Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Manners

Rate this topic


konerko14

Recommended Posts

Ah, but nobody's answered my longer post about hats! Will you take your hat off indoors in light of the reasoning I've given for doing so? @DavidOdden, are you still "offended by people who insist that hats should not be worn indoors, and consider the expression of such an opinion to be rude"? @Olex, you wondered "Why should I have to follow some made up rules that don't make sense, and the moment I don't follow that which is illogical to me be deemed as a social outcast and be thrown away?" Did my answer make sense?

* prodding for more debate... * :)

And no, I'm not being a devil's advocate. This is my very sincere position on why good manners should be a staple of the Objectivist in any society. I do hope I don't make myself unpopular by taking such a strong stance in favor of following social conventions... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Olex, you wondered "Why should I have to follow some made up rules that don't make sense, and the moment I don't follow that which is illogical to me be deemed as a social outcast and be thrown away?" Did my answer make sense?
Oh, yeah, it did. It made me recall similar things from animal kingdom, where dogs would raise their tails and drop them in the same manner as having and taking off hats for showing who's the boss. :)

If one uses manners to fit better and easier into society, and being part of society is a high value, then the reason is logical, and there aren't any problems with this. The point that troubles me is using those manners as the only resource to jugde someone. Other than that, I'm cool with manners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, manners shouldn't be the only way to judge someone, but it is usually one of the first things learned about a person. If a person interrupts me while I'm speaking the first time we meet, I will take an instant dislike to them. That impression may change with time as I get to know them better, but it would have been more in line with their own self-interest to have waited for me to finish speaking. Other rules of polite behavior apply for the same reasons. Your path through a society, no matter how much you disagree with it's basic principles, will probably be much easier if you learn and follow any (harmless) customs that society has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Long post, I got something to say)

Indeed, manners are the first things you can easily get from new people. Though I seem to get a lot of information by simply making eye contact, which tells me a great deal more than manners.

Interrupting others are manners, but they are the ones that really make sense, though this manner is rarely followed among people (irony?). When someone breaks a manner, I automically pay more attention to figure out what has happened and why the person has allowed himself/herself to do that. I don't know if others can do this, but I can gather a lot of things from facial expression and tone of voice, as well as changes in them as the person speaks, changes subjects, etc. First seconds of such study (I really do spend energy into this) I can deduce their general logic and approach to things they are talking about, and how much they allow themselves to do in this particular situation/subject of discussion.

In fact, I get so much information within first minute of simply listening and viewing the person, that I don't need to study manner at all. Because at this point, manners might give me only a very small fraction of new information. While intent study provides tons more information even if it happens during the same time frame as one would need to observe a behavior of some particular manner (2-3 seconds?).

This is the primary reason that I find manners unnecessary for figuring out people. Yes, they can be used to make a simple judgement, but the thing is that people do many things automatically, while their facial expression and tone of voices aren't automatic, and people just can't seem to control/hide them that well.

I've seen some news on slashdot over the past years talking about lie detectors that use eye movement and various changing attributes of facial skin. Think about it. There are 53 muscles on a human face, each capable of some minute changes, and our brains has been trained to detect those minute changes to figure out others emotions, moods, etc. Now compare that with a simple boolean action of executing a manner: complying with a manner/not complying. So, we have 2(<10 at most) combinations versus 53 times whatever options each muscle can provide that our brain can distinquish (10-20?). The difference is in order of 1 to 500 or higher.

So, if you were to use both and compare which one would give you more precision? The answer is obvious: face. The problem is that judging face takes more concentration and effort. Not many people are willing to do that. Many choose to simply ignore, thinking it would save them time(?).

I don't 'walk' that way. Manners are far too simple and play on people's ego. "Oh, he's nice, he held the door for me." No, that doesn't cut it for me, as someone holds the door for me (etc.) I can glance on the person's face and figure out if he/she did with some attention or just in stuppor of repeating the same motion one has learn a while ago, just b/c one was told to do that b/c it's a nice thing to do.

Yes, many people has learned that these and these are good and serve to show one's respect/etc. And feel good or unhappy based on these learned actions. But this kind of learning is on a level of animals: if a dog moves a tail this way, it's a sign of respect, if another way ... etc.

We are humans, shouldn't we use the tools animals don't have to figure out each others atiitude and moods with far greater precision and quality? (i.e. brain) Yes, manners could serve as some very basic check, but they are nothing with what one can get from intentive study of a person's face, eyes, some details in their movements, and the correlation between all of them.

Yes, it's true, many may understand this, but they decide to go along with manners anyway, since many people would judge or gain happiness based on manners. Ask yourself this: what is the ratio of values you place on manners versus the person's real attitude towards you?

Yes, manners were invented and still there to simplify our task of figuring out who's the boss, who's nice to you, who's mean, etc. I do no think those shortcuts are good enough. If I care about somebody in any positive way, then I am more than willing to spend some energy to figure out their attitude and mood, and no manner or ritual/learned behavior (how animals interact) will tell me that with a precision and quality I want.

