miseleigh
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by miseleigh
-
-
If I'm going to be waiting at the door for more than 2 seconds I wouldn't continue to hold it, unless he's hot.
I once had a guy (at a club, never met before) tell me 'looking in your eyes is better than sex with another girl'... that relationship never started. I'm sorry, but sex is sex and eyes are eyes, and it's not like he knew anything about me. If he couldn't understand that, forget the whole A=A thing....
The hat thing interests me. Let's see what Google brings up...
“Basically, hats are removed when going indoors as a measure of respect. Therefore, caps and hats should be removed when entering a home (which includes while eating at the table), when entering a place of religion, or when going to a restaurant. When entering a store or other “public area” like a train station, the hat or cap may remain on. This applies to baseball caps worn by men or women. Hats and caps are always removed for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem.” (see Feb. 9th, 2004)
Ok, so there's a bunch of 'rules' regarding hats. Following these shows respect for those around you. I found one theory that claimed it began when a gentleman was in the presence of a higher authority; the hat symbolized the measure of authority, and the man in the lower position would take his off to avoid challenging that authority (ie: a lord in the presence of his king.) I have no idea about the reliability of the source for this, coming through secondary sources, (I didn't find the original source) but it's interesting.
No matter where it came from, it shows respect to remove your hat when you go inside, especially into a private home. Now, the benefits of following this tradition, senseless as it may seem, include retaining the goodwill of your host. The deficits could include loss of a fashion accessory, possibly getting colder, or showing your hat hair.
Retaining the goodwill (and respect) of your host may not seem like something that should be valued, especially if they're so particular about hats. But consider the following: first, you likely enjoy this person's company. Why else would you be in his house? Second, having the respect of someone, no matter what your own opinion of them is, cannot hurt you, and will often present some benefit to you. At some point in the future they could help you find a better job, introduce you to other people who's company you value, or give a glowing review to your new landlord.
One error that I find many people make is the assumption that there is no value in having the respect of someone you don't agree with, dislike, or are completely ambivalent towards. I may greatly dislike one of my fellow coworkers, but as long as I don't go out of my way to antagonize her, she may still hold some respect for me. Because of this, if a promotion became available and I was one of the candidates (assuming she isn't) I would be more likely to get the position because one of my coworkers likes the way I work, and will probably mention that to the boss.
This does not mean I will go far out of my way to make everyone like me; it simply means that I will not go out of my way to make them dislike me, and if there is something that is simple to do, does not go against my values, and will increase someone's respect for me, I will do it regardless of what I think of them. For me, removing my hat would be one of those. It causes me no great harm, and could provide enormous benefit.
The removal of hats in particular probably rarely applies. If you are not sure if you host cares about hats, just ask. There are plenty of other small actions, though, that cause no harm to follow and can provide great value. Just because something seems to have no reason other than 'it's polite' doesn't mean it's worthwhile to ignore it. Do you say please and thank you when it's expected? Why?
-
Maarten, thank you for clearing up your viewpoint on this one
I can understand valuing physical beauty, at least to a small extent. I just think that someone should not be valued higher than another based solely on gender, without any other factors involved.Just because I'm curious, if you go into a building before someone else, will you hold the door open behind you or let it close?
Personally, I'll hold it open (unless they're a good distance away) simply because I take pleasure from being polite.
Agree:
1. OK for person to open/hold door for partner in case of romantic relationship.
2. OK for person to open/hold door for someone else who is struggling with it.
3. OK for person to open/hold door for someone with some small value to them (greater than just gender)
4. above?
How's that?
-
Excellent, another programmer. I wonder if there is a higher percentage of Objectivists in such fields as programming and math than there are in fields like literature or philosophy? Hmm, maybe not... there can't be that many Objectivist social workers, though.
Those tanks have US flags on them...
grr. Game looks good, but I'm not much of a gamer myself; I certainly don't know how to code them. I congratulate you.Slashdot is wonderful. Wikipedia is better. And Google rules all....
You think too much.... absolute bull. Can't stand people like that. Turn their own values on them and they shouldn't have come up with that thought. They thought too much.
-
Well, now I'm sorry that I've joined so late, because the term you were thinking about taking a philosophy course in is obviously past. However, I think I'll offer my input anyways as a fellow WPI student (well, former.)
