[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Title:Topics Pertaining to Men
Notice:Archived V1 - Current file is QUARK::MENNOTES
Moderator:QUARK::LIONEL
Created:Fri Nov 07 1986
Last Modified:Tue Jan 26 1993
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:867
Total number of notes:32923

590.0. "What's courteous .. what's "PC" ...?" by MORO::BEELER_JE (Iacta alea est) Sat May 04 1991 17:41

    Do you still (assuming you did in the past):

    ...open the door for a female ?
    ...let a female enter an elevator first?
    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?
    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
       someone older than yourself)?
    ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?
    ...stand up when a female enters the room?
    ...remove your hat when addressing a female?
    ...open the car door for a female?
    ...when ordering, let the female order first?
    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
       something of obvious heavy weight?
    ...light a female's cigarette?
    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
       a female?

    That's just a partial list, but, let's go with that as starters.

    Well, I do all of the above.  That's the way that I was raised and the
    backside of my fathers hand would be close at hand if I erred in any of
    the above ... however ... I'm getting bloody sick and tired of being
    told that some of the above are no longer acceptable, yet, you're to
    continue *some* of the above.  I simply can't decide what's politically
    correct, what's common courtesy, and, what's no longer acceptable.  I
    even had trouble trying to decide to use the word "female" or "lady"
    above!

    Someone please tell me what's right and what's wrong with the above -
    then I'll decide to continue some, all, or none ...

    Thanks,
    Bubba
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
590.1OXNARD::HAYNESCharles HaynesSat May 04 1991 18:0470
    ...open the door for a female ?
    ...let a female enter an elevator first?
    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?
    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
       someone older than yourself)?
    ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?
    ...stand up when a female enters the room?
    ...remove your hat when addressing a female?
    ...open the car door for a female?
    ...when ordering, let the female order first?
    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
       something of obvious heavy weight?
    ...light a female's cigarette?
    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
       a female?

Female what? Oh - you mean a woman.

Open door?	Only if she can't open it herself.
Enter elevator?	If she gets there first.
Exit elevator?	If she's in front of me.
Use "ma'am"?	If that's what she wants.
Get check?	No.
Stand up?	No.
Tip hat?	I don't wear hats.
Open car door?	Sometimes.
Order first?	No.
Carry weight?	I often offer to help.
Light cig?	No.
Stop cussing?	No.

How about for a man?

Open door?	Only if he can't open it himself.
Enter elevator?	If he gets there first.
Exit elevator?	If he's in front of me.
Use "sir"?	If that's what he wants.
Get check?	No.
Stand up?	No.
Tip hat?	I don't wear hats.
Open car door?	Sometimes.
Order first?	No.
Carry weight?	I often offer to help.
Light cig?	No.
Stop cussing?	No.

    I'm getting bloody sick and tired of being
    told that some of the above are no longer acceptable, yet, you're to
    continue *some* of the above.

Continue to do those that you would also do for a man.

    I
    even had trouble trying to decide to use the word "female" or "lady"
    above!

Try "woman."

    Someone please tell me what's right and what's wrong with the above -
    then I'll decide to continue some, all, or none ...

Any questions?

    I'm *particularly* interested in the female_lady_wimmin perspective.

That's sexist. :-)

	You're welcome.
	-- Charles (a strident feminist)

590.2COMET::DYBENSat May 04 1991 19:1625
    
    
     Yes to everything but the following.
    
    1. Always let her order first..
    
     I usually find  out what she wants and order for her..(I know
    sexist:-) )
    
    2.) Always stand up when a lady enters the room..
    
      Was never raised to do so and quite frankly I think I would feel
    a little ackward..
    
    3.)say ma'm"
     
      Sure fire way to make  some wimmin angry..They automatically
    conclude you think they are old ...
    
     4.) Always pick up the check..
    
      If I asked them out you bet..If they asked me out I would offer
    to leave the tip..
    
    David
590.3Fair?MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estSat May 04 1991 20:3120
.2>     I usually find  out what she wants and order for her..(I know
.2>    sexist:-) )

    Sexist or not ... that's what I always do.

    Two weeks ago at a dinner date ... when I said "what will you be having",
    she politely replied with "...thank you, I'm old enough to order for
    myself".  After dinner we went back to the car and she *literally*
    stood there waiting for me to open the car door... snarl on her face.  I
    asked her if she was old enough to open the door or did she want me to
    do it ... not a happy evening ... 

    What *did* I do with my little_black_book eraser ... ?

