Chivalry

Sleepy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

Sorry, I was replying to eviltwin, hadn't seen your post.

Having a cry because something terrible, or wonderful, has happened is perfectly normal behaviour. Being a practical sort, I'd consider it an unhelpful activity to indulge oneself in until everything that can be done to resolve a situation has been done but it's understandable.

I thought I was pretty clear in my first post that I was referring to "outbursts" - using tears as a weapon, screaming etc. The kind of overly dramatic tantrum that we seem to tolerate from women (and some gay men) but which a straight man would be castigated for. Though if I'm entirely honest, I'd see the kind of diva-like tantrums thrown by the likes of Elton John as a contributing factor to homophobia.

RDM_83 again

The kind of overly dramatic tantrum that we seem to tolerate from women (and some gay men) but which a straight man would be castigated for. Though if I'm entirely honest, I'd see the kind of diva-like tantrums thrown by the likes of Elton John as a contributing factor to homophobia.[/quote]

To be fair the gay guys I've been close friends with have absolutely despised that sub-set of behavior, who you fcuk doesn't need to define how you act

Sleepy

Most of my gay friends would have similar attitudes to that kind of drama queen behaviour. As is often the case with prejudice, the behaviour of a sub-set of a group is often used to "justify" prejudice against the entire group.

Malari

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is offering enough though? Do you accept if the woman says she's ok, or does it bother you that other people might think you have not offered her your seat?

My husband and a friend went for a drink last weekend. After work I joined them. They had seats and there were no other free ones. My husband offered me his, but I told him I was fine, had been sitting all day, kind of wanted to stand. Then our friend jumped up and almost insisted on giving me his seat. We were at the bar - me standing, them on barstools) so it's not like they felt I was hovering over them at a table! But he wouldn't sit again. So both of us were standing with a free stool. It was bizarre. Eventually I sat because we were getting in the way of people walking through the bar.

One eyed Jack

Malari wrote: »

Is offering enough though? Do you accept if the woman says she's ok, or does it bother you that other people might think you have not offered her your seat?

My husband and a friend went for a drink last weekend. After work I joined them. They had seats and there were no other free ones. My husband offered me his, but I told him I was fine, had been sitting all day, kind of wanted to stand. Then our friend jumped up and almost insisted on giving me his seat. We were at the bar - me standing, them on barstools) so it's not like they felt I was hovering over them at a table! But he wouldn't sit again. So both of us were standing with a free stool. It was bizarre. Eventually I sat because we were getting in the way of people walking through the bar.

I think you'll probably find universal agreement that chap was an idiot. There's quite a difference between asking, and insisting! Insisting and getting bent out of shape about it when you would prefer to stand isn't manners at all, it's just rude and IMO would justify telling the guy he needs to have a word with himself!

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

I wouldn't think it would be a primary driver at all tbh. I think that statement (and I've heard it many, many times), is just too broad to quantify it's actual effects. I think a lack of understanding of how to look after their mental health would be the primary driver of depression and suicide in men.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Malari wrote: »

Then our friend jumped up and almost insisted on giving me his seat. We were at the bar - me standing, them on barstools) so it's not like they felt I was hovering over them at a table! But he wouldn't sit again. So both of us were standing with a free stool. It was bizarre. Eventually I sat because we were getting in the way of people walking through the bar.

I actually did something similar to this too, and yeah, it was for another guy...



*away to have a quiet word with myself

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Malari

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, he's a...unique person I think he feels awkward in his chivalry and doesn't really know how to react in some situations with women. I'd rather just be treated like everyone else.

BrianD3

I hold doors for people, let them go ahead of me when appropriate etc. I barely even notice the sex of the person when showing courtesy. If it's appropriate to hold a door for a woman then it's appropriate to hold it for a man.

Sometimes it is not appropriate and would constitute misplaced courtesy. E.g. standing holding a door for an able bodied person when they are 20 metres away, putting pressure on them to hurry up.

Something that I do notice is how bad mannered or at least oblivious many women are in situations which require some courtesy. One that I encounter very regularly is when I am walking on a narrow footpath and there are two women coming towards me, two abreast, talking. Usually when this happens they will try to walk through me, Bittersweet Symphony style.

What they should do in such a situation is form a single file instead of trying to force the oncoming person out into the road. I find the only way to combat this sort of crap is to keep walking as though they aren't there i.e do a Bittersweet Symphony on it myself. They will then form a single file at the last second and maybe there will be a minor bump as we pass. Then again i'm just some pig of a man who needs to learn some chivalry :rolleyes:

OldRio

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Agree completely. 'The death of courtesy' is shocking in the younger generation. Manners maketh the man.
Chivalry and good manners are linked. To employ both in your life brings a lot of happiness.

iptba

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It does bring up the issue that there may be some expectations on men to do certain things/men may (rightly or wrongly) feel pressure to do certain things, particularly if they are in a relationship.

