Manners

[Olex]

... '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 ...

Let's think about this one. Yes, on average men are considered biologically stronger then women. However, life choices turn this around and can swing in both directions. Can you provide some citings of research that was done, and their results? If a person really engages in physical activity over period of decades, then their strength will be far weaker than any person (regardless of sex) who does engage in physical activities.

Furthermore, once you get those results, you need to measure if the difference has an effect on ability to open a heavy door.

Unless you have all the above, you can't just claim that women have problems openning heavy doors. Not to mention that if a door is heavy men will have to apply extra force as well. The reason for the remark that you cited might be a choice of one person to show the effort (and present it as a 'weakness', which was a fashion of the old days for women to follow) and another person's choice to hide the effort it took to open that same door.

Furthermore, nowadays both men and women engage in physical acitivies from early childhood, so I doubt there is any significant difference between averages that are present between men and women today, and the individual differences swing both ways, therefore, you claim that a heavy door is a reason for openning doors for women in general.

P.S. However if someone is 3 feet tall, then you might consider openning a heavy door or a door that has a handle too high for the person to reach.

EDIT: fixed spelling

Edited June 16, 2006 by Olex

[miseleigh]

@Lathanar: When someone says a generalization that women need help from others, it insults me. Some people may need additional help at times, but I interpreted your statement as applying only to women because they are weaker. However, I could make that argument for many men as well. I am sure you know some skinny 115 lb males who can't move a sticky door. Did you mean that men should open the door for females (and only females) because they are weaker? I apologize for my earlier post if this is not what you intended.

I also apologize to everyone for seeing chauvinism where it's probably not intended. I see women being treated unequally far too often, due solely to gender, and it is a somewhat sore point with me. It will help if we can all be clear in our statements- I think 'woman' works for a rational human being who just happens to be female, whereas 'female' might be the better word for people with those physical characteristics that all women have. In other words, a 'woman' is a female with additional valued attributes such as exceptoinal looks or a mind.

Of course, it might be better to just leave gender out of it entirely, but it seems to keep coming back...

[Lathanar]

@Lathanar: When someone says a generalization that women need help from others, it insults me. Some people may need additional help at times, but I interpreted your statement as applying only to women because they are weaker. However, I could make that argument for many men as well. I am sure you know some skinny 115 lb males who can't move a sticky door. Did you mean that men should open the door for females (and only females) because they are weaker? I apologize for my earlier post if this is not what you intended.

I was merely trying to figure out the origins of holding doors open for women, as opposed to holding them open for men and women. This was the first plausible, rational reason that I have heard, it does not mean that I agree with the idealogy behind it or am trying to validate it. It is very chauvenistic attitude, which to me, made it even more likely to be true. Women back then were viewed as being weak and in need of protection. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Maarten]

Of course, it might be better to just leave gender out of it entirely, but it seems to keep coming back...

Except that some of us are trying to explain why it is an important factor in some situations. We can't just pretend like we're all exactly the same, because we're, well, not...

[LaszloWalrus]

Betsy Speicher was interviewed by Prodos and had good points on the subject of the male/female differences in manners.

http://solidvox.com/pw-betsyspeicher01.mp3

[Lateralus]

I'd like to offer my point of view of manners, reading this thread gave me an urge to tell my thoughts on the subject.

First off, I have never cared about (traditional) manners in my life. I always viewed it as fake, not respectful.

Opening doors: I push the door open and keep my hand on the door so that the other person behind me hold the door open for themselves, man or woman. When you guys talk about opening doors, do you mean standing at the door with the door open to let the other person walk through? That's just plain silly to me. I do only what is necessary. I show that I value women by letting them be independant. They don't need men holding doors open for them hoping they scored some brownie points. They see through the act. Men should show they value women by being sensitive. + somewhat related: I don't open the door for vehicles. I don't pull chairs. Why? Because if I were female, I would not want that being done to me. It is not romantic, it is simply uncomfortable and embarrassing.

When someone says men and women should be treated as equals, it means they think men should treat women like men and not "ladies". Some women like being the strong independant type, and dislike being treated like the frail-dependant-on-her-man-lady stereotype that these manners create an image of. To them being feminine is an insult.

