I MAY BE OLD-FASHIONED

Post Reply New Topic

I've always done that for people, both men and women. If I get to a door first with someone right behind me, I step out of the way and hold it open, and let them go first.

I don't necessarily pull out chairs, but I very often wait for the woman to choose a seat and sit down before I do the same.

My parents ingrained all the basic manners and etiquette into me by the time I was a little kid. I rarely forget to say please, thank you, and you're welcome, even for the smallest favors.

If I had a car and could drive, I'd do that for anyone I'd date, unless they had a different scenario in mind.

I'd feel like a creep if I didn't meet my date's parents at least once, early on.

I'd pay for the woman's meal on a date, unless told otherwise.

In short: My parents instilled manners and even chivalry in me at a very young age, and I haven't forgotten them; I use them quite often, actually.

No, they already knew that. It's not like people back then really thought women became helpless, but only in the presence of a man she was dating.


Absolutely nothing.


Given the position of dominance that men had at that time, showing deference to a woman as if she were superior really meant something.


Nowadays, it's just a gesture of politeness that some people do and some don't. It is pointless, just like all other polite gestures, like saying 'please' and 'thank you', but I can't see how it could possibly be 'infantilising'.

Because "please" and "thank you" are not de-facto societal expectations which are said by one person to another by virtue of the former being one sex and the latter being the other. The presumption that a man pay for a woman's food (versus -gasp- each paying for their own) is indeed infantilizing, as it occurs solely because she is a woman as opposed to a man, and casts her as dependent on his paternalizing charity.

"Thank you, fellow human being, for X act of kindness or courage" is a world away from, in essence, "Here, let me pay for your meal/open your car door/aid you in putting on your coat seeing as how you have a vagina".

That's not how it is at all. I really can't see how you could think that it is.

Because the offer would not occur if the word "vagina" was replaced with "penis".

Is that really difficult?

A dynamic where sex is the sole differentiating factor determining whether those things are offered or expected to be offered cannot be said to be one of common "courtesy", "manners", or "politeness",
but of something else.

I'll grant you the meal-paying thing (which, interestingly enough, seems to be the only one that *hasn't* gone out of fashion) being iffy, but the rest can hardly be called things that are 'offered or expected to be offered'.

It is just tradition. Most women will not hold it against you, nor will they think that something so trivial is an implication that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Wow, I didn't know showing good manners could make people so angry!

I don't think that offering to help a woman put her coat on is sexist. Men maybe don't realise this, but women will help other women put their coats on, especially in winter if it is a big bulky coat (I live in a cold country). It is practical and it's also an act of showing the other person that you are helpful, kind and considerate - qualities I look for in a boyfriend and also in friends in general.

It's only sexist if it's only men doing these things for women and not vice versa. Courtesy should be applied to all humans, not just one sex.

"Why treat the sexes differently?"
"Herp derp it's just courtesy!"
"...huh?"
"Manners!"
"...but why treat people differently based on their sex?"
"Gawd, who carez anyway? Get a life."

There is also the point that someone will probably gain very little by doing this and is more likely to be walked over by others wanting a free meal, free drinks if you will. Users.

OK then, so it's perfectly OK to talk to women like they're men at a bar, say? I'd love to see your reaction when that happens. Because at the end of the day, we're not treating you any different. Equality and all that.

Men use 'sexist' language; women use 'sexist' language; men and women talk together and separately. It all works out in the end.

More or less.

I'll open the door for you if you do the laundry.

No, it's not enough.
The exchange has to be equally valuable for each party.

I think Valentine makes some excellent points here.

My thoughts: There's nothing really wrong with old-fashioned manners. Why do I open the door for my wife? Because she is the Queen of my household and deserves to be treated like royalty. It's just plain NICE to do things for people you respect, and I don't believe that she as a lady has any similar reciprocal obligation to me.

I am, of course, the King of the household, and as such I enjoy a certain amount of executive privilege. I'm the tie-breaker and veto power of the house. But, if you really want to be a good domestic politician, it does one well to recognize that tie-breaking and veto power are best used sparingly. I'm not a tyrant, after all. My wife is the "chief breadwinner," so she hold considerable power in her own right that, more often than not, I defer to her when it comes to decision-making. I recognize, also, her brilliance in all things economic and domestic. To go against my wife on something means I have strong convictions on something. These are the rare times that I'm right and I KNOW I'm right. It might make her angry if I "pull rank," but she also recognizes that I'm also 50% of this relationship and my opinions count for something, too.

The erosion of traditional rules of politeness between men and woman, I think, is mostly due to hardline feminism and postmodern confusion and ambiguity as to exactly what gender roles are or are supposed to be. If a woman is genuinely offended by a guy opening a door for her or feels her independence is threatened by such an action, she may simply say so and the guy never has to open a door again. "Just being nice" means respecting the wishes of a woman either way--it would be impolite to do those things if it bothers her. So, for me, holding a door becomes something that is helpful or a convenience to anybody walking through that door. I might open a door for my wife and my children, and if someone is behind me, I'll hold it open at least long enough for them to catch it. One thing I really HATE is when someone sees me coming just a step or two behind them and closes the door in my face. It's not merely socially coarse. It's flat-out inconsiderate. People in general tend to like and respect you more when you're helpful and, at the least, recognize and validate their presence.

And so if a man enjoys the presence of a woman, if thinks of her as being special and wants her to feel that she is special to and respected by someone, what is really wrong with being nice and treating her like royalty? We aren't able to lavish food and luxury on women 24/7/365. But it costs a man absolutely nothing to open a car door and offer a hand so she's not inconvenienced by having to CLIMB out of the car. If it's a problem, I won't do it. But I don't see why it's necessary that such niceties in the context of current culture and society are really just actualizations of an old-fashioned view of one sex being "weaker" than another. I think a lot of people just want to be nice.

This may be a stretch, but in the context of current culture/society, there may be some practical applications here as well. When entering a building, a woman and/or children are at their most vulnerable. A man, typically having more muscle mass and thus more brute strength, is an effective rear guard and less likely a target for kidnapping or rape. An attacker at least has to think twice about it when a man is involved. So rather than being an oppressive institution, it's an instrument of security. Maybe/maybe not. The point being I can see at least one possible good reason for keeping.