Women fought so they wouldn't be expected to do certain things e.g. the work in the kitchen. This hasn't happened explicitly so much with men.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

iptba

That reminds me that chivalry does not necessarily have to be restricted to physical actions: how people approach issues and discussions may be influenced by chivalry.

jackofalltrades

I'm generally not chivalrous.
I think it's the other side of the coin that is chauvinism.
Unless it comes to dating when I fell I have to be a bit chivalrous to compete with other men.
That's said the women I've dated have been fairly insistent on paying their own way.
For every dinner I've bought I've been bought a few rounds or a dinner in return.

To treat people equally who have to actually treat them equally.
Some of the best managers I've had have been women.
And I think it would be a great disservice to them to treat them differently just because of their gender.
That and that would have rightly given told me where to put any attempts at chivalry.

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

That reminds me that chivalry does not necessarily have to be restricted to physical actions: how people approach issues and discussions may be influenced by chivalry.

I'd have to agree with this. I think definitely the way I approach issues and discussions is different depending upon whether I'm interacting with a woman or a man.

Last night for example I was at a boxing match and I met my friend's girlfriend for the first time. I always default to the assumption that women behave like ladies, and men behave like gentlemen, and this woman last night was no lady! She was... relentless!

If she were a man I would absolutely have had no qualms about telling her straight out she was quite possibly the most annoying person I've ever met, but because she was a woman, I held my tongue while she must have been on some sort of a mission to prove that just when I thought she couldn't possibly be any more annoying, she could outdo herself! :pac:

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm generally not chivalrous.
I think it's the other side of the coin that is chauvinism.

It's really not, and many people have often mistakenly interpreted chivalry as the embodiment of male chauvinism, which it isn't either. The other side of the coin of chivalry are antonyms like rude, boorish, unmannerly... a bit like the woman I was introduced to last night actually! :eek:

But then she was channeling every stereotype of what she thought was typical "in with the boys" behaviour that a girl tends to do when she wants men to treat her like a man... except when she kept covering my eyes with her hand every time the ring girl paraded around the ring between rounds, if she had been a man doing that, again I'd have told him in no uncertain terms his behaviour was incredibly annoying!

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Unless it comes to dating when I fell I have to be a bit chivalrous to compete with other men.
That's said the women I've dated have been fairly insistent on paying their own way.
For every dinner I've bought I've been bought a few rounds or a dinner in return.

Does that not tell you something?

In spite of some posters here assertion that chivalry is outdated and old fashioned and so on, the reality is that it is very much a part and parcel of everyday modern society, and that most people actually do understand the basic social graces, customs and norms of chivalry. They may not even be aware of it's history, but they're doing the "monkey see, monkey do" dance that they have seen not only generations before them do, but even their peers around them do now.

This is one area where women actually do have more social pressure upon them because expectations of men's roles in society have remained fairly static, but expectations of women's roles in society, oh boy, they are constantly changing and fluctuating, and women are constantly under pressure to be somebody, for someone else. It's almost as though they can never just be themselves, they have to prove themselves, constantly. There's a driver behind that, and I don't like to say the F word too loud, but it's there, and it's absolutely responsible IMO for the increasing pressure coming from women, that women are putting upon themselves, and then conveniently blaming that pressure on the P word, don't want to say that too loudly either.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

To treat people equally who have to actually treat them equally.
Some of the best managers I've had have been women.
And I think it would be a great disservice to them to treat them differently just because of their gender.
That and that would have rightly given told me where to put any attempts at chivalry.

Any of the best managers I've known, have known how to manage people, and I've worked for both women and men, and I've worked in teams and I've managed teams of people, and at an interpersonal level, you simply can not regard any two people in exactly the same way. That's why this whole notion of "gender equality" or what some people think is "gender equality", is an absolute farce. You simply cannot force people, to view two people who are fundamentally different people, in many ways, the same way. Any notions of "gender equality" or "gender blindness" or "egalitarianism" are just idealism that IMO do a disservice to people as individuals.

I've made bad calls sometimes of course, but I don't tend to dwell on them, because the vast, vast majority of people still understand, and always understood, the values of social structures and systems like chivalry. It's neither outdated nor old fashioned for the vast majority of people in modern society, and it isn't going out of fashion or out of date any time soon either.


.

We Wuz Kangz

OldRio wrote: »

Agree completely. 'The death of courtesy' is shocking in the younger generation. Manners maketh the man.
Chivalry and good manners are linked. To employ both in your life brings a lot of happiness.

I take you don't hang around with young Irish women. Most of them do not act like ladies these days!

py2006

Chivalry died with equality apparently...

As with most guys, I hold the door open for whomever is behind me. What really bugs me is the entitled 'ones' that walk through without a "thanks" or even taking the door from you and leave you there. I have often taken pleasure in a loudly but politely said, "YOUR WELCOME".

We Wuz Kangz

I'll happily give up my seat to an elderly woman but giving my seat to a girl my age or giving her my coat? No way!

I sometimes hate holding doors open for people. Not because I'm ungentlemanly, but there's always those moments where you end up holding the door for so many other people.