Chivalry can be taken a bit too far

[Babbylonian]

I've heard that there are all these feminist arguing about chivalry but I've never met a feminist who really cares about it one way or the other. Maybe before my time, say the 1970's, there was some sort of brief outcry? These days you only hear it from anti-feminists, women who are "better than those feminists" and people who buy into it and then have a few experiences which twig their confirmation bias. It's like some weird urban legend which keeps getting passed on.

If you open a door for someone and they don't smile, or they give you a weird look or whatever, they are probably having a bad day. If someone was really that much of a radical, they would say something.

I agree with you, for the most part. I think most of the "arguments" were actually made to me in my youth by silly television characters.

Still, though it can be lost listening to the seriously nutbar, fringe "feminists," I think there's a valid point to be made and the conclusion I came to is that single-sex chivalry really is kind of stupid. But, there's nothing stopping a person from being kind and polite to everyone (a moving target for me since I can get super grumpy). So, if I reach a door first with others behind me, I'll pull it open and hold it while others - male, female, or both - pass through. The same would go for any situations where spontaneous assistance might be appreciated.

 

[bookitty]

I agree with you, for the most part. I think most of the "arguments" were actually made to me in my youth by silly television characters.

Still, though it can be lost listening to the seriously nutbar, fringe "feminists," I think there's a valid point to be made and the conclusion I came to is that single-sex chivalry really is kind of stupid. But, there's nothing stopping a person from being kind and polite to everyone (a moving target for me since I can get super grumpy). So, if I reach a door first with others behind me, I'll pull it open and hold it while others - male, female, or both - pass through. The same would go for any situations where spontaneous assistance might be appreciated.

There's nothing wrong with tiny niceties. Holding open a door, letting someone with two items ahead of your full cart at the supermarket, handing a quarter to someone who doesn't have exact change on the bus - all that stuff makes things easier for everyone. It reminds us that society is a pretty sweet construct.

There's really no need to tie any of up in gender politics, unless the goal is to paint a certain group as needlessly hostile.

 

[gumboot]

It's a terrible litmus test. You've basically set up a false dichotomy based on your preconceived notions of their motivations.

It's an observation made in relation to their attitudes. It has thus far proven very accurate.

 

[eeyore1954]

My bus etiquette: If there's more than one person waiting to get on the bus, unless the door opens right in front of where I'm standing I let everyone else get on before me without regard to gender, and if the bus is full, unless I'm having my occasional foot trouble, I give up my seat in favor of everyone except teenagers (I'm strongly prejudiced against teenagers).

Exactly how I do it although I have never thought about the teenagers. I think if I am already sitting I will not get up for young people unless they are holding something. Although I kinda enjoy standing on the bus or subway especially around corners.

 

[bookitty]

It's an observation made in relation to their attitudes. It has thus far proven very accurate.

In a world of actors. Which is on very rare occasion strangely like our own.

 

[ZirconBlue]

In a world of actors. Which is on very rare occasion strangely like our own.

Exactly. Depending on the specific circumstances, if someone is holding the door open for me, I am quite likely to walk through without grabbing the door myself, and I am definitely not someone who's used to having things done for me.

 

[bookitty]

Exactly. Depending on the specific circumstances, if someone is holding the door open for me, I am quite likely to walk through without grabbing the door myself, and I am definitely not someone who's used to having things done for me.

Last time I was at the pet store, an older gentleman held the door for me while I juggled a fishbowl and a case of cat food. He added a friendly little flourish with his hand which made me laugh. It was a nice moment for both of us. Which is really the best reason for any of this.

 

[JamesDillon]

There's nothing wrong with tiny niceties. Holding open a door, letting someone with two items ahead of your full cart at the supermarket, handing a quarter to someone who doesn't have exact change on the bus - all that stuff makes things easier for everyone. It reminds us that society is a pretty sweet construct.

There's really no need to tie any of up in gender politics, unless the goal is to paint a certain group as needlessly hostile.

I think it's well-established in this thread that there can be lots of reasons for holding a door for someone. But I assume you don't deny that some men do so for women specifically based on the view that women are entitled to certain social niceties based purely and exclusively on their status as women? That's the attitude that I would define as "chivalry," and I think it can be distinguished from a general gender-neutral politeness, and even from non-gender-neutral romantic/sexual interest (both of which I see no problem with as a motivation for doing nice things for strangers of the opposite sex). I really don't see how it isn't the case that the social norm of chivalry, as distinguished from those other things, carries with it an implicit judgment that women are less able than men to fend for themselves without special assistance. How that isn't a condescending attitude is just beyond me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Am I the only one who lets other people go through the door first purely so they are denied the opportunity to stick a knife in my back? (And, alternatively, give me the opportunity to knife them in the back if I feel they deserve it.)

