Manners

[DavidOdden]

Beauty is pain.

No pain, no gain.

[JMeganSnow]

Of course. It is not rational to object to the "tyrrany" of ettiquette, any more than it is rational for women to object to they "tyrrany" of a beauty regimen. No one is forcing you to obey the rules, they simply judge you according to whether you choose to act in accordance with them.

[LaszloWalrus]

Aside from manners and customs that do actual damage, I think a set of manners (no matter what they are) is generally good; acting in accordance with manners is a way of subtly conveying to someone that you respect him.

[Sherry]

Of course. It is not rational to object to the "tyrrany" of ettiquette, any more than it is rational for women to object to they "tyrrany" of a beauty regimen. No one is forcing you to obey the rules, they simply judge you according to whether you choose to act in accordance with them.

PHEW!

For a minute there I thought I was going to have to start plucking my eyebrows!

I find that people just need to figure out which of these rules they need to obey, like one of the early posts stated..."swim with the current" as long as they are not actually against your principles.

My husband and I were in the parking lot of Wal-Mart the other day, and this lady loaded up her car, and just stuck her cart next to her SUV, not bothering to put it in the cart area. Well, as she started backing up, the cart rolled a little, and she was about to hit it. My husband, always the gentlemen, stopped her, moved the cart out of the way, so that she wouldn't hit it. She said thanks and moved on.

Now, had she had the manners to put the cart where it belonged this wouldn't have occured. I am not professing 100% that I always put the cart in that cart section, but most of the time, and NEVER would I leave it where it would be in danger of rolling into another car. That really is bad manners to me.

[konerko14]

The real question is, are you unintentially insulting someone because of your ignorance of social convention?

No, because I know the manner code but I dont like to follow some of them- specifically with taking my hat off. I know the "rule" is to take my hat off at the table or when I enter someone's house. But I dont choose to not take it off to be impolite. I'm not going to obey some superficial "rule". People say it is polite just because it is- theres no reason for it.

If I did take off my hat to supposedly be respectful, most people would probably find some other meaningless, miniscule act that is disrespectful to them anyways. They would say(irritated)-"Why is your hair so out of place?" I would respond-"Because I took off my hat to respect you." They say-"Well put it back on, your hair is a mess. Thats so disrespectful." Then I conclude the conversation-"Bullshit." And as I'm walking out of their house, they are shaking their head at me when they see I have grabbed the doorknob with my left hand as opposed to my right. Under their breath they say- "So disrespectful."

What if taking your hat off had never been accepted as politeness in our society? People wouldnt think twice about it ever, because it doesnt matter. What if pulling your pants down when entering someone's home was the substitute for taking your hat off to be respectful? Its not an inconvenience, right? It takes two seconds. Thats why I hate taking my hat off in these situations, for these reasons. Maybe if you thought in practical terms, hypothetically speaking, where every time you took off your hat your hair would be a complete mess. You would feel uncomfertable and look like a fool all because of the stupid "rule".

My husband and I were in the parking lot of Wal-Mart the other day, and this lady loaded up her car, and just stuck her cart next to her SUV, not bothering to put it in the cart area. Well, as she started backing up, the cart rolled a little, and she was about to hit it. My husband, always the gentlemen, stopped her, moved the cart out of the way, so that she wouldn't hit it. She said thanks and moved on.

I like that manner. It makes sense. Its practical.

[Olex]

In other words, if you think it's "unfair" that you're expected to open a door, you're a jerk.

What if I have a valid reason to think it to be unfair?

Of course. It is not rational to object to the "tyrrany" of ettiquette, any more than it is rational for women to object to they "tyrrany" of a beauty regimen. No one is forcing you to obey the rules, they simply judge you according to whether you choose to act in accordance with them.

That is forcing. "You don't have to do it, but if you don't you will face negative consequences" is a force, not physical but social/mental.

Also, you mentioned that you feel that man should open the door b/c of the effort you have spent getting ready for the date. That does not make sense to me. I ask to comment on my following logic, which I see as being correct.

