Chivalry

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.