egalitarianism or any ideology anyone can think of. I'd be the last person to describe myself as feminist, I have no interest in an ideology which I would see as having been corrupted by a minority who take what is a positive concept (women's welfare), and apply their own misandrist bent to it (seeing the denigration and subjugation of men as the goal of "feminism"). They take an ideology and put their own spin on it to suit their own ends.

The same is true of "gender equality" as far as I'm concerned, which is why I put it in inverted commas. I have no time for any ideology as it happens which claims to promote the idea of treating all people equally regardless of their differences. It's because these ideologies promote the idea of equality, that they miss the blatantly obvious fact that everyone is different, and they aren't just a collection of social justice "issues". I think personally, that sort of mentality is actually contradictory to it's own aims (which tbh I get it, but I think it's entirely based upon self-perception and virtue signalling rather than actual reality based consideration for other individuals).

Wibbs wrote: »

*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.

Even say your perception of 1950's women and mine would be different. I don't think time is actually all that relevant - women were incredibly strong then as they are today. These are women I admire. A woman who falls to pieces at the drop of a hat isn't a woman I admire, and I'd say the same of a man. That's why I absolutely detest the idea being promoted by some people who are suggesting that it should be acceptable or allowable for men to cry. Men already do cry, they just don't cry at the drop of a hat, and neither do most women, so where some people are getting this idea that it should be acceptable for people to show vulnerability is literally the slippery slope to snowflake mountain. It's not an ideology I'd encourage. It appears to be based upon a notion of "gender equality", but it's promoted by people who see women as weak, and they want society to make it acceptable for men to show that they are equally as weak. That's really not a positive attribute to promote in either gender IMO, and that's just one example.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not an ideology I'd encourage. It appears to be based upon a notion of "gender equality", but it's promoted by people who see women as weak, and they want society to make it acceptable for men to show that they are equally as weak. That's really not a positive attribute to promote in either gender IMO, and that's just one example.

Aye, but by giving up your seat and you having a medical condition that caused you discomfort to do so, just because of the gender of another who was grimacing for no obviously good reason is seeing her as weaker than you.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, but by giving up your seat and you having a medical condition that caused you discomfort to do so, just because of the gender of another who was grimacing for no obviously good reason is seeing her as weaker than you.

Ahh no, it's like I said to El_D, I personally wouldn't see my disability as a mitigating factor in my showing consideration for other people, and it wasn't necessarily based upon her gender. I just couldn't be looking at her tbh, so it was actually more beneficial to me in that situation to give up my seat, rather than be having to look at her making faces for the next three hours! :pac:

I think Manguined nailed it for me when he said this -

Maguined wrote: »

Thankfully she is a minority of people that only have expectations in life. The majority of people do not expect but rather appreciate manners in life.

It reminded me of the time I was sitting in the doctor's waiting room and there's a guy beside me actually belching and farting and appeared to be making no effort to stop himself. Next thing he turned to me and asked could he go next because he has ulcers. While it explained the constant belching and farting, it didn't explain why he thought he was any more entitled to go before me, as he had no idea what I was in to see the doctor for. It's that sort of sense of entitlement, regardless of the person's gender, where I'd be thinking they aren't entitled to any special treatment.

I think people are still of the idea that chivalry equates to negative connotations of sexism simply because it's a standard normally associated with men, but it's actually because of it's positive aspirations that chivalry isn't going out of style any time soon, regardless of other competing ideologies like gender equality and so on.

Chivalry is just as important to me personally as my belief in a meritocratic society, so when El_D mentions stuff about pay gaps and treating women in the workplace as equals and so on, I just don't buy into the whole equality thing based upon certain traits, or what Americans seem to prefer to call "positive discrimination". That, to me at least, is the epitome of a social construct just for the sake of it that offers no real benefit to society, and simply encourages people who already see themselves as inferior to other people, so other people should give them special treatment. I'd rather not encourage that sort of mentality if I'm honest.

silverharp

OEJ , I still don't get why you want to be "nicer" to women as a class than men (if that sums up what you are saying) . there is probably a biological inclination to do so but we have moved on. surely there are better ways to divi up your attention, age, disability, actual need?

Sleepy

Wibbs wrote: »

*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.