Since I'm a programmer, I will put this into mathematical form:

0.0001*manner + 0.9999 * actual_attitude = my_view_of_someone

What values would you put there instead 0.0001 and (1-0.0001) ? (This is interesting for me)

Yes, one can assume that if a person is good/nice, that person would follow manners not to offend you. And this is where the problems lies, manners are mainly used, as offend/don't offend tools.

Go through this with me:

Assume GM is a good manner one would use to show respect.

1. Your first time executing GM: a person thinks you show respect. OK, so his/her current view of your respect for them is X1

2. Your second time executing GM: a person still think you have respect for them, right? But would gain this time be as great as X1? Probably not, it would probably be much less.

3, 4, 5, 6...

N. At some point, difference between Xn and X1 would stop growing, because that person has reached a certain peak of their respect for you based on your execution of GM.

Now, here is a nasty thing: the moment you don't execute GM, X will drop! (i.e. percieved respect that you show for the person) If you don't execute GM again, X will keep on dropping.

So, here we have a dialemma: at some point your effort into GM will not return any gain, it will be simply used to sustain X, while any failure to execute GM will drop X.

Does anyone thinks this is a bad situation? Think about it: if you do respect the person, shouldn't the person understand that without seeing you executing GoodManner over and over again? Wouldn't that be pointless usage of your time and effort? Wouldn't be better for that person to actually understand your attitude towards them? In this case, one wouldn't have to perform GM in a loop. A simply look and facial expression would be more than enough. And furthemore, if you do care, it will reflect on your face anyway, so why repeat that with your actions? B/c the other person is too lazy to look at your face? If so, then that person doesn't deserve it anyway.

(Have you ever seen a person tell you "How do you do?" without looking at you, and instead walk by, barely respoding with their back muscles to your anwer as you watch them walk away without even making an eye contact? I suppose eye contact can be made a manner if it's not already one, but then I recall all those empty looks that people have when saying "Hi", while their minds are in some other place altogether.)

So, my solution is to drop the manners and instead see and think of each other, instead of a very simple checks based on manners.

What do you all think of my logic above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not another setup fo yours then you are pushing way too far.

Setup? Pushing? I'm merely asking a question. The use of the term "scoring points" has been used several times and I'm asking what the points are being scored for, what goal is in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go through this with me:

Assume GM is a good manner one would use to show respect.

1. Your first time executing GM: a person thinks you show respect. OK, so his/her current view of your respect for them is X1

2. Your second time executing GM: a person still think you have respect for them, right? But would gain this time be as great as X1? Probably not, it would probably be much less.

3, 4, 5, 6...

N. At some point, difference between Xn and X1 would stop growing, because that person has reached a certain peak of their respect for you based on your execution of GM.

Now, here is a nasty thing: the moment you don't execute GM, X will drop! (i.e. percieved respect that you show for the person) If you don't execute GM again, X will keep on dropping.

So, here we have a dialemma: at some point your effort into GM will not return any gain, it will be simply used to sustain X, while any failure to execute GM will drop X.

Yeah, so X has diminishing returns. And it also is adversely effected if you don’t continue to put in diminishing returns. Bummer.

Actually there is something wrong with this equation. It is assumed that performing X is for the sake of others. If this is the case, then yes you are stuck in your situation and I feel bad for you. However, if performing X is for your own benefit, then there are no diminishing returns.

Ok so I just finished reading everything. I know this conversation is almost at an end but there are things that I wanted to comment on and since I have already written them, I will post them anyway. Enjoy. I think I wrote 8 word pages on these posts.

Manners: Behaviors and actions that are specific to a group of humans.

How do you know them? You need to learn them.

How do you learn them? Ask, watch, be taught.

Why use good manners? This is where it gets tricky.

Good Manners are used to show that you respect the rights of other individuals.

There are manners that are based on principles (praying before a meal … or not), and there are manners that are just what people in the particular group enjoy.

It is usually in someone’s best interest to follow these conventions whenever possible (social interaction, networking, to set a group at ease, to improve communication, to add value to your life). –– ASIDE: If you believe other humans don’t add value to your life, you can ignore all conventions. –– However, it is sometimes hard to determine what the appropriate mannerism is. And there are also times when in the same group, you would not want to follow the convention. Remember manners change based on the group/ time period/ etc…

When you say “why would you not” the answer is, because you feel uncomfortable or because it violates your principles. I think a better statement is, if a particular mannerism adds more value than harm, do it.

Some people expect you to know the proper manners to exhibit. This is total crap. In any situation, there may be reasons for going against convention or times when it is hard to determine which convention is proper. Since this post is getting long, I will address those in the next post.

