Chivalry

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.

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.