I'd be in agreement with One eyed Jack on this, I find the emotional outbursts our society seems to tolerate in women to be utterly repellent. Stoicism is a quality that seems to be vastly under-rated nowadays and if I'm totally honest, I instantly think less of anyone, man or woman, that bursts into tears or throws a strop. It's behaviour we discourage in toddlers ffs.

Wibbs

Oh I agree S. I just described how I tend to give leeway. I know I shouldn't. Against that I usually go straight for the jugular in the case of the attention seeking passive aggressive types so overcompensate there.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

OEJ , I still don't get why you want to be "nicer" to women as a class than men (if that sums up what you are saying) . there is probably a biological inclination to do so but we have moved on. surely there are better ways to divi up your attention, age, disability, actual need?

Ahh no, chivalry isn't about being "nicer" specifically to women only, and I think that's why it gets such a bad rep nowadays from some men who see it as "white knighting" (I groan every time I hear a man come out with that sort of stuff tbh). I don't think there's a biological inclination for it either, unless by biological you mean an empathic inclination, which would be understandable given that we are all of course human beings, and that much, I actually don't think we've moved on from at all. But chivalry itself is a social construct that isn't in any way innate.

The simplest way I divvy up my attention if you want to put it that way, is based upon meritocracy. To give a simple real life example - I was tutoring a class in software development, twenty lads and one girl. I treated each and every one of them the same, but this one girl stood out not because of her gender, but because she's a freakin' animal who literally devoured everything I could throw at her. While the rest of the lads were doing the bare minimum, this girl was going above and beyond, and so had earned the right to be given special attention, because she showed potential to be able to learn and do things that were even beyond anything I could teach her. I would have liked to have seen some of the lads show the same initiative, but they just didn't.

I interacted with her differently not solely based upon her gender, but also because of her own attitude. I was harder on her than I was on the guys who didn't appear to be all that motivated, because she needed to be pushed and she thrived on it. I saw the guys in the class, who should have taken to it, weren't giving what I expected of them at all, in spite of my best efforts to encourage them. They probably looked at the way I interacted with this one girl as "white knighting" or hoping to get into her knickers, but quite frankly that's why they are still where they are, and why I've recommended the girl for further mentoring, because of her abilities and her talent, not simply because of their observations that she was a woman so that must be why I paid special attention to her.

eviltwin

That makes sense Jack because she was a good worker with ambition and potential. I can't object to that. If you are on a train though, you have a seat, a few people who appear in good health are standing would you offer your seat up and if so why? And would you specify a woman to take it and again if so why?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

That makes sense Jack because she was a good worker with ambition and potential. I can't object to that. If you are on a train though, you have a seat, a few people who appear in good health are standing would you offer your seat up and if so why? And would you specify a woman to take it and again if so why?

Because it's basic manners from my point of view that I would offer my seat to a person who I felt needed it more than I do, and from my perspective, it just so happens that more times, in my experience, it's been a woman who was left standing, and that's always been very uncomfortable for me so I'd offer her my seat. The offer is made, it's there, she doesn't have to take it if she prefers for reasons known only to herself, to decline the offer (as some women have done in the past). The reason I would specify a woman take the seat in that situation is simply because based upon my own experience, men are generally more capable of withstanding physical impositions on their person than women. If I were to go down the equality route, I'd end up overthinking the situation and then it's just not a matter of basic courtesy any more, but more a decision based purely upon egotism and self-interest as far as I can understand the way some of this equality stuff works.

I prefer to give, without the expectation of anything in return, to pay it forward rather than ask "what's in it for me?" so to speak, and that's why I don't treat people differently based upon certain specific traits like their gender, race, ethnicity, disability and so on. I'd only regard them in a negative way if they themselves made a point of our differences in order to elicit special treatment.

RDM_83 again

To use the trains example if its about need rather than chivalry, we would see the guy wearing dirty workgear offered seats as he's likely spent the last twelve hours hauling bags of cement or scaffold poles, we don't though.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's basic manners from my point of view that I would offer my seat to a person who I felt needed it more than I do, and from my perspective, it just so happens that more times, in my experience, it's been a woman who was left standing, and that's always been very uncomfortable for me so I'd offer her my seat. The offer is made, it's there, she doesn't have to take it if she prefers for reasons known only to herself, to decline the offer (as some women have done in the past). The reason I would specify a woman take the seat in that situation is simply because based upon my own experience, men are generally more capable of withstanding physical impositions on their person than women. If I were to go down the equality route, I'd end up overthinking the situation and then it's just not a matter of basic courtesy any more, but more a decision based purely upon egotism and self-interest as far as I can understand the way some of this equality stuff works.