My last post was getting a little long so I have continued it here:

“Some people expect you to know the proper manners to exhibit. This is total crap. In any situation, there may be reasons for going against convention or times when it is hard to determine which convention is proper. Since this post is getting long, I will address those in the next post.”

Conflict determining convention:

You walk into someone’s house. Do you take your shoes off or leave them on?

1) Take them off → you don’t want to dirty the rug.

2) Leave them on → the other person may think feet are gross and the will probably find you disgusting if you take them off.

What do you do? You have a 50/50 chance. Do what makes sense or ask. If others have their shoes off or if the rug is white, take your shoes off. If your feet stink, leave your shoes on. If the person really is picky about which to choose, it is their obligation to let you know. No one can read minds. If someone expects you to, they are being irrational.

Another example: Do you hold the door open for the person behind you?

1) Yes → its polite, nice, and you are showing the person that you are friendly.

2) No → You are “disrespecting” the person’s ability to open the door on their own.

What do you do? Hold it open anyway. If the person yells at you for being polite, apologize and then shut the door on them. They deserve it. ☺ I know it lacks tact. If they wanted to do it on their own, they should have said, “please shut the door, I want to open it on my own.”

When not to follow convention (that is not based on principles).

Do you take your hat off or not?

1) If you are wearing a hat and are embarrassed about hat head, leave your hat on. If someone is uncomfortable, it is up to them to say it. If they don’t it is their fault. It may make things tougher, but you did NOTHING wrong.

2) If your feet stink, leave your shoes on.

3) If your feet are in pain with your shoes on, take them off (and buy new shoes).

Back to door holding:

1) If you are in a rush and are running out the door.

2) If you didn’t see that someone was trying to come through. Perhaps next time you will see the person.

Another favorite:

The other day I was coming off an escalator at the airport. The woman in front of me fell just before we got to the bottom. I was directly behind her. If I stayed where I was, I would have smashed into her with my luggage and the people behind me would have hit her too. I jumped out of the way so I could put my bag down and go back to help her. The two people behind me were able to help her up before I got back there. They both gave me dirty looks afterward. They thought it was bad manners. I thought I was helping out by creating more space so that I (or someone else) could be of better assistance.

So what do you do here? They saw me as rude because I didn’t help. But I did help and was going to do more but they stepped in first. I just shrugged and said, I know I did what I thought was right. If they take issue with me, its their problem.

What are your thoughts on this?

Courtesy

I think this has a lot to do with rebelling against convention. If someone is not being courteous to you, why would you ever want to go out of your way for them. Why hold the door open? I would want to slam it.

If someone has a problem with one of your manners it is THEIR responsibility to let you know in a civilized way. If someone hates PDA (personal displays of affection – cuddling, kissing in public), it is their responsibility to say “I am uncomfortable when you guys do that in front of me, would you mind toning it down a bit?” What is your reaction? “Sorry, I didn’t realize it bothered you, I’ll try to show less affection when you are around.”

If someone is not willing to compromise at all, why would you want to? In the same situation, if someone yells, “stop doing that, its gross, you should know better.” What is your immediate reaction? “F*ck off.” Ok, so I have a very low tolerance for this time of behavior. It is always best to say, “I am sorry if it bothered you. I did not know that. Could you please tell me what is acceptable?” The effect is much more powerful. If they don’t come to their senses, and communicate rationally, then it is best to disassociate from them.

Perhaps someone else can think of a better way of addressing this type of person or how to deal with someone who is irrational. I currently choose not to associate with them further. Until they can apologize and show that they are sincere and are working to change.

When TO follow convention (Ok so this is just here because it’s a pet peeve of mine).

1) If your underarms stink. Put on deodorant or go to the bathroom and wash with soap. If the smell makes you sick, it is probably making other people in the room sick.

OK SO IT LOOKS LIKE ALL MY POSTS ARE GOING TO MESH INTO ONE UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE POSTS INBETWEEN...BUMMER THIS IS A LONG LONG POST.

On Men and Woman:

1) Who cares if it’s a man or woman. Its courteous to hold the door for either. Their sex means nothing.

2) Paying for things. Screw paying for the woman. She should pay for the man. Just kidding. In order for a relationship (of any sort) to be healthy it needs to be and EVEN trade. Anyone that expects to be paid for is a moocher. Anyone that things they should pay for someone else suffers from unearned guilt. I will pay for someone (ANYONE) because it gives me pleasure. If I can afford it, I will pay for a dinner, or will be giving. If I can’t afford it, I am doing an injustice to myself (it is not in my selfish interest) to pay for someone else. There is a quote (I forget by whom) that is something like: “Lending $1,000 to a friend is selfish, lending it when you have a starving child is not.” It all comes down to your values and weighing them against each other. If you get pleasure from paying for someone, do it.

No Pain, No gain?

Or to quote from the princess bride: “Life is pain, anyone that says otherwise is selling something.”