I took Philosophical Ethics with Professor Shikiar. It was a semi-interesting class, although not what I had been hoping. His focus was on the ideas of the philosophers we studied, not what our thoughts about them were. We had 4 short papers to write (book reports, essentially) and then 1 longer one. It was only in this last that we were supposed to add our own input to the papers, although in the class itself we did talk about our own views of the philosopher's ideas. The advantage to taking the class over just reading the books and discussing them with other students was that Shikiar was quite good at clarifying what a specific passage meant, and obviously knew the specifics of each philosophy discussed without subscribing to any of them. That said, I didn't like any of the philosophers covered, and having to write a synopsis of their philosophies was simple yet painful. I am, however, glad I took the course, mostly because I like to know how other people think in order to best refute what they're saying. Also, I think people at WPI are more likely to listen to an Objectivist viewpoint than students at other school might be, but I wouldn't be too vocal about what your specific view is. Instead, it's often more effective to ask questions that undermine the philosophy being discussed.
Knowing what you're up against is always a good thing. Besides, how are you supposed to think for yourself without learning about other viewpoints? The best way to learn those viewpoints is to discuss them with someone who has studied them thoroughly (ie: a professor.) Of course, you can study them yourself, but Kant is very hard to get through...
-
Well, I joined yesterday by jumping straight into a topic about manners and how they apply to Objectivism, something which I've actually been researching a little lately (thank you, Google, for finding this for me!) It seems like there are some wonderfully logical people on this forum (even if I don't agree with all the views expressed.) I'm glad to be here.
Let's see here. What kind of things do you put into an introduction? I learned about Objectivism when a friend of mine gave me The Fountainhead. I'm an avid reader, and finished the book in a couple days, although I'm sorry to say that it didn't make much of an impact on me until a year later when I read it (and Atlas Shrugged) again. Damn books caused a breakup with the guy I had been thinking about marrying
(He's Christian, and after reading them I wasn't... and he follows his religion enough that he felt he couldn't marry outside his faith.) Thank you, Miss Rand, for helping me save myself from that one. Since then I've also read Anthem and The Night of January 16th, both of which I enjoyed thoroughly.I can't claim to follow Objectivism to the letter. I was introduced to it fairly late in life, and have had some problems with learning how to truly love myself... but I'm getting there. I certainly enjoy my life now a lot more than I did before I was introduced to Objectivism. That's one of the things that makes me think Miss Rand got it right. Many people tell me Objectivism's a cult; my usual response is that it's no more of a cult than any other philosophy or (gasp!) religion, and it makes a lot more sense. Besides, who ever heard of a cult that encourages you to think for yourself?
What else can I tell you about me? If you've read the manners topic, you know I'm female, and you have probably figured out I'm not typical- been playing drums since 4th grade, help my dad with his woodworking hobby fairly often, am working towards a computer science degree. But who is typical, anyways? Let's see, what else... I like to read, write, draw... oh, wait. That's all in my profile. Go read it there.
If you're interested, I've written a few short essays on my deviantArt webpage that have some relation to Objectivism. Maybe I'll move them to my blog here; I don't know yet. They're in my journal section. I'll be writing more at some point. Wouldn't mind topic suggestions...
There's some poems and drawings on there that I like too... *nudge nudge* I guess that's everything I feel like putting here. Talk to me! I like being social.
-
Thank you, Lathanar, for listening to what I'm trying to say.
The way you treat someone you have a romantic interest in will be different than the way you treat friends. On the same note, the way you treat friends will be different from the way you treat total strangers. I hadn't clarified this earlier because I felt it was an obvious point that didn't really need clearing up. Viewpoints expressed here all seem to agree on how to treat a date and who pays, etc.
It's the opening doors thing that's bugging me. I am not talking about opening doors for people you know. I am talking about opening a door for a woman you've never met, based solely on the fact that she's female, rather than opening a door for any stranger simply to be polite. You mean you honestly can't see why that would be annoying and possibly viewed as disrespectful?
Maarten, I like your definition of equality. Would you kindly explain to me how opening doors for women and not opening them for men demonstrates it?
Yes, I would. Now, if he pulled out chairs for little old ladies because they need the help, fine. Hopefully he would do the same for little old men who also need the help. And again, this is excluding the romantic interest thing- if you want to open a car door for your girlfriend, I'm sure she'll appreciate it. Hopefully you'll have the good grace to appreciate it if she wants to do the same for you.Would you have a problem with a guy who opens car doors or pulls out chairs at the dining table for women, but not for men?Or a guy who would pay for a male best friend's meal only in an emergency (and even then with great reluctance and annoyance) - but is positively willing to buy your dinner without complaint or hesitation?Best friend vs. romantic interest? Not the issue. Why would a guy pay for my dinner if we're just friends unless he has intentions in another direction?