I prefer to give, without the expectation of anything in return, to pay it forward rather than ask "what's in it for me?" so to speak, and that's why I don't treat people differently based upon certain specific traits like their gender, race, ethnicity, disability and so on. I'd only regard them in a negative way if they themselves made a point of our differences in order to elicit special treatment.

So you think I'm weaker than you and more in need of comfort just cause I'm a woman? Do you really think we can't manage a train journey on our feet? Seriously I'm really surprised at how old fashioned you are and the kind of stereotypes you believe. Women are grand. We can cope with life just well without having to be offered seats like we've got a disability or something.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

So you think I'm weaker than you and more in need of comfort just cause I'm a woman? Do you really think we can't manage a train journey on our feet? Seriously I'm really surprised at how old fashioned you are and the kind of stereotypes you believe. Women are grand. We can cope with life just well without having to be offered seats like we've got a disability or something.

No, I don't think you personally are weaker than I am, which is why I said generally, in my experience. I don't think either that a woman can't manage a train journey on her feet, I just saw that in the particular example I used, that this woman shouldn't have to manage a whole train journey on her feet. It's not that I'm old fashioned at all either when these concepts are very much in evidence in modern society and gender equality is still something of an academic aspiration. I know only too well that women are grand and can cope with life just grand without having to be offered seats like they've got a disability, and that's never been the motivation behind the idea.

It's a simple courtesy, nothing more.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't think you personally are weaker than I am, which is why I said generally, in my experience. I don't think either that a woman can't manage a train journey on her feet, I just saw that in the particular example I used, that this woman shouldn't have to manage a whole train journey on her feet. It's not that I'm old fashioned at all either when these concepts are very much in evidence in modern society and gender equality is still something of an academic aspiration. I know only too well that women are grand and can cope with life just grand without having to be offered seats like they've got a disability, and that's never been the motivation behind the idea.

It's a simple courtesy, nothing more.

It's the idea behind the courtesy I don't like. If I was standing up with two lads and you offered your seat to me for no other reason than I'm a woman it would make me wonder what you really see. Unless I'm physically incapacitated why would I be the most deserving. I find it patronising. You've admitted though that you are sexist and that you treat women differently anyway so it's bigger than just offering a seat.

KomradeBishop

I dunno, it seems more a variety of sycophanty to me, primarily aimed at ingratiating yourself with women.

If you want to do something nice for someone, gender shouldn't come into it really.

If you want to do it because you fancy someone and want to ingratiate yourself with them, or want to impress someone else (or women in general) by doing that, then just state it for what it is - don't dress it up as 'chivalry'.

"I give women special treatment, because it will increase my chances of hitting it off with them and/or other women, and thus with getting the ride...", seems a lot more honest - not necessarily anything wrong with that either, it's more respectable than trying to dress it up as chivalry.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

It's the idea behind the courtesy I don't like. If I was standing up with two lads and you offered your seat to me for no other reason than I'm a woman it would make me wonder what you really see. Unless I'm physically incapacitated why would I be the most deserving. I find it patronising. You've admitted though that you are sexist and that you treat women differently anyway so it's bigger than just offering a seat.

I would be sexist simply by virtue of the fact that I absolutely see men and women differently, and on that basis of course I treat them differently, but that doesn't mean I treat anyone negatively based upon their gender. Granted I understand why you personally would see it as patronising, but you're completely ignoring the fact that my opinion and my behaviour is based upon my life experiences, and not yours, which would naturally be entirely different to mine, in quite likely a number of ways.

There genuinely isn't any sort of underlying negative opinion of women at all in a simple social interaction, and there's no patronising or condescending or what some people might suggest is misogyny or misandry involved or any of the rest of that stuff about patriarchy or privilege that are so often used to try and ascribe ulterior motives or negative intent to what are for most people ordinary social interactions which IMO don't require the sort of analysis that some people put into it.

Olishi4

If someone offers you their chair, you can look at it in different ways. Act of kindness or display of superiority.