What a horrible statement. It implies that in order to gain something, you need first experience pain. In other words, you must subject yourself to pain in order to be worthy. What does this remind you of? Religion? Altruism? Both?

If you selfishly strive for something, the setbacks and stresses along the way are not seen as pains. They are seen as experiences to learn from.

I sense that some people will argue that even if you are doing something well, there is the possibility that pain will still be part of the process. First, this is the exception. Second, “The pain only goes so deep.” (I think its from Galt).

I know the quote doesn’t exactly fit. I felt like writing it anyways because it’s a good one to think about.

Beauty

If making yourself beautiful is an “ordeal” then why do you do it? Is it not selfish to want to look good and take pride in your body? I spent more time than a lot of woman choosing my clothing, etc… Does this mean I am vain or am wasting my time? No! It means I pride myself in my appearance. I like to look good because it makes me feel better. Not to mention it makes my girlfriend smile and THAT makes me much, much happier. ☺

Even if a man tells you to plaster yourself with powders and make yourself look fake, its up to you if you want to do it or not. If someone really wants you to do that, chances are that he doesn’t appreciate your appearance/ you. If you keep on doing it because he tells you to, you don’t appreciate yourself.

Think back to childhood. Even guys used to have fun playing dress-up. Many will refuse to accept reality but I am sure that almost everyone has at least once taking their mom’s lipstick (or a marker) and drawn on their face with it.

Again, if you think of beauty as an ordeal, then don’t beautify yourself. If you do it for others, its altruistic, and you will begin to resent beautiful people and any effort to make yourself look good.

Taking your Hat off

Konerko14 has a good point. I used his hat-head example earlier.

DavidOdden: I see something interesting in your post:

“Then it seems to me that you are indicating the position of these people in your hierarchy of values.”

Very true! If its someone you know, there is more of a chance you would take your hat off if you knew they found it disrepscetful. On the other hand, they would be much more comfortable with you leaving it on if they knew that you hated your hat head and enjoyed wearing your hat. After all, its only a piece of clothing. Or is it? ☺

“If this is real and not … hypothetical … it is a bit bizarre … not true that leaving your hat on is disrespectful now … unless dealing with elders … or immigrants … if so, they are being disrespectful.”

Manners are based on a “group,” in some groups the hat manner is gone, in others it still exists. Unless you already know the person or have an inkling as to what his/her preference is, you are in the same boat as normal. Also remember, they are dealing with YOU. They need to consider you knowledge of manners as well. If you find something respectful and they find it disrespectful, you need to come to a COMPROMISE. Its not A or B unless one person really doesn’t care. Note: A or B is not meant as A union B. That would mean A + B. A or B is meant more as A or B minus A and B. If you don’t get this math joke, don’t worry. Just smile and nod.

“Pretentiousness is disrespectful.”

Pretentious = unjustified value. I don’t see Konerko14 as being pretentious at all.

For Drew1776 (old fashioned)

My House. My Rules. Very true. However, this this inflexibility limits who will choose to associate with you at your house.

Woman evaluating men. Obviously. Remember, men evaluate women too. If she gets ticked at me for not holding a door, what else will she get ticked about. Probably the last date.

Judgment for not paying for a meal. Fine, if she expects me to pay for dinner, what else will she expect me to pay for. Is she a moocher? If so, she can get the hell out of my life.

My grandpa told me he was once on a date with a woman. She picked up the check and handed it to him so that he could pay. He paid and then canceled the remainder of their date. He drove her home and say good riddance. I like this story. If he had offered on his own, its one thing. To be told that “you are paying for me” is completely different.

For Lathanar (manners and language)

Manners = Idioms in local dialect. I like this analogy, except its wrong as it is not true 100% of the time. It works for which side of the plate the knife is on. It does not work for hats, for door holding, or for anything principled (standing for the national anthem).

For Miseleigh (chivalry and chauvinism)

I agree with Maarten. Chivalry still exists. It is only chauvinism in the minds of specific people – People I don’t necessarily care to associate with. It is still chivalry and I will still do it.

If someone really hates their hat head – they could always go to the bathroom and soak their hair. It Hat head may go away, but I hope you can find the comb and hair dryer. ☺

For Maarten (human differences)

Unless you look down in the shower when someone of the opposite sex is in there with you, how will you know that you differ. ☺

I think you missed Miseleigh’s point. We obviously differ physically. Some would even argue that the way men and woman access knowledge differs. Who cares! Men and woman are both rational beings. As a result, they should be treated that way. They are equal. Same moral rights, same moral chances. You could argue that being brought up rich vs poor (etc…) makes people not equal. That is for a different time. And before this argument…Look at Gail Wynand and Hank Rearden. And look at all the real-life people who have escaped from the slums. Also look at all the rich people who threw it all away (Stadler, Taggart, etc…)

For Miseleigh and Maarten and for everyone else out there. (moral equality)

EQUALITY! Unfortunately, with the way this word is used today, we must define it. I probably did not define it well earlier so I will do it here.

