Chivalry

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!

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.