Offering someone your chair can just be a nice thing to do. Its like "maybe you had a harder day than me"

Rather than seeing the woman as weaker, the man could just be more comfortable showing that type of kindness to a woman than to another man.

So not that men shouldn't offer their chair to women if they want to do something nice but why not to men as well? Perhaps he feels that more women would perceive it as a genuine act of kindness and both gain from the small interaction and that more men would perceive it as an act of superiority.

I don't think that chivalry is a good measure of someone's character alone though because it can come from different places and mindset.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be sexist simply by virtue of the fact that I absolutely see men and women differently, and on that basis of course I treat them differently, but that doesn't mean I treat anyone negatively based upon their gender. Granted I understand why you personally would see it as patronising, but you're completely ignoring the fact that my opinion and my behaviour is based upon my life experiences, and not yours, which would naturally be entirely different to mine, in quite likely a number of ways.

There genuinely isn't any sort of underlying negative opinion of women at all in a simple social interaction, and there's no patronising or condescending or what some people might suggest is misogyny or misandry involved or any of the rest of that stuff about patriarchy or privilege that are so often used to try and ascribe ulterior motives or negative intent to what are for most people ordinary social interactions which IMO don't require the sort of analysis that some people put into it.

Instead of seeing people on the basis of gender, age etc why not just see and treats them as the individuals they are.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Instead of seeing people on the basis of gender, age etc why not just see and treats them as the individuals they are.

I do, I treat people as individuals on an individual basis.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no, chivalry isn't about being "nicer" specifically to women only, and I think that's why it gets such a bad rep nowadays from some men who see it as "white knighting" (I groan every time I hear a man come out with that sort of stuff tbh). I don't think there's a biological inclination for it either, unless by biological you mean an empathic inclination, which would be understandable given that we are all of course human beings, and that much, I actually don't think we've moved on from at all. But chivalry itself is a social construct that isn't in any way innate

chivalry is a construct for sure but a lot of things about humans have a biological basis as well , protect the tribe or protect the women. I mean invent a scenario where a man or woman has a flat on a quite road. The woman (I'd wager) will get more requests to help, at least in the past. Not sure today ,Im fully on board with the "don't hold my hand!"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The simplest way I divvy up my attention if you want to put it that way, is based upon meritocracy. To give a simple real life example - I was tutoring a class in software development, twenty lads and one girl. I treated each and every one of them the same, but this one girl stood out not because of her gender, but because she's a freakin' animal who literally devoured everything I could throw at her. While the rest of the lads were doing the bare minimum, this girl was going above and beyond, and so had earned the right to be given special attention, because she showed potential to be able to learn and do things that were even beyond anything I could teach her. I would have liked to have seen some of the lads show the same initiative, but they just didn't.

I interacted with her differently not solely based upon her gender, but also because of her own attitude. I was harder on her than I was on the guys who didn't appear to be all that motivated, because she needed to be pushed and she thrived on it. I saw the guys in the class, who should have taken to it, weren't giving what I expected of them at all, in spite of my best efforts to encourage them. They probably looked at the way I interacted with this one girl as "white knighting" or hoping to get into her knickers, but quite frankly that's why they are still where they are, and why I've recommended the girl for further mentoring, because of her abilities and her talent, not simply because of their observations that she was a woman so that must be why I paid special attention to her.

that fine that's based on merit or picking winners but it doesnt have much to do with "chivalry"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

It's the idea behind the courtesy I don't like. If I was standing up with two lads and you offered your seat to me for no other reason than I'm a woman it would make me wonder what you really see. Unless I'm physically incapacitated why would I be the most deserving. I find it patronising. You've admitted though that you are sexist and that you treat women differently anyway so it's bigger than just offering a seat.

I think you're overthinking it. It's a kind gesture, and while it might be based on outdated concepts, it's hardly something to be offended at since it's intended well.

I've been offered seats, I usually decline politely and once or twice I've taken them up on the offer. It's often a way to get talking, which I'm not offended at either, within reason.

And I've offered plenty of seats in return, to the elderly, pregnant women, parents with small children or babies. It's not because I think they're incapable of standing, it's because it's a small kindness in a world where they're getting increasingly rare. I'm sure most of those elderly people or pregnant women are as capable as I am of standing, and I'm not offering them some kind of judgement, just a seating option.