Yeah, this is kind of unsure as well. And I think you felt it, so you put 'perhaps' there. This kind of wish causes all sorts of problems. Here's what a man might find himself thinking: "Well, today's a special day, b/c it's X(whatever it might be, some holiday, some milestone, etc.) Should I buy some flowers? Well, it would be treating her like a woman, I wouldn't buy my buddy flowers. How about some chocolate? Nah, doesn't work either. Am I supposed to find something that is both feminine and non-feminine? Geez, this is hard."
Try books or cds. And actually, I would rather recieve a book that someone had put some thought into than something as impersonal and overdone as flowers or chocolate. Would you buy a woman flowers for her birthday if she is just a friend of yours and not someone you're dating? Maybe your male friend likes chocolate.
Some of us do....To a buddy I would say "What's up lazy ass?" or "How's going ladies?" to a group of guys I know. Here, it's alright and fun, b/c men "insult" each other on regular basis. Women however don't do that.Being valued is part of Objectivism philosophy.
@ miseleigh : Can you tell us if you feel that being valued as an object is a bad approach? Maybe, you are saying being ONLY an object is a bad thing? We need clarifications here.
I don't have a problem being valued. I DO have a problem if a guy appears to value me based solely on the fact that I'm female and for no other reason. If he values me for other (more legitimate) reasons, I greatly appreciate and enjoy it.
And yes, I am saying that being viewed/valued only as an object is a bad thing. It's like saying I'm not human.
I would hope so... otherwise, why would you be on this forum?I don't see how you can conclude from this that I don't respect women. I would never, ever want a woman I did not respect, or who was not capable of providing for herself.How come women have problem with being treated as women?I suppose one could say that in the old days such treatment had many negative sides to it, so that's why. But nowadays aren't those days, and women have the same rights as men do (except for some really psycho places like Middle East, but let's limit our discussion to civil countries, like USA, Europe, etc.). So negative treatment is out of the question. If so, then what's the problem?
Actually, women are still paid less than men are (in the same field and with the same qualifications, in the US). And I don't think that most of us have a problem with being treated as women- it's being treated solely as women that some of us find offensive. Say a female friend of yours bought you a hammer for your birthday without bothering to find out first if you were actually into carpentry, instead just assuming that because you're male, you like hitting things? (One of my favorite gifts that I've gotten was actually a small electric screwdriver, but I would be surprised if any man who opens doors for women just because they're women would have thought to get me something like that.)
I do not want a man to open a door for me just because I'm a woman. If he opens a door for me because we're dating, or because I'm carrying something, or because he's being polite and it's something he'd do for anyone, I have no issues with it.
I think what bothers me most is that the whole idea of chivalry is supposed to apply whether you know the woman or not. If you're chivalrous to a woman you've never met, you can only value her in one way- because she's female. You know nothing about her intelligence or wit, and nothing about her own moral code; yet somehow, you still value her more than you value a man you've never met. Do you have more legitimate reasons for valuing her?
The same holds true for opening doors, or spending an hour or two beautifying yourself before a date.I may sound a little presumptious here, but I really have trouble seeing something that takes so little effort as an ordeal...
Beautifying yourself takes more effort than you seem to think, but it's not an ordeal. I've never thought that anything you choose to do could be an 'ordeal'. Well, maybe if you chose to climb Mount Everest...
And boys aren't the only ones who like fighting
And can someone tell me how to put someone's name in their quote?
-
I have not tried to claim that men and women are the same. I said 'equal'. And, although I said I do not want to be treated differently, I did specify that to mean neither better nor worse- again, not necessarily exactly the same. Perhaps I should say 'I do not want to be treated with bias due solely to my gender'?
Attraction is not a choice; the way you act is.
Do you not value your fellow man at all? Do you respect a woman as a human who has her own choices and her own rights? Perhaps the fact that you're objectifying women is what we find so annoying. We're humans, not objects to be owned or conquered. I hope I misunderstood your meaning here.
Somehow we got waaayy off topic...
-
So under that same logic, if I avoid running over an animal in my car because I don't want to hurt/kill it for no real reason, I'm being irrational? (assuming there aren't people getting endangered if I swerve).