Hats: I think this started because hats were associated with going outside and taking your hat off meant you're staying inside for a bit. I don't really see any justifications for taking hats off. First time I experienced this rule was when I went to a funeral with my cap. Never went in public with it before that so I wasn't aware of all the etiquettes associated with hats.

Paying: It doesn't have to be completely equal. What I mean by that means that it doesn't have to be kept track of and everything (I payed last week now it's your turn!) That will just cause problems. It just shouldn't be one sided. Keep it simple.

I don't expect everyone to do it my way, but I think my reasoning is justified and shouldn't be judged because I don't follow the old traditions. I thought I was reading a christian forum for a moment.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Lateralus

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I am very much the strong, independent type. The issue of holding the door, for me, depends on context. I very much like it when someone in whom I am romantically interested holds the door for me. At times, I have felt uncomfortable when someone in whom I am not interested, or I am not sure that I am yet interested (when I know that he is interested in me) holds the door. And I almost always like it when men I don't know hold the door for me. I also tend to hold the door for whoever is behind me, man or woman, and I often hold the door open for elderly people or people with children or large loads. Holding open a door for someone doesn't cost a lot of time or energy. It's a nice gesture and makes the world a better place. Why not do it? As for holding chairs and opening car doors, I have to say that whether a given individual likes this is highly dependent on the person. I do not have automatic locks on my car. Whenever I have someone else riding in my car, man or woman, I always unlock the door for them first and then walk around to the driver's side. We're talking about a few extra steps here that burn maybe a half a kilocalorie. What's the big deal?

As for the issue of women not being able to open doors, I am a pretty strong person for a woman. I can lift at least 50 pounds and do things like operate a large chainsaw. But the building in which I work has doors that are terribly difficult to open - two hands are usually required! - a real pain in the butt. I really appreciate when someone larger holds those door open behind them or allows me to walk through first.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[konerko14]

What about putting the toilet seat down if theres ladies in the place? Why should they get the convenience of the seat always being down for them? Even if theres 5 guys there and one girl, is it still rude to not put the seat back down? The odds of a male using the toilet in that situation are much greater than a female.

I think the person presently using the toilet can leave the seat however he/she wants after they are finished without it being considered rude, because theres really no way of knowing who is going to use the bathroom next anyways. The most common answer I hear is "to be polite." But if a female admires politeness, then she should put the seat up for men after shes done using it. It seems to be another tradition. I hate pointless traditions.

[Qwertz]

I put the lid down. The inside of a toilet, no matter how clean, is never terribly attractive. Or perhaps I'm just fussy.

-Q

[Ifat Glassman]

What about the following case:

Suppose I make a mistake and give some guy my phone number, and I find that the guy is annoying, and he keeps on calling me and asking me out. And suppose I have the option of blocking calls from his number. I would still choose the option of telling him that I don't want to talk, and "please don't call me again", even though the first option would take slightly less time.

Explanation: Consider how much more time the guy would have to waist on me if I had chosen the first option. I would never ever treat anyone like that, because even if I don't value him personally, I do not see it as a sufficient reason to cause him damage (such as causing him to waist his time). I still respect the fact that the guy is productive, and I respect it enough to devote two minutes of my time to explain my position to him.

So yes, my time is very important to me, which is why I wouldn't want anyone to cause me to waist it, which is why I don't cause other people to waist their time, even if it costs me a minute extra of my time. Because I act on principle.

I also presented my own decision of how to deal with this case, but I am interested in hearing what other Objectivists think about what is the proper way to act in this case: Would the extra minute be an altruistic sacrifice, or a proper, rational behavior? what are the rational reasons that you can give for spending that extra minute?

Is it even rational to value someone else's time and productivity if you don't value their personality and views?

Edited October 20, 2006 by ifatart

[DavidOdden]

Would the extra minute be an altruistic sacrifice, or a proper, rational behavior? what are the rational reasons that you can give for spending that extra minute?

Assuming that the person were merely annoying and is not evil or insane, my interest would be in whether my speaking to him about his behavior might cause him to understand that he is being a jerk and may change his behavior. I would prefer to live in a society where people behave politely and don't act like jerks, so if my actions can in part bring about the kind of society I prefer, I would be willing to act to gain such a value. Of course this is not a blank check, and it is predicated on the assumption that I'd spend an extra minute and not an extra week dealing with him.