I open and hold doors for both genders, help anyone struggling with a heavy case, although I'm the last person you'd call on for help with the overhead bin in an airplane (just under 5ft tall!), I've often asked for help, or had it offered, and I've gratefully accepted.

No man should feel he has to offer a seat on no other criteria other than gender but if they do, I'll respond politely and thank them for the offer rather than take offence.

ahnowbrowncow

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But what do you get in return for being considerate to your other half? Surely they are considerate to you in other areas and things even out.

ahnowbrowncow

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

But what do you get in return for being considerate to your other half? Surely they are considerate to you in other areas and things even out.

It's not consideration if you're keeping score or see it as a transactional tit-for-tat. I don't think many successful relationships tot up the values to make sure they're getting the right returns for every action.

People tend to assume small roles or chores in consideration of each other. Kindness is for it's own sake, and because you genuinely want the other party to be happier/more comfortable/feel cared for. That's sort of what love is.

What you give, in my experience, is usually reflected right back to you in what you get. If it's all give and no get, it's not a successful relationship anyway.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

chivalry is a construct for sure but a lot of things about humans have a biological basis as well , protect the tribe or protect the women. I mean invent a scenario where a man or woman has a flat on a quite road. The woman (I'd wager) will get more requests to help, at least in the past. Not sure today ,Im fully on board with the "don't hold my hand!"

But protecting the tribe or protecting the women or even offering assistance has nothing to do with any biological basis. I'm genuinely not sure where you're going with this unless you mean to introduce "evolutionary psychology" which is all sorts of bad science. I think most people nowadays will just call the AA rather than roll up their skirt and flash a bit of leg for assistance :pac:

silverharp wrote: »

that fine that's based on merit or picking winners but it doesnt have much to do with "chivalry"

Of course it has everything to do with some people's perceptions of other people's behaviour based upon how they themselves define the concept of chivalry. It's like Permabear said in the opening post that there are a minority of men (and indeed women, lest I be accused of not including women because I must have an underlying reason to see them as being incapable as men of being just as cynical) who are incredibly cynical of other people's motivations for what they see as chivalry. It's absolutely not just a code of behaviour with which to view or treat the opposite sex. It's a standard of behaviour that is expected of men, and isn't at all restricted to how they are expected to treat people solely on the basis of their gender.

The idea that it is solely based upon how to treat women is entirely a misunderstanding of the nature of chivalry, and if I were to see a man needing assistance on the side of the road, I would offer him the same assistance as I would a woman. He's probably unlikely to ask me for directions though to the nearest garage!

ahnowbrowncow

Candie wrote: »

It's not consideration if you're keeping score or see it as a transactional tit-for-tat. I don't think many successful relationships tot up the values to make sure they're getting the right returns for every action.

People tend to assume small roles or chores in consideration of each other. Kindness is for it's own sake, and because you genuinely want the other party to be happier/more comfortable/feel cared for. That's sort of what love is.

What you give, in my experience, is usually reflected right back to you in what you get. If it's all give and no get, it's not a successful relationship anyway.

No I don't mean keeping score, more that it's apprecaited or isn't taken for granted otherwise it wouldn't be a healthy relationship to me.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think it has to be cynical, as there aren't necessarily any bad motives involved, if it's just about improving your chances with women.

Courtesy is something each individual judges by themselves - people don't worry about other people viewing them as discourteous, when they disagree on the standards of courtesy, unless they are worried about a negative consequence from that - maybe in some parts of the world there are more negatives to this than other parts, but I can't see it being that big a deal.

Out of all the reasons to be chivalrous, gaining favour with women seems to stand out by quite a far amount, as being the most likely/obvious and primary reason - albeit one which people would be reluctant to admit to - it's not an "I opened the door for her, she'll go to bed with me" thing either - it's a more subtle perception thing.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd be in agreement with One eyed Jack on this, I find the emotional outbursts our society seems to tolerate in women to be utterly repellent. Stoicism is a quality that seems to be vastly under-rated nowadays and if I'm totally honest, I instantly think less of anyone, man or woman, that bursts into tears or throws a strop. It's behaviour we discourage in toddlers ffs.

What emotional outbursts from women are tolerated? And why are the ones tolerated from men not repellant?