    RE: Charles

    As I said in the 'BOX ... I don't do those things for males.  As Mr.
    Dyben said, I wasn't raised that way.  I was raised to respect and
    show extra courtsey to females ... I do and will continue to do so
    until such time that I'm told to stop.
590.4OXNARD::HAYNESCharles HaynesSat May 04 1991 21:4218
    As I said in the 'BOX ... I don't do those things for males.  As Mr.
    Dyben said, I wasn't raised that way.  I was raised to respect and
    show extra courtsey to females ... I do and will continue to do so
    until such time that I'm told to stop.

In that case why post fake questionnaires if you already know the answers? I
can't tell if what you're really asking is "Why can't we go back to the
good old days?" "Why are people so bloody inconsistent?" or "What are the
rules *you* use?"

I answered the last one. If you were asking some other question, sorry, would
you re-phrase it?

My rule is, as long as it's no skin off my back, I'll treat you the way you
want to be treated. Of course finding out how someone wants to be treated can
require more effort than automatically opening doors for them...

	-- Charles
590.5North versus South?MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estSat May 04 1991 22:1625
>In that case why post fake questionnaires if you already know the answers?

Perhaps you missed the phrase  "until such time that I'm told to stop."  No,
I don't know the answers.

>I can't tell if what you're really asking is "Why can't we go back to the
>good old days?" "Why are people so bloody inconsistent?" or "What are the
>rules *you* use?"

Sorry for the confusion.  Let me clarify my question(s).  They are "all of
the above".

>My rule is, as long as it's no skin off my back, I'll treat you the way you
>want to be treated.

Ever heard the phrase "product of my environment"?  For better or for worse,
that is precisely the applicable phrase.  I was born and raised in the deep
South and as such have been accustomed to doing those things for the female
of the species which are considered "right" and "proper".  For the most part,
in the South, you *still* do these things.

Hummmm....maybe it's just a cultural difference.  The Northerners have their
ways and the Southerners have their ways. 

Bubba
590.6COMET::DYBENSat May 04 1991 23:1221
    
    Haynes,
    
    > of course finding out how someone wants to be treated
    
     Well short of having my date filling out a quetionaire, I think
    I would rather find out what they want by opening the door for them
    then not.
    
    > My rule is, as long as it's no skin off my back,I'l treat you the
    > way you want to be treated..
    
     I believe Mr Beeler and I would generally agree with this, with
    the exception being that our default nature(manners, upraising,etc)
    would be to be courteous and open the door until otherwise advised..
    
    Sincerely,
    
     A Southern Gentleman ( I lived in Florida for 3 months does that count
                            Bubba???)
    
590.7I should have done this a few times!MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estSun May 05 1991 00:139
.6> ... short of having my date filling out a questionnaire.
    
    Maybe that's what it's coming down to .... 
    
    	"Greetings.  You are being considered for a date.
    	To insure an evening of valued differences, please
    	complete the following questionnaire prior to the
    	morning of the aforementioned date ...." 
    			etc.....
590.8HPSTEK::XIAIn my beginning is my end.Sun May 05 1991 00:2611
    Jerry, what's all this hocus pocus political, philosophical
    discourse on ordering food and opening doors?  The bottom line is you
    had a bad date and that's all.  It ain't the end of the western
    civilization you know.   I think you are taking this southern mannerism
    a tad too seriously.  Ok, so she was rude and inconsistant, but that
    does not mean you had to be rude in return.
    
    I have a few principles that I live by.  One of them is, I don't have 
    to hate someone just because that someone hates me.
    
    Eugene
590.9What's "respect" and what's "Pavlov response"?STAR::BECKPaul BeckSun May 05 1991 02:395
>>        ...light a female's cigarette?

    If you were brought up to respect women so much, why would you
    answer this one "yes"? I'd think you'd be out to protect her
    health, rather than helping kill her...
590.10COMET::DYBENSun May 05 1991 14:199
    
    > I'd think you'd be out to protect her health
    
     Sexist, Sexist!!!!! Don't you think she can decide for herself what
    is right or wrong? Have we not moved an inch forward with
    all the movements in this country ? :-)
    
    
    David
590.11Not(!) "hocus pocus" !!MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estSun May 05 1991 14:277
    .8> ...hocus pocus political, philosophical discourse ...
    
    Sir, it is something that I was taught to do all my life!  It is not
    some abstract theory.  To *me* is is very real.  To *me* it is impolite
    to *not* open the door for a member of the opposite sex.
    