First of all, both parties do some preparation for the date, both physical and psychological. And you say that because a woman would usually spent more effort than a man, he should be paying here back the difference with manners? First of all, man didn't ask for you to spend that effort. It was your choice to make yourself prettier than usual. The only thing that a man would get out of that is you being prettier on the date. Does this mean he owes you something now? No, it would make sense, b/c if that was true, dating prettier women would require more effort spent into manners, while less prettier would require less effort to be spent. Now, this does not sound right at all. Second, what if the man spent more effort getting ready for the date? (Working out for couple months, etc.) Does this mean that the roles should now be reversed? Haha, I don't think manners say anything about that at all. Third, how about calcuting effort? What should be count as effort? Do money count as effort? According to objectivism, they sure do. Does this mean that we should take into account the difference of both parties spent on the date?

[DavidOdden]

No, because I know the manner code but I dont like to follow some of them- specifically with taking my hat off. I know the "rule" is to take my hat off at the table or when I enter someone's house. But I dont choose to not take it off to be impolite. I'm not going to obey some superficial "rule". People say it is polite just because it is- theres no reason for it.

Then it seems to me that you are indicating the position of these people in your hierarchy of values. If this is real and not a hypothetical illustration, I have to say it is a bit bizarre. For one thing, it just is not true that leaving your hat on inside a house is disrespectful now. Unless you're dealing with elders with calcified minds and/or immigrants who don't know current social standards, they are being silly and, frankly, a bit disrespectful to even pretend that there still exists such a social convention. Pretentiousness is disrespectful too, and disrespect is the epitome of rudeness.

[Groovenstein]

That is forcing. "You don't have to do it, but if you don't you will face negative consequences" is a force, not physical but social/mental.

You are forced to do something whenever it has negative consequences? Buying a stereo has negative consequences: it costs me money. Therefore, I'm forced to buy a stereo. Surely you must be getting at something else.

[Olex]

You are forced to do something whenever it has negative consequences? ... Surely you must be getting at something else.

Indeed, I need to describe in a more detail to show what I mean. If a consequence is negative because of the reality or some inanimate object (like falling off a cliff, and having Earth accelerate you against the ground), then that's one thing. What I was talking about, but didn't point out specifically, was a negative consequence that is a choice of another person. I was talking about in my post about a choice made without thinking but only on account of not following manners.

[hunterrose]

Why would a woman consider it an ordeal? Isn't it of great personal value to her to be found more attractive by the man she is interested in romantically?

I bet you'd consider it an ordeal if a girlfriend asked you to "help" her move into her new elevator-less fifth floor apartment! Or to fight on a girl's behalf or to go on a midnight run for something a particularly picky pregnant wife wanted, to use the mythos. For a woman, saying something gained from extra beautifying is a value doesn't automatically mean that one should enjoy waxing (ouch) and plucking (ouch.) If you haven't tried it, don't dismiss it, I'd suppose.

Approaching these romantic situations from an obligation perspective is just as wrong as approaching anything else out of obligation. You should do what you do because you think it's the right thing to do; because it's in accordance with your values. It's just another way of showing another person they matter to you, and you can't do that if you act out of tradition or duty or because you simply think that's how it works in the world.

But is acting on manners in order to get something necessarily acting out of obligation? Personally, I open doors for women because I expect courteous recognition of my chivalry I do it to get something, not because I consider it the right thing to do (below) or as an obligation. In fact, IMO getting something is the only reason to observe arbitrary manners.

Plus, saying one should do the romantic stuff because it's the right thing to do implies that one should do it regardless of its results? E.g. If a person should observe romance etiquette because they want to (instead of because they "have" to), this would mean that one should open doors or get dolled up even if they don't have to? Opening doors even if the female asks as if she doesn't even realize you are performing a courtesy, or significantly beautifying oneself even if a particular guy doesn't notice such things?

[Maarten]

I bet you'd consider it an ordeal if a girlfriend asked you to "help" her move into her new elevator-less fifth floor apartment! Or to fight on a girl's behalf or to go on a midnight run for something a particularly picky pregnant wife wanted, to use the mythos. For a woman, saying something gained from extra beautifying is a value doesn't automatically mean that one should enjoy waxing (ouch) and plucking (ouch.) If you haven't tried it, don't dismiss it, I'd suppose.

If improving your beauty is an "ordeal", then so is improving your knowledge. Just because it takes effort and may sometimes be less than enjoyable doesn't make the activity as a whole painful to go through. That's just absurd. Both are values to a person, and it makes no sense to look down on them just because they require some effort. I haven't ever seen something important that was free to obtain without any work, so why do people act as if this should be the case here?