Anyways, I'd be chivalrous to the elderly and pregnant and so on. Really not sure how I'd even compute the sort of sex-based chivalry Jack's on about from a stranger, from an acquaintance or friend I'd be having a word. I'm a healthy 27 year old like, I can stand up all by myself. I do appreciate when men make the offer of say, walking me somewhere if it's late at night though, but that's kind of different.

Women are terrible for holding doors though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Being a relationship doesn't necessarily lessen a persons desire to impress women generally - particularly their partner.

The payoff isn't specifically romantic/sexual either, but socially in general - with women specifically.

For you the motive may not follow these reasons, but this is definitively the impression I get of chivalry in general.

Radiosonde

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

Anyways, I'd be chivalrous to the elderly and pregnant and so on.

In the context of this discussion though, chivalrous isn't something women can be.

One eyed Jack

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

What emotional outbursts from women are tolerated? And why are the ones tolerated from men not repellant?

Anyways, I'd be chivalrous to the elderly and pregnant and so on. Really not sure how I'd even compute the sort of sex-based chivalry Jack's on about from a stranger, from an acquaintance or friend I'd be having a word. I'm a healthy 27 year old like, I can stand up all by myself. I do appreciate when men make the offer of say, walking me somewhere if it's late at night though, but that's kind of different.

That's because you're perceiving it to be chivalry based on your sex. It isn't. I'm a healthy (for the most part ), 39 year old male, and the person's age or sex is irrelevant. I'd just as likely walk friends home or pay for their cab to see they got home safely regardless of their gender. Again it wouldn't cost me a thought, because I'm thinking that the priority is that they would get home safely. These aren't the sort of interactions that really need to be blown out of all proportion, they're just small, everyday things that most people willingly do for each other. I don't think "how dare she, I can make my own coffee!!", when a work colleague makes me coffee (cleaning lady actually made me coffee this morning, we'd a bit of a chat and then we went on about our business, I just missed the opportunity to get into her granny pants! :pac:).

Women are terrible for holding doors though.

See this is something I can't say I've noticed, and I wonder how you've noticed? People (yes, even strangers, of both sexes) hold open doors and gates for me all the time, and vice versa. How I met one of my best mates was when she held open the gate for me when she saw me struggling on crutches. I definitely won't be trying to get Into her blindingly bright hotpants any time soon either!

um7y1h83ge06nx

I worked in a company before where a female employee complained to HR about a male employee holding the door open for her when she was walking behind him, she felt it was sexist. :rolleyes:

The male employee explained that he holds the door for everyone regardless of sex.

Heard this directly from a person in HR, some people are always looking for something to complain about.

My own view is I like to be courteous to people regardless of gender, it's nice to be nice. An old woman last week asked if I would help her lift 3 bags of compost into her trolley at the local co-op shop. No bother, and noticing the trolley was obviously heavy after I did so, I suggested I bring it to the till and out to the car for her. I was in no rush and we had a good chat.

I certainly wouldn't give up my seat for a seemingly healthy woman, unless of course she mentioned she had some health issue and needed to sit.

It reminds me of being on a bus in Limerick once and two women in their twenties talking among themselves (but wanting to be overheard) that it was terrible that I wouldn't give up my seat for them. No mention of any reason that I should apart from the fact (I presume) that I was male and they were female.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

You're quote-mining me there, as you know full well, that what I said, wasn't as simple as that.

Since you have a history of misrepresenting posts like that - then don't attribute anything to me unless you quote me, and don't quote me, unless you quote full sentences - as you'll just be making opportunities to quote-mine/misrepresent.

The benefit/payoff from chivalry is social in general - specifically with women - not directly romantic/sexual. Discussing the likely motives is different.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're quote-mining me there, as you know full well, that what I said, wasn't as simple as that.

Since you have a history of misrepresenting posts like that - then don't attribute anything to me unless you quote me, and don't quote me, unless you quote full sentences - as you'll just be making opportunities to quote-mine/misrepresent.

The benefit/payoff from chivalry is social in general - specifically with women - not directly romantic/sexual. Discussing the likely motives is different.

KB what does this even mean? Clearly as has been evidenced by this thread, there are women who disagree entirely with the concept of chivalry. They don't want any "pay-off" from it (whatever you think that pay-off actually is, because you've taken a couple of stabs at it now from both men's and women's perspectives).