Humans are born with the same moral rights and the same tools for survival. (Crack babies and defects are the exceptions). It is society, your family, and your choices in life that dictate what happens next. You may not be equal under the law of one government. You may have grown up with a rich family. You are have the same “inalienable” rights. You are both morally equal.

I think (and hope) miseleigh was referring to this. Olex and Marteen, if you disagree with this, explain

For Olex (gifts for males vs females)

I do not want to be treated with bias do to my gender. This wonderful. She recognizes that a woman is a man’s MORAL equal.

I am sorry that you wouldn’t give flowers to your male friends. Why not? Perhaps its because the social convention is that guys don’t like flowers?

Obviously a majority of males would prefer something that isn’t a flower. However, this is a personal choice, not a general rule. If you have a hard time discerning what your friends would like, get to know them better.

John Stossel has a wonderful video about this. If you were to give a male a doll, and a girl a tonka truck, they would play with them. If you kept this up, they would think it odd that other males played with trucks and other girls played with dolls.

It gets back to social conditioning. We are all morally equal. What society tells you is something completely different. And it should be taken with a grain of salt until you choose it on your own.

For Olex and Miseleigh (Objects of affection)

Attraction comes from both the mind and the body. Arousal definitely comes much more from the body. A hot body also shows that the person has pride (in themselves and their appearance). I know this is not always the case. That is where the Mind comes in. if someone is proud of their body, its wonderful. Its selfish. If someone looks hot only because they are doing it for someone else, its sick. Its unhealthy. The Mind lets you take what you see and either inflate or deflate its value.

If I see a hot woman who is darn proud of how she looks and loves her body. I am going to want her more. If I see a hot woman who is constantly looking around to see what other people think of her body, I am going to think less of her and desire her less.

I think there is a difference between being an ‘object’ and being an ‘object of desire.’ The first one implies that there is no values involved. The second implies that values are involved. Perhaps they actually mean the same? Maybe this is where the confusion is coming from?

As an Aside:

This is an extremely tough issue for objectivists. Especially after reading the sex/rape/love scene in The Fountainhead.

Dominique valued Howard. She wanted him to take her. She also wanted to be a challenge to him and to bring him to his “lowest” desire. Of course she didn’t know that this was an expression of his values.

The same scene unfolds itself differently with Hank. He feels guilty of his desires and is ashamed of them. Once he recognizes that sex is a value. He stops going to Lillian because she does not represent any value to him. Instead he goes to Dominique – one of his highest values.

For Olex (treating men as men)

Men like to be treated like men.

Woman like to be treated as non-woman.

I think I understood this properly and I agree that you will here this often.

Why? The normal view of a woman is someone who is weak, cannot take care of herself, and must be protected. Yes. It is still this way.

A man is defined as someone who is confident, able to control his own life, and is a survivor.

Is it not obvious that the term “woman” is thought of as inferior to man?” I sure as hell would not want to be called a woman.

It is true that women are treated much better today. However, since there is obviously still conflict on this issue, it has not been fixed.

If a woman were defined as Dagny Taggard or Kay Ludlow, I think any rational woman would love to say. “I am a woman!”

Alas, a woman is still defined as more of a Catherine or a young Dominique.

For Hunterrose (chivalry and scoring points)

If a guys opens the door or pulls out the chair for a woman and not a man, what does it say? It says that he would prefer to go out of his way more for the woman than the man. That is his personal choice. I know that in many cases it is also convention. We all need to look at the reasons behind each action.

If you are only performing these conventions to score points (for show) then its wrong. If it comes from within and you are doing it because you want to do it, then its fine.

For Lanthar (picking on miseleigh)

Wonderful point. Many of the questions here don’t address the actual content of the statement. I am sure I am guilty of this myself.

For Miseleigh (people on this forum)

Note that not all the people on this form are objectivists or share the views of objectivism. Many may, but others could be here because they want to fight objectivism. And others could just be confused or mixed on what is right and wrong.

For Konerko14 (holding doors + attractiveness)

For me, if I am relaxed and the person is within 3 seconds of the door, I will probably hold it. If I am rushed, I may not hold the door at all (or just until the next person can grab it).

If the person is a woman, I will probably hold it longer. If she is hot, I will hold it even longer. Its selfish. I want to get a better look at her. And if she is super hot, I want to drool as she walks by.

For Miseleigh (sex and holding doors)

I love that. Sex=Sex and Eyes=Eyes. If he doesn’t know the difference than A=/=A. I know I paraphrased and its not exact, but I liked the comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ragnar, You've nailed all points. Everything's logical. Nice long post.

P.S. Just to make sure, you see that:

1. Most problems came from different definitions, such as 'strong woman' or 'weak woman' = 'woman'? I was talking about a strong one.