    Jerry
590.12HPSTEK::XIAIn my beginning is my end.Sun May 05 1991 15:2726
    Uh Jerry, all I am saying is that you should look at the incident for what
    it is, an isolated incident.  So you had a bad date with someone rude. 
    The question is then what does the "southern manner" which you were
    "taught for all your life" say as to how to deal with it?  You could
    take it gracefully as a "southern gentleman" and take the slap if you
    really value southern courtesy, or you could strike back.  I think the
    better choice was to take it like a man.  But I am not denying that
    ya date was rude.  I am just holding a higher standard for someone who
    claims he had been taught southern manner for all his life.
    
    It seems you fought back with the car door fuss.  It was quite
    understandable if you ask me.  What I am puzzled about is why you are
    so adament about it and allow this incident to question the very
    fundation of who you are.  I hear loud proclaimations that you will always
    follow the southern manner you were taught, but the very fact that you
    let this little incident influence you THAT much as to question your
    entire "southern philosophy on manner" says a lot.
    
    If I am allowed to venture a guess, I would say that your heart is 
    inditing.  You really like this "lady" or "woman", don't ya?  But 
    couldn't accept this little whim of her over food ordering and car door.  
    As our depressed prince would have said in this instance:  
    Ah there is the rub.
    
    Eugene
                                     
590.13WORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeSun May 05 1991 22:3595
>    Do you still (assuming you did in the past):

>    ...open the door for a female ?

I always hold the door open for the next person, by standing in the 
doorway and extending my arm backward until the next person grabs the 
handle.  I do not stand at the edge of the door to hold it open for 
anyone, unless they are incapacitated and want the help.

[Hey, Jerry, what's wrong with using the word "woman"?]

>    ...let a female enter an elevator first?

No.

>    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?

No.

>    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
>       someone older than yourself)?

No.  

>    ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?

No.  (Actually, I always assume "Dutch" unless otherwise stated.  
Also, I don't date women, so I'm not in that situation at all.)

>    ...stand up when a female enters the room?

No, but I do stand whenever someone introduces me to someone or when 
someone new joins a group that I am in.

>    ...remove your hat when addressing a female?

I don't wear hats, but I wouldn't remove it if I did, I think.

>    ...open the car door for a female?

No, but I often unlock the other door before I get in the car, when I am 
driving someone anyplace.

>    ...when ordering, let the female order first?

No.  Though I often fudge this one by asking, "Would you like to 
order?"  If she says that she isn't ready, I order.

>    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
>       something of obvious heavy weight?

If the burden is very obvious (things dropping to the ground, 
staggering), I will offer to carry something.

>    ...light a female's cigarette?

I don't carry a lighter.  If I did, I would not automatically offer a 
light to a woman.  If I was hitting on some guy, I might be tempted to 
(it sounds very sexy).

>    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
>       a female?

Yes and no.  I try to determine if men or women in my company would be 
offended by using off-color language, which I do use.  I do this by 
listening to them, first.  I do admit that I am more cautious around 
women.  I also admit that I could be better all-around in not using 
foul language.

===================================================================

I'll avoid the "PC" references, because that seems like such an 
obvious attempt to drag politics into this discussion.

Why don't you just do what works, Jerry?

I do the above, and I am not getting feedback from people that I am a 
particularly rude person.  (It is also not a goal of mine to win 
constant feedback that I am the nicest "gentleman" around, either.)
What I do really works for me, and I have never gotten verbally 
smacked for being "sexist," yet I have still managed to open doors for 
women, help them with a heavy load, and treat them with what I 
consider respect.  (The key for me is to treat men and women with 
equal respect.)

I also live around Boston.  I imagine that, if I lived in other parts 
of the country, my behavior would be considered rude, and I'd get 
flack from it.  I would then have to make a decision as to whether I 
was bothered enough by the flack to change my ways.  Who knows?

If your methods work for you Jerry, keep using them.


							--Gerry
590.14Common courtesy will prevail ... MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estSun May 05 1991 23:2424
.12> It seems you fought back with the car door fuss.

    No, I really didn't "fight" with the car door fuss.  After the incident
    in the restaurant, I honestly didn't know if she would be offended if I
    opened the car door for her.  I swear, I didn't know what to do!  Turns
    our, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

.12> It was quite understandable if you ask me.

    Thank you.

.12> What I am puzzled about is why you are so adament about it and
.12> allow this incident to question the very fundation of who you are.

    You're absolutely right, and, this goes along with what Mr. Fisher
    said.  I've actually allowed this incident, with one female (lady?
    woman?), to cause me to question my heritage and what *I* consider to
    be just plain common courtesy... yes ... indeed ... I see what you're
    saying.