How is it that you come to the conclusion that any "pay-off" is social in general, but then say that it's specifically beneficial to women? I encourage my son to be chivalrous towards other people because I believe that it is of benefit not only to himself, but to everyone in society (and of course other people are entitled to disagree and let my son know that they disagree with what they see as his outdated, old-fashioned notions), but like my own experiences, his endeavours have been received positively and appreciated and there has been no cynical reading into his motivations as though he must be only doing it for a "pay-off" of some description.

By all means if you have an opinion on people's likely motives as to why they encourage chivalry, I'm all ears, because you seem to be taking some wild stabs in the dark there and coming up empty. You appear to be unable to accept that it's simply a code of behaviour that I believe men should aspire to, which is actually the opposite of simply ingratiating themselves with women, nor does it have anything to do with sycophancy.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's because you're perceiving it to be chivalry based on your sex. It isn't. I'm a healthy (for the most part ), 39 year old male, and the person's age or sex is irrelevant.

It's hard to square that with other things you've said though, like if there were a man and a woman on a bus and you offered your seat, you'd automatically offer it to the woman. Were I the woman in that situation, I'd have gotten the offer of that seat because I'm a woman, so how is it not chivalry based on my sex? Don't get me wrong, I'd be delighted, but it's not something I'd ever expect, and I'd not interpret the absence of the offer as an absence of common courtesy. I have no right to expect you to give up your seat to me, I don't need it any more than you.

See this is something I can't say I've noticed, and I wonder how you've noticed? People (yes, even strangers, of both sexes) hold open doors and gates for me all the time, and vice versa. How I met one of my best mates was when she held open the gate for me when she saw me struggling on crutches. I definitely won't be trying to get Into her blindingly bright hotpants any time soon either!

Honestly I think it was something I tuned into because it's brought up so much on boards! I didn't think it was true, primarily because I'm a woman and I hold doors, but once I started watching for it I really did see it. And I wasn't expecting to, so it's not confirmation bias.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

It's hard to square that with other things you've said though, like if there were a man and a woman on a bus and you offered your seat, you'd automatically offer it to the woman. Were I the woman in that situation, I'd have gotten the offer of that seat because I'm a woman, so how is it not chivalry based on my sex? Don't get me wrong, I'd be delighted, but it's not something I'd ever expect, and I'd not interpret the absence of the offer as an absence of common courtesy. I have no right to expect you to give up your seat to me, I don't need it any more than you.

Genuine honest truth is that I've never encountered that scenario, which is why I have such difficulty with hypotheticals, because I base my opinion on personal experience. There are so many other factors involved beyond simply the genders of the person involved, but generally speaking I would always have offered my seat to a woman standing, and I'm rarely ever even conscious of a man standing, because I just don't see that many men standing on public transport these days, and there are often women and children standing. I'll freely admit that I'm far more likely to offer a seat to a woman or ask would their child like to sit down, because it's just basic manners as far as I'm concerned. I'd ask an elderly man if he wanted to sit down too, and that's just having respect for my elders. That's not something I had to be taught either, it was just something I picked up. I know you don't have a right to expect me to give up my seat, but it's just something I'd do anyway if I saw you standing.

I wouldn't expect you to read into it either though, it's not done with the intent of getting into your knickers, or any sort of a "pay-off" at all, as some posters here seem to think.

Honestly I think it was something I tuned into because it's brought up so much on boards! I didn't think it was true, primarily because I'm a woman and I hold doors, but once I started watching for it I really did see it. And I wasn't expecting to, so it's not confirmation bias.

I genuinely do wonder are these things brought up more online because people are so socially clueless (and yes, I realise the irony in that statement given that people on this thread have raised objections which I have genuinely never encountered offline), and I wonder is it because the internet gives us the "freedom" so to speak, to be more uncivil to each other, as much as it appears to highlight these issues and make us conscious of our behaviour towards others offline?

(I was going to say does it make us more paranoid, but that would probably have been taken the wrong way)

I truly believe that sometimes while the internet is an incredibly useful tool to understand other cultures and societies and so on, I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that other people may not move in the same circles they do or share their experiences which inform their perspectives. I certainly won't be keeping an eye out for who opens doors for me more, men or women, and are they only doing it because I'm a man and they're a woman, and what's their real motivation for their behaviour...