2. About flowers for men, yeah, there are exceptions there. (Like male gardener for example)

3. About doing something X for yourself, which would always give you back value, yes, it would work as well. (I've though of that but didn't include into my post.)

P.P.S. Nice math A+B joke/reference, I got it. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice short reply. Ahhhhhhh. Its nice to see separations in posts. :(

1. I know. It just goes to show how important definitions are and how important clarity is. I know I suffer from this too. Especially when its not written.

2. I like flowers - I like to see them on display and I like to see them in the hands of someone I really like. They express different things. Roses = love. Rose petals = hot sex. Orchids = pretty decorations. Other bouquets = sorry that XX died.

3. I am glad you see this.

************************************************************

out of curiousity what is with the "@" symbol before my name in your post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ragnar, I also agree with almost everything you've said. Sums it all up nicely. I'm a little confused about your stance on chivalry, tho.

1) Who cares if it’s a man or woman. Its courteous to hold the door for either. Their sex means nothing.
I agree with Maarten. Chivalry still exists. It is only chauvinism in the minds of specific people – People I don’t necessarily care to associate with. It is still chivalry and I will still do it.

So do you hold doors just for women or for both genders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hold doors for both genders. Look at my post on doors and attraction. If the thought occurs to me, I will hold it. I am more likely to hold it for a sexy woman because I get more enjoyment out of it. :(

On to Chivalry:

Google definition 1) courteous to woman. <--I disagree

Google definition 2) Chivalry refers to the medieval institution of knighthood . . . often associated with ideals of knightly virtues, honour and of courtly love.<--I agree

It is unisex. It is not towards either woman or men. It is towards both.

I like to be chivalrous (when it crosses my mind). I have been yelled at for holding the door open too much. But I like doing it. I have also been yelled at for not holding the door/ helping people. It all depends on who and what the situation is.

I try to make the things that people consider chivalrous part of my life, sometimes it doesn't occur to me to do them. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try using courteous instead of chivalrous- it's a much better word for the definition you want. Most of the country (at least as far as I can tell) use the first definition Google gave you. As for the second definition, what were those ideals? Wikipedia says "Towards noble ladies above all, the knight was to be gracious and gentle. " The version of the code of chivalry shown also includes rules like these: "Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions" and "Thou shalt defend the Church."

Another source (one of the first to pop up on Google) gives a modern code of chivalry, which includes the following:

"Courage: Being a knight often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value. At the same time, a knight should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief.

Franchise: Seek to emulate everything I have spoken of as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue."

Umm, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.... So...

based on that definition. I'll throw chivalry out the window. Thanks.

Geesh. Looking at all the definitions on google, each one talks about god, and others, etc...

Blech.

My definition of chivalry was an association with virtue (objective).

In otherwords:

Chivalry = the action by which someone obtains their values.

values = that which one acts to gain and keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I never disagreed with the equality you all are discussing now. However, Miseleigh was saying that you should treat men and women the same, period and that is what I disagreed with.

It seems we have resolved this now, though :(

Ragnar, @ means at literally, so it's a way of denoting who you are talking to :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you agree that an ordeal refers to more serious things than what we are discussing?
Personally? Sure.

[males opening doors for women qua women] You mean you honestly can't see why that would be annoying and possibly viewed as disrespectful?
If the man's motive was a disrespectful one, yes. But the real question is, if I knew it was a form of greeting or a nicety, wouldn't it be irrational for me to view it as annoying and/or disrespectful?

If he values me for other (more legitimate) reasons, I greatly appreciate and enjoy it.
If it's raining and being generous means me getting a little soaked, I'm more likely to let a female friend stand under my umbrella, even without romantic intents. My homeboy is all wet.

Suppose you were my friend and you really, really, really, really didn't want to get wet. Knowing it was illegitimate, would you accept my offer, or would you rather get intimate with nature and uphold your principles? Either way you'd be subject to some friendly ragging :lol:

And why is this differentiation illegitimate anyway?

And can someone tell me how to put someone's name in their quote?
The easiest way is to click the Quote button under a person's post (it subsequently changes color on my computer) and then click the adjacent Reply button. You should then see the post set up to be properly quoted.

What exactly are you scoring points for, a relationship or a one night stand?
*shrugs* Would either make a difference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think miseleigh is referring to merit and self-worth. She wants people to see her based on what she values. She may enjoy being a woman, but so are 5 billion other people (idk what the real number). The point is that its not something that identifies her as unique and different. If someone values "women" they really don't value her, only the fact that she is a woman. Her values are her brain, her accomplishments, her abilities, etc... She wants people to value her for these unique characteristics.

Its like when people ask about my heritage. What does it have to do with me? It only say somthing about my ancestors. I mean think about it.

Ooh you're polish? That must mean you are a probably dense and dumb. Ooh, you're german? That must mean you are proud and hate jews. Ooh you're russian? you must hate the fact that you are also german. Ooh you're also jewish? You must be one of those freaks that thinks the world owes him something and that you are destined to struggle in life. Oh yeah you must also hate youself since you are also german, polish, and russian.