 

[I Ratant]

There's nothing wrong with tiny niceties. Holding open a door, letting someone with two items ahead of your full cart at the supermarket, ....

.
Not when there's a self-checkout...
I pointed that out to a 2-item guy behind me...
He wouldn't use that!
It puts union people out of work!
OK.. you're next behind me.

 

[Babbylonian]

.
Not when there's a self-checkout...
I pointed that out to a 2-item guy behind me...
He wouldn't use that!
It puts union people out of work!
OK.. you're next behind me.

I wish they'd put self checkout in at my local grocery (a Safeway). The last two times I've gone down there I've been stuck behind elderly women who couldn't operate the credit/debit card interface. Touchscreens are so confusing!

It's one of the places my grumpiness tends to come out because I'm usually trying to speed through to catch a bus.

 

[gnome]

Then you'll just be stuck behind a person who can't operate the self-checkout interface.

 

[fleabeetle]

.
Not when there's a self-checkout...
I pointed that out to a 2-item guy behind me...
He wouldn't use that!
It puts union people out of work!
OK.. you're next behind me.

Then you'll just be stuck behind a person who can't operate the self-checkout interface.

I'd be just the same as I Ratant's 2-item guy -- in my case, because I'm a technophobe, and self-checkouts scare the hell out of me.

 

[Babbylonian]

Then you'll just be stuck behind a person who can't operate the self-checkout interface.

Probably, but at least it would be a fresh, new, 21st century irritation.

 

[CelticRose]

This for me. Here's another one: I was taught is to walk on the outside of the sidewalk (closest to the street) when with a woman or passing one walking the opposite direction. My grandma told me (many times) that such things were "just what you're supposed to do."

My ex-boyfriend would get very uncomfortable if I walked on the outside. I hadn't encountered that tradition until I started dating him. It turns out that it dates back to when people used to empty chamberpots by flinging the contents from an upper window into the ditch running down the center of the street. The person walking nearest the street was more likely to get splashed than the person walking near the building.

My one anti-politeness pet peeve: When I'm standing at a corner waiting to cross the street (no marked crosswalk), I absolutely hate when someone stops their car to let me cross. For one thing there's no guarantee that traffic going the other way will stop and for another, as an unprotected pedestrian, I can't afford to trust anyone driving a couple tons of metal so I'd rather cars just move on and get out of the way. Even worse is when they stop and I just happen to be standing there with no intention to cross. Drive, people!

I run into a similar situation when I'm walking down a sidewalk and have to cross a driveway. Someone will start to turn into a driveway, see me waiting for them, and stop in the middle of traffic and motion me forward.

 

[fleabeetle]

My ex-boyfriend would get very uncomfortable if I walked on the outside. I hadn't encountered that tradition until I started dating him. It turns out that it dates back to when people used to empty chamberpots by flinging the contents from an upper window into the ditch running down the center of the street. The person walking nearest the street was more likely to get splashed than the person walking near the building.

Except when malicious people took care to empty their chamberpots slowly and carefully in such a way as to hit the person walking near the building instead...

 

[TragicMonkey]

My ex-boyfriend would get very uncomfortable if I walked on the outside.

I once encountered this in a very old etiquette book. I concluded that the reason for it was that if a lady were walking with a gentleman and wished to leave his company, she could quickly dart into a shop. Whereas the gentleman, if he tired of the lady's company, could leap into a taxi.

 

[gnome]

I was told it was so that the lady held the safer spot from someone going out of bounds on the road.

Though the width of a person doesn't seem like it would reliably make a difference if a car goes onto a sidewalk.

A guess that seems more practical to me is so that the man takes the brunt of any splash of mud/water/snow/whatever coming in from the road.

 

[I Ratant]

I'd be just the same as I Ratant's 2-item guy -- in my case, because I'm a technophobe, and self-checkouts scare the hell out of me.

.
Not me, man!
With just a few items, and long lines at the registers, I take the first available selfer-- Albertson's has four for your convenience!

 

[Carnivore]

I was told it was so that the lady held the safer spot from someone going out of bounds on the road.

Though the width of a person doesn't seem like it would reliably make a difference if a car goes onto a sidewalk.

A guess that seems more practical to me is so that the man takes the brunt of any splash of mud/water/snow/whatever coming in from the road.

I was always taught that it was to protect a lady's clothes from vehicle caused splashes. And also that women are more individually valuable for human reproduction than men so to protect the continuation of the species, in the event of a drive by shooting a man should be in position to absorb the bullets so that the woman may survive.

This is why I always wear body armour when dating.