The answer is unlikely to be because they want to ingratiate themselves to me, or because they want to get into my jocks... :pac:

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My interpretation of the above is that you believe that so-called chivalry is really a socially acceptable stratagem for "getting the ride." You propose that rather than "dressing up" the pursuit of sex with chivalrous niceties it would be more honest to call a spade a spade and admit what the end goal really is. If I'm mistaken in that interpretation, feel free to correct me.[/QUOTE]
The social benefit is pointed out foremost as the main payoff there. This matches exactly with what I said earlier - this is what you're taking issue with:
"The payoff isn't specifically romantic/sexual either, but socially in general - with women specifically."

A social payoff, doesn't lead directly to a romantic/sexual payoff (whether that is the motive or not) - so the payoff isn't specifically romantic/sexual.

Portraying my posts, as if I presented it that way - when I did not - is misrepresenting me.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I gave up my seat on a packed bus for a pregnant woman, ended up standing for the best part of an hour. I don't mind, woulda done the same for a pregnant guy just as easy...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

What emotional outbursts from women are tolerated?

Crying over trivial things, making a drama out of a situation that in no way calls for one. Of course not all women do so, but those that do receive far less criticism than a man would for the same carry on. If you can't see that, you're blind tbh.

And why are the ones tolerated from men not repellant?

The only emotional outburst I can think of that would skew male in terms of frequency would be violence and I think it's safe to say we all consider that repellant?

eviltwin

Sleepy wrote: »

Crying over trivial things, making a drama out of a situation that in no way calls for one. Of course not all women do so, but those that do receive far less criticism than a man would for the same carry on. If you can't see that, you're blind tbh.


The only emotional outburst I can think of that would skew male in terms of frequency would be violence and I think it's safe to say we all consider that repellant?

Why is that a bad thing? I cry at trivial things, I can be listening to a particular piece of music and next thing I'm crying. It doesn't mean I'm a flake or anything. Quite the opposite. My dad always cried at football matches, I find that trivial but no one ever judged him for it as far as I know.

ancapailldorcha

I would think that the idea of men showing emotion being unacceptable or unmanly would be a primary driver of suicide and depression.

Sleepy

I think you're deliberately misconstruing what I posted tbh but if you can't see why having a tantrum doesn't solve anything I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

ancapailldorcha

Sleepy wrote: »

I think you're deliberately misconstruing what I posted tbh but if you can't see why having a tantrum doesn't solve anything I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

That's your response? I wasn't defending having tantrums. I thought that was obvious.

H3llR4iser

Problem is, in this day and age people seem to actively look for things to get "offended" about. Sometimes I wonder if everybody needs an industrial dose of nerve tonic and six months of complete cutoff from TV/Facepalm/Twatter and the likes.

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

I'm a healthy 27 year old like, I can stand up all by myself.

Exactly; There seems to be a strangely enduring struggle these days between "equality" and expectations of "chivalry" in a lot of people. Most mean well and can't really see it as a bit discriminating, to be honest.

Apparently unrelated but telling story - I went to watch "Civil War" in the cinema last month. The first time Black Widow got hit, there was a faint but audible "oooww!" in the audience. It was interesting - I mean, the character is a trained assassin, yet according to some people deserves preferential/different treatment on the basis of her gender.

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

I do appreciate when men make the offer of say, walking me somewhere if it's late at night though, but that's kind of different.

Absolutely, I would do that all the time; It's also a matter of peace of mind - knowing she got home / to destination safe; I used to do this with a friend who happens to be a black belt in some martial art (Not Karate, but I can't remember which one - I'm no expert); She would probably have an attacker in need of stitches and a cast before he could say "hey!", but still...call it a silly need to feel useful.

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

Women are terrible for holding doors though.

Lance Scrawny Album wrote: »

Honestly I think it was something I tuned into because it's brought up so much on boards! I didn't think it was true, primarily because I'm a woman and I hold doors, but once I started watching for it I really did see it. And I wasn't expecting to, so it's not confirmation bias.

Yep, that's it - and it's not a "women don't hold doors for men", they slam them in the face of other women just the same. With fire regulations making it so that every building in Ireland has something like 37.000 doors inside, this behaviour is possibly the mystery of the 21st century.

I brought this up a while ago and it was basically implied, typically boards-style, that I was a "thank you whore" - essentially holding doors for some sort of instant gratification; Or even that I was "threatening", and that's why they just basically slammed the door in my face. You know, the deadly door stare!