I hope my absurdidty proved my point. My heritage has nothing to do with who I am. It may effect my outside appearance and some of my genetics. It does not say anything about who "Ragnar Danneskjold" is. It only talks about his ancestory..........Oh wait, I thought I was Norwegian.

does this mean that you would refuse to stand under an umbrella in the pouring rain if a man offered it to you because it was raining?

Who cares what his reason is (unless he is a sketchy person). Her value is staying dry - unless she likes getting wet. In this case, there is no principle to uphold. It is simply, I am wet, there is an umbrella and an offer to use it. I will use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.... So...

based on that definition. I'll throw chivalry out the window. Thanks.

Geesh. Looking at all the definitions on google, each one talks about god, and others, etc...

The origins of chivalry and a lot of the mannerisms we have right now in our culture stems from church teaching. The knights use to take off their helmets in a friendly home to show they respected the owner enough to entrust their safety. They took their helmets off in church to show humility before god.

I have been trying to find the origins of the door holding, it seems like such a common sense thing to hold a door open for another, but to do so for women in particular. Does anyone have a solid source for what started this? I have an idea of what started the whole frail women thing in the first place, but can not find anything to back it up.

Here's another one to consider, we keep talking about mannerisms that were created in the past and by and large are now seen as trivial, what about a modern one that our generation has created? WHO FINDS IT SILLY THAT ALL CAPS IN A CHAT OR FORUM IS CONSIDERED SHOUTING AND OFTEN RUDE? I mean seriously, it is kind of silly, but I've seen people banned or kicked out of online chat oriented groups because of this behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, there's a whole lot of online etiquette ('netiquette') that's definately new (obviously.) But that caps thing is just plain annoying. I always find it annoying whenever someone puts EVERYTHING IN CAPS and I'm much less likely to listen to what they have to say as a result. It's just like, calm down there tiger, we're not going anywhere. If you have something useful to say, we'll listen. Putting it all in caps just sounds like you're trying to force people to listen because you know there's no actual content.

Netiquette was probably created by the current 40 yr. age group, since they're really the ones who created the internet, although it's the younger crowd that uses it more I think. But I always find it funny when some adult starts complaining about how rude kids are these days, when online there's a whole set of guidelines that those very same kids follow.

But just the fact that those internet rules happened shows that there is probably a need for them. If more people understood that, guys wouldn't get nasty comments from women who assume that you're holding a door open for them just because they're female. (Though if that is why you're doing it, you deserve those comments... :lol:) (and I know, that topic's been beaten to death. Sorry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*greets newcomer Ragnar*

I hope my absurdidty proved my point.
Hmm... yes and no.

If "solely because they are female" has meant that a male was indifferent to all characteristics except for that of being female, then I'd wholeheartedly agree with it being odd, if not outright absurd. But I'm thinking it was meant more along the lines of a man values a woman qua woman, and other characteristics could increase/detriment his estimation of her. An important difference this is.

There are certainly 5 billion people of exceptional raw intelligence (largely genetic) in the world, and yet it legitimately says something about who I am.

Negative connotations of one's characteristics are annoying, agreed. But liking women qua women isn't negative, particularly if the woman herself values being female. As long as she does, why would it be absurd for others to do so?

I do agree with you that people should like to be appreciated more strongly for more important characteristics than inherent ones, but that doesn't say that inherent characteristics themselves aren't/shouldn't be valued.

Who cares what his reason is (unless he is a sketchy person). Her value is staying dry - unless she likes getting wet. In this case, there is no principle to uphold. It is simply, I am wet, there is an umbrella and an offer to use it. I will use it.
But the problem is IMO the same attitude should be taken toward doors. I mean, if a woman didn't mind a man's reasons for the umbrella so long as she was dry, wouldn't it be logically consistent to similarly not care about the guy's reasons for the door so long as she was on the other side of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... It's just like, calm down there tiger, we're not going anywhere...
Lol, this is a funny quote.

But just the fact that those internet rules happened shows that there is probably a need for them. If more people understood that, guys wouldn't get nasty comments from women who assume that you're holding a door open for them just because they're female. (Though if that is why you're doing it, you deserve those comments... :lol:) (and I know, that topic's been beaten to death. Sorry.)
Actually, in this case, manners of Internet are needed.

Now, I posted a long post about X and GM's above. However it does not work the same with Internet communications for the simple fact that video transmissions don't have the same quality of the real world, and often nothing is available other then the text message. So, it's not quite possible to figure out anything beyond content, context, and message manners.

In this case, manners have much higher value, more than high enough to be considered as a valuable tool in net communications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*greets newcomer Ragnar*Hmm... yes and no.