Just for clarification, I don't consider learning to be painful, and neither do I think these activities should be. If they are, then I think you are approaching it wrongly.

But is acting on manners in order to get something necessarily acting out of obligation? Personally, I open doors for women because I expect courteous recognition of my chivalry I do it to get something, not because I consider it the right thing to do (below) or as an obligation. In fact, IMO getting something is the only reason to observe arbitrary manners.

Plus, saying one should do the romantic stuff because it's the right thing to do implies that one should do it regardless of its results? E.g. If a person should observe romance etiquette because they want to (instead of because they "have" to), this would mean that one should open doors or get dolled up even if they don't have to? Opening doors even if the female asks as if she doesn't even realize you are performing a courtesy, or significantly beautifying oneself even if a particular guy doesn't notice such things?

I think you're taking what I said slightly out of context. I was talking about situations where the person mattered to you; then it would be a value to perform those actions, and you should want to perform them because you recognize this.

And I don't see the dichotomy between wanting to get something and considering it the right thing to do, both are the same in this case. It's the right thing to do because you act to gain a value here (or protect one that you already possess by performing "maintenance", so to speak).

Edited June 11, 2006 by Maarten

[hunterrose]

If improving your beauty is an "ordeal", then so is improving your knowledge. Just because it takes effort and may sometimes be less than enjoyable doesn't make the activity as a whole painful to go through.

Hmm. Then what actions can properly be considered ordeals?

I think you're taking what I said slightly out of context. I was talking about situations where the person mattered to you; then it would be a value to perform those actions, and you should want to perform them because you recognize this.

If you have a significant other, should you desire to do all of those non-harmful social conventions the significant other likes?

If not, what type of non-harmful social conventions would it be permissable to not desire to do?

And I don't see the dichotomy between wanting to get something and considering it the right thing to do, both are the same in this case. It's the right thing to do because you act to gain a value here (or protect one that you already possess by performing "maintenance", so to speak).

Well and fine, so long as you don't equate considering some social conventions to be ordeals with acting out of obligation.

[Maarten]

Hmm. Then what actions can properly be considered ordeals?

An ordeal would be something like the total Howard Roark went through in TF, I think.

Dictionary says: A difficult or painful experience, especially one that severely tests character or endurance.

This is way, way too strong for something like spending time making yourself more attractive before dates. Besides, you're the one choosing the painful actions here, there are plenty of things one can do that make you more appealing that do not involve excruciating torture.

If you have a significant other, should you desire to do all of those non-harmful social conventions the significant other likes?

If not, what type of non-harmful social conventions would it be permissable to not desire to do?

Should you refrain from pursuing values in other cases where the benefit outweighs the cost? Of course it's a matter of weighing your time and effort so that greater values are not compromised, but in most cases here we are talking about actions that take up very little time for the added enjoyment they bring to you later.

Rather, why would you not want to do those things for your significant other? I don't see where the notion comes from that it's somehow wrong to gain values in this area. Especially when we're talking about the actions men tend to perform here, it doesn't save you much time at all if you did not perform them, so you can hardly justify it saying that the value doesn't outweigh the cost.

I think something similar holds true for female actions here, both within reason. Most things when pursued indiscriminately stop being values at some point, and that holds true for this also.

Well and fine, so long as you don't equate considering some social conventions to be ordeals with acting out of obligation.

But it is. If you perform actions you consider to be painful, and only do it because society demands you to, the how is that not acting out of obligation or duty? And I never once said that all social conventions are perfectly good; I am sure there are some worthless ones out there. Most however, do have a meaning and ignoring them does send a message, even if you'd rather not.

[hunterrose]

An ordeal would be something like the total Howard Roark went through in TF, I think.

Dictionary says: A difficult or painful experience, especially one that severely tests character or endurance.

**Why would even Roark or Francisco's efforts be ordeals? Didn't they thus obtain great personal values? No one forced Roark to work in a quarry, or Francisco to alienate himself from the love of his life. Can something be an ordeal if it's the right thing to do?**

If they are, then I think you are approaching it wrongly.

How so??

Should you refrain from pursuing values in other cases where the benefit outweighs the cost? Of course it's a matter of weighing your time and effort so that greater values are not compromised.

Rather, why would you not want to do those things for your significant other? I don't see where the notion comes from that it's somehow wrong to gain values in this area.