Key point in that statement: you don't want to hurt it. Fine, avoid the bunny. That's perfectly rational, if you'll be happier for it. As others have subsequently said, it would be irrational if you care more about damaging your car or gunking it up. Personally, I'll avoid hitting a bunny if I can do so without damage to any person's self or property. I think I would get more satisfaction out of managing to avoid it, especially since I have one for a pet...
Although I will eat them. Tasty bunnies.
And yes, I view that as perfectly moral. -
In case you missed the feminist movement entirely, the essential point of it was that women would like to be treated as equals. I have no problems with a man opening a door for me- as long as he isn't doing it just because I'm female. Chivalry (check the definition) is chauvinistic, no matter how you spin it. Try being polite (to everyone) instead of chivalrous (to females). Small difference, I know, but one can be offensive while the other never is. Although you may still get backlash from some women who can't tell the difference. If her goodwill matters to you, try apologizing and letting her know that you hold doors open for men, too. If it doesn't, why'd you bother holding the door open for her in the first place?
On the same note, I have no problems with a guy who values me enough to spend his money on me. All I ask is that he respects me enough to let me show that I value him in the same way. Would it bother you if your date wanted to buy you dinner? Would you let her do so?
I just don't want someone to treat me differently (note: not better, and not worse) just because of my gender. Is that so much to ask?
-
Speaking as a woman, I would just like to say that a man who holds a door open for me will get noticed as one who is particularly polite. However, a woman who holds a door open for me will also be noted as someone who is particularly polite, as will a man who holds a door open for another man. I myself have no problems with holding doors open for others, male or female. It's true that this convention used to be chivalrous, but since the feminist movement chivalry has become chauvinism, even if it's meant to be polite. The conventions, however, still hold- they just now apply to both sexes.
Many times, I find it's actually easier to hold a door open for someone than let it slam in their face, not to mention more gratifying for both myself and the person I've held it for.
As for the paying for your date thing- if you asked her out, she has every right to expect you to pay (though only on the first date), although if she is as polite as you are, or follows objectivism herself, she will at least offer to go dutch. By the same reasoning, if she asked you out, she should be expecting to pick up the tab. If paying for dinner bothers you and she doesn't offer to pay for herself, why are you dating this girl?
"I wouldnt want my girlfriend to pay for all my things. I would feel like a bum." konerko14, I agree. I will not allow the man I'm dating to pay for everything. If he insists on doing so (and some men do), the relationship won't last. But the offer is nice- I like to know that he values my company enough that he is willing to buy me dinner, even if I would rather pay my own way.
Oh, and JMeganSnow, if you don't want to make yourself look better, by all means don't bother. If I prettify myself before I go on a date, I do it because I want to look better than usual- not for him, but for me- it gives me confidence. An added bonus is that he'll (hopefully) appreciate the time I took and offer a compliment on how I look, but if he doesn't, it generally doesn't bother me, unless I took much more time than usual. I appreciate how I look, and that's what counts. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be plucking. If a guy doesn't want to date me because I didn't put enough eyeliner on, that's his choice. I wouldn't want to date someone who judges me solely on my makeup anyways.
As for other (seemingly arbitrary) social conventions, I agree that the benefits of following them generally outweigh the deficits. If your hair is presentable, why not take your hat off? If it isn't, it's just as easy to offer an apology. Something like "I hope you will excuse me if I leave my hat on" or "Would you mind if...?" Of course, this would only be necessary in the presence of a host who might be offended by your doing so (and sorry Drew1776, but there really aren't many left.) If the other person is polite, they will realize that you probably have a personal reason for leaving it on, and by asking you have shown that you are not intentionally disrespecting them. If your host is also polite, they will appreciate the fact that you've asked, and will not ask for further explanations because of the risk of making you uncomfortable. Of course, if they do mind, then you must decide which is worth more to you- their company or keeping them from seeing your hat hair. If your host insists you take your hat off and is subsequently offended by your hair, then I would suggest getting out of that house.
I apologize for making my first post here so long. Now that I've got a lot of what I wanted to say out of the way, hopefully sebsequent posts will be shorter
Manners
in Ethics
Posted
If he's doing things for people, then obviously it's what he wants to do....
He wants to do these things because he likes the gratitude he recieves. This shows that he likes the pleasure he gives these people, and likes the pleasure he gets by pleasing them. Thus, he will only stop when he no longer cares about giving the other person pleasure, or when it is obvious that they take no pleasure from it. Did that make sense, or is it muddled?