If "solely because they are female" has meant that a male was indifferent to all characteristics except for that of being female, then I'd wholeheartedly agree with it being odd, if not outright absurd. But I'm thinking it was meant more along the lines of a man values a woman qua woman, and other characteristics could increase/detriment his estimation of her. An important difference this is.

I meant that the primary characteristic he is focusing on is that she is female. The rest of the characteristics are secondary.

I find it interesting on this forum how some people automatically assume a romantic relationship between man and woman and others assume a platonic friendship. As a result, let me clarify.

In romantic relationships, the sex (geneder for the PC crowd :) ) of your parner matters. If you like men, then obviouslsy the fact someone is male is important. Likewise for woman.

With friends, his/her gender shouldn't be a determining factor in the friendship. However, if you enjoy the characteristics that woman on average represent, you will gravitated towards them.

Do you value a woman for the fact that she is a woman? Or for the values you associate with womanship (made up word???).

I define woman as a human being that genetically has 2 X chromosomes. This usually implies that she has breasts, and a vagina, and the ability to bear children. (I know sometimes its not the case).

I don't associate any other characteristics (femininity, delicate, etc...) with this term. Each one of those terms exists on its own and can be used for both men and women.

Does this make sense at all? I am getting lost in my own writing - and I think I ran the topic into the ground.

But the problem is IMO the same attitude should be taken toward doors. I mean, if a woman didn't mind a man's reasons for the umbrella so long as she was dry, wouldn't it be logically consistent to similarly not care about the guy's reasons for the door so long as she was on the other side of it?

Same attitute towards doors must be taken towards offering an umbrella? Not true.

Holding the door is showing respect to the general public. It is a manner. It is neutral as far as values are concerned. It has the potential to benefit you, but if you forgot to hold it, you wouldn't think twice.

Offering to share an umbrella with someone is extremely personal. There is much more personal value in an umbrealla and as a result, it is the umbrella owners choice as to who he decides to share it with.

In my mind this issue is public domain versus private domain. And there is a big difference.

Is this clear? Perhaps someone can explain both of these points better.

Oh yeah, there's a whole lot of online etiquette ('netiquette') that's definately new (obviously.) But that caps thing is just plain annoying. I always find it annoying whenever someone puts EVERYTHING IN CAPS and I'm much less likely to listen to what they have to say as a result. It's just like, calm down there tiger, we're not going anywhere. If you have something useful to say, we'll listen. Putting it all in caps just sounds like you're trying to force people to listen because you know there's no actual content.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. :P:P:P

I agree that they can be annoying. I also see some value in them. On many forums, there is no bold or italics, etc... As a result, I have a tendency to use caps to emphasize a point instead. I would prefer to use bold or italics, however it may not be available (or hard to add in --> try typing [ b ] and [ / b ] to bold something. It gets tedius.

So If you see me using bold....remind me that I have other options on this forum.

MUH HAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. CAPS ARE THE DEVIL. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I do not think anyone here was saying you should open doors for women solely because they are women. However, if they are of value to you then it is sensible to show this and a minor way in which someone can be of value to you (before you know other things about them it's more important, but it always remains a value) is if they are attractive. This is much more than just genetics, and I would think that just about any woman who cares for her appearance likes to be valued for that.

Could you imagine what it would be like if someone you were interested was actually completely indifferent to this, or if he would even like you less the nicer you looked? Wouldn't that be completely horrible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard my first good reasoning for holding the door open for women last night. I think I have the exact wording on this 'Are you kidding? Those doors were heavy!' Using that I did find a few tidbits here and there about the large ornate doors the nobility used being rather large and heavy and the not so fine often times stuck shut. Plus it was brought up they had those horrible corsets and dresses on that made it difficult to open the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Apparently we are still considered 'the weaker sex.' I find that fairly amusing, as I am actually stronger than a lot of guys I know (as in, have won wrestling matches with them), and a couple friends of mine could beat up most of them (one plays rugby and the other's on a crew team.) (And, no, we're not super burly beefy girls.)

The dresses might possibly be a legit point, but I think it's more likely that it stemmed from the fact that a 'lady' did not do work, and avoided any activities that would make her look like she had been doing so. Pale skin (ie: she stays indoors) was prized, and the more delicate she was, the better. As such, she would probably avoid reaching for doors if there was someone else to do it for her, because opening the door would be seen as a crude thing to do. Only peasants needed to open doors themselves, because they wouldn't have a servant around to do it for them.

So, go ahead and open doors for 'ladies' if you like, but I prefer to be a woman qua woman, and would much rather open the door myself than have someone open it for me because he thought the door would be too heavy for me.

Edited by miseleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dresses were legit --> they had to be lowered on to you from the ceiling. Think of the dress as if you were a dog with one of those sheep-collars on to prevent you from biting your leg or other parts (after surgery). It would have been nearly impossible for a woman to open the door. And if the door slipped --> Her dress would have snapped. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...