I'm not in the least saying it's wrong to do these things. I agree that one should do them if the reward is worth it, even if it's painful (No pain, no gain?)

I'm objecting to the ideas that effort should necessarily not be considered an ordeal if its reward is worth it, and that if it is considered painful, then it must be being done because society demands it.

[Maarten]

**Why would even Roark or Francisco's efforts be ordeals? Didn't they thus obtain great personal values? No one forced Roark to work in a quarry, or Francisco to alienate himself from the love of his life. Can something be an ordeal if it's the right thing to do?**

But there's a huge difference between the things they had to go through and what we are discussing here... And I gave the example of what would be an ordeal myself, so yes, I agree that those things can properly be considered ordeals. It just seems a little silly to say that spending an hour or two getting ready for a date is an ordeal, in the same way that I think it would be odd to say that getting up in the morning is an ordeal.

How so??

Because if you realize that certain actions have costs, but the end result is worth it, it makes no sense at all to me to complain about how tough it is. I don't think that's what you are doing here, but a lot of people do consider it that way I think.

The reason I say it's wrong is because I think you're not properly recognizing that actions have certain costs, and that nothing appreciated is ever gained for free. To say that it's not fair, or a painful experience, doesn't make sense if you see this. If there is no better alternative available to you, then what is the use in complaining about it?

I'm not in the least saying it's wrong to do these things. I agree that one should do them if the reward is worth it, even if it's painful (No pain, no gain?)

I'm objecting to the ideas that effort should necessarily not be considered an ordeal if its reward is worth it, and that if it is considered painful, then it must be being done because society demands it.

Do you think the pursuing of other values is also an ordeal, like when you are participating in recreational activities? I haven't ever seen someone use the term ordeal in this sense, and I do not see why it suddenly is appropriate here.

I think you're misusing the word here, as it is completely inappropriate for the type of actions we are discussing, and it simply devalues the concept it embodies.

But in general I choose to do something with full cognizance of the facts, which includes the effort it costs me and the difficulties I have to overcome, which are an integral part of pursuing values. I think it's wrong to focus on the negative aspects here, because they are not important in the face of what you stand to gain from them (I'm talking strictly about non-sacrificial actions, of course).

When you have accepted the costs, it doesn't make sense to me to later complain about it. You're the one who made the choice in the first place, and it's taking responsibility for your actions that is the issue here.

[Lathanar]

Bringing this back to the original reason for the post, how is it an ordeal to shake someone's hand to show you are greeting them or take off you're hat to show respect, say for the national anthem, or even holding a door open for a few more seconds so it doesn't slam in the person's face behind you?

[Drew1776]

I don't understand where all of the animosity is coming from towards social conventions. If you want to follow certain rules, than do. If you don't, don't but don't complain if people judge you for it. I like holding doors for people. It is a benevolent act and it makes me feel good to assist someone knowing that I haven't taken anything away from myself. Benevolence is a VALUE.

I will attempt to answer your complaints one by one.

1) Hat Removal - I think it is rude to wear hats inside (especially at the dinner table.) If I am communicating with someone I want to talk with them face to face. Hats obscure the face (to varying degrees depending upon the size of the hat). Hats can also be used to conceal poor grooming due to the laziness of some punk kid. My house my rules if you don't like 'em get out.

2) Holding doors specifically on a first date - I hold doors for dates because it is a benevolent thing to do. Holding the door indicates that I am willing to do something nice that costs me nothing. When out on a date a woman is evaluating you. If she knows that there are men in this world who would hold the door out of benevolence and you would not it is not irrational for her to judge you for it.

3) Paying for dates - I agree men should not always have to pay for women. When I dated I didn't have the money to treat one person to multiple dates so I didn't. We just wound up splitting stuff. If she judged me for it I accept her judgment, because another man might have paid, I don't whine about how "unfair" the system is. The fact that you don’t like being expected to pay for stuff means that you will be more wary of a woman who expects it. You judge her just like she judges you. There’s nothing objectively wrong with either of your judgments (but you’re the one whining about it.)

People have certain expectations of other people, things they look for. You have your own expectations. If someone somewhere could or would fulfill an expectation it is not irrational to hold it. Doing something nice for other people indicates commitment. If you don't want to do something then don't but don't whine about how unfair things are if a woman expects something and I deliver and you don't.

P.S Sorry DavidOdden I don’t fit into your group of people who don’t like hats indoors.

“Unless you're dealing with elders with calcified minds and/or immigrants who don't know current social standards”

[DavidOdden]

1) Hat Removal - I think it is rude to wear hats inside (especially at the dinner table.) If I am communicating with someone I want to talk with them face to face. Hats obscure the face (to varying degrees depending upon the size of the hat). Hats can also be used to conceal poor grooming due to the laziness of some punk kid. My house my rules if you don't like 'em get out.

As far as the latter point goes, that's certainly true and you could insist that your guests shave their heads or wear only white, or always leave their left hand hangling to the side like a sewn-on appendage. Whatever demands you want to make of guests, that's your property right. I have decided that I think that baring your head is rude, so I won't tolerate it in my house.

I've never met a hat that impeded communication; although I suppose if the hat were like this

it might be distracting enough to impede communication. If you find that you can't talk to people with hats on, like this guy

wouldn't you also find it rude for a person to wear a hat outdoors, at least if they were speaking to you?

I don't dispute that you have a right to set whatever rules you want, I just find some of these conventions rather arbitrary and, of course, quite mutable over time. It is simply wrong to conclude that wearing a hat indoors is automatically rude, just as you cannot automatically conclude that a person is rude for wearing a hat indoors: however, wearing a hat indoors after having learned that the host prefers you to take your hat off is rude.

[Lathanar]

1) Hat Removal - I think it is rude to wear hats inside (especially at the dinner table.) If I am communicating with someone I want to talk with them face to face. Hats obscure the face (to varying degrees depending upon the size of the hat). Hats can also be used to conceal poor grooming due to the laziness of some punk kid. My house my rules if you don't like 'em get out.

Do you know why it has become a sign of respect in our culture to remove your hat? The actual reason why it takes this form rather than as David suggested keeping your left arm at your side or wearing white? There is an actual reason, thought he original meaning has been diluted and lost, now it is merely seen as a sign of respect.

I'd be willing to wager most (as in 90% or better) of our social conventions and manners we have today had a root in some reasoning for why that particular action was used to convey that particular concept. To me they are no different than idioms in local dialects within a language. We shake hands, others bow, clasp wrists, kiss cheeks, do some complicated thing, it means the same just in different dialects or languages.

[JMeganSnow]

That is forcing. "You don't have to do it, but if you don't you will face negative consequences" is a force, not physical but social/mental.

Then ALL human interactions involve force. And who said that the consequences were necessarily negative?

[miseleigh]

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

[Maarten]

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.

(Bold mine)

What do you mean with this? Should we stop being chivalrous just because some feminists decided it offends them? Women who get offended by me acting like this are not women I want to interact with, anyway, so I wouldn't say it affects my actions negatively in any way. It's their loss...

When I choose to spend money on a woman it means I value her to that extent, so it should not bother her if she has any amount of self-esteem. It's not that I am trying to show how she cannot live without my help, as if she is worthless; I would never want a woman who couldn't take care of herself. But it still gives me great pleasure to buy things for her, as it's a very physical way of showing how much she matters to me, and because her pleasure gives me pleasure.

[Lathanar]

(Bold mine)

What do you mean with this? Should we stop being chivalrous just because some feminists decided it offends them? Women who get offended by me acting like this are not women I want to interact with, anyway, so I wouldn't say it affects my actions negatively in any way. It's their loss...

When I choose to spend money on a woman it means I value her to that extent, so it should not bother her if she has any amount of self-esteem. It's not that I am trying to show how she cannot live without my help, as if she is worthless; I would never want a woman who couldn't take care of herself. But it still gives me great pleasure to buy things for her, as it's a very physical way of showing how much she matters to me, and because her pleasure gives me pleasure.

I think the problem she's mentioning is that when you hold a door open for a stranger who is female, sometimes there is backlash now. Some women still like the chivalry, but it's starting to get such a stigma that it's hard to find it anymore.

[Maarten]

Yeah, but I don't think that is a valid reason to stop doing it. I think like selfishness, chivalry is another concept worth reclaiming from the barbarian hordes threatening our civilization

Sure, it would be easier to just not do it any more, but like morality it's not the easy way you should follow, it's the right one.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Maarten

[miseleigh]

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?