    If she's offended because I open the car door for her ... I think that
    basically, that's *her* problem .. not mine.  Right?  Wrong?

    Jerry
590.15my Dad raised me to be a Gentleman - and I tryCVG::THOMPSONSemper GumbyMon May 06 1991 00:2916
    Most of your list in .0 yes I do. Or I try to. Two exceptions:

>    ...light a female's cigarette?
    Smoking is bad for people so I only light cigarettes for people I
    don't like. And I generally like women.

>    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
>       a female?

    I do not use foul/off-color language so this does not apply. 

    I haven't read the other replies yet but I assume there are some
    from a number of people who test PC positive. They're entitled to
    their own opinion and I to mine. 

    			Alfred
590.16HPSTEK::XIAIn my beginning is my end.Mon May 06 1991 00:418
    re .15,
    
    It depends.  It becomes your problem if you really like her; otherwise,
    it is all academic.
    
    By the way, who picked up the tab?  Just being nosy here.
    
    Eugene
590.17Oh no!MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estMon May 06 1991 00:586
    OH MY GOD!
    
    Alfred Thompson and I went out for dinner once ... if I remember
    correctly, he lit my cigarette!!!!  :-(
    
    
590.18Go ahead and ask (and split the check :)PENUTS::HNELSONResolved: 184# now, 175# JulyMon May 06 1991 11:3433
    Most of these courtesies seem so trivial to me, that if I encountered a
    woman who insisted on them, then I probaby wouldn't encounter her a
    second time. Snarling should be reserved for important (rare!)
    occasions. I'd say it's her problem, Bubba.
    
    A lot of my reaction to your list springs from my desire to find a
    partner, not a dependent. No provider-role bind for me, thank you. It
    seems slightly obvious that someone who prefers her date to deliver her
    selections to the waiter, is going to be overly-content with a
    dependent role. Similarly holding doors, lighting cigarettes (yuck),
    etc.
    
    Picking up the check is the most explicit example. On a first date, I
    would usually handle this by saying "I'll get the check this time, you
    can buy next time, when we go somewhere really expensive!" My wife and
    I still take turns buying dinner, after seven years of marriage. The
    buyer gets to pick the venue, and we have separate incomes and separate
    savings, so if she decides to spring for Legal Seafoods ($$$$) then
    it's a genuine act of generosity. I keep track of who bought last in my
    day-timer.
    
    I think the questionnaire idea shouldn't be entirely dismissed. It's a
    pretty good topic of conversation, on a first or second date: "I like
    to be a courteous guy, but the women's movement has made that
    difficult, because some women find some quote-unquote courtesies
    insulting. How do YOU feel about guys opening doors for you, ordering
    for you at restaurants, etc.?" If nothing else, you given her an
    opportunity to state her preferences, so she has some responsibility
    when you've failed to read her mind and she's snarling waiting for you
    to open the car door. (I *hate* that kind of crap.) I think it's also
    pretty revealing about values, expectations, self-concept, and so on.
    
    - Hoyt
590.19WMOIS::REINKE_Bbread and rosesMon May 06 1991 12:496
    inre Gerry Fisher ..... often a man lighting a woman's cigarette
    for her is considered a way of 'hitting on her'.... in college,
    the understanding was that if you looked up at your date and
    blew out the match, that meant you'd sleep with him...
    
    Bonnie
590.20salespeople are different from regular people :-)CVG::THOMPSONSemper GumbyMon May 06 1991 12:598
    RE: .16 and .17 Jerry picked up the tab. I always let the salesman
    pick up the tab. In fact, I even expect the salesman to pick up the
    tab if they are a woman. But that's business.

    As for lighting Jerry's cigarette, could have happened but I didn't
    really know him then. Now I might just buy him a lighter. :-)

    		Alfred
590.21Okay, I'm telling ya...KVETCH::paradisMusic, Sex, and CookiesMon May 06 1991 13:1032
>    As I said in the 'BOX ... I don't do those things for males.  As Mr.
>    Dyben said, I wasn't raised that way.  I was raised to respect and
>    show extra courtsey to females ... I do and will continue to do so
>    until such time that I'm told to stop.

Okay, Jerry:   STOP!!

Or, to put it more accurately:  we (as a society) have learned a thing or
two since your pa was whuppin' your backside... namely:

	(1) Women aren't fragile flowers that need more special
	    handling than anyone else, and
	(2) Respect and courtesy are nice things to give to EVERYONE,
	    regardless of their sexual plumbing.

Your pa was just making things harder for everybody... he thought that there
were two different sets of rules, and you had to learn carefully when one
or the other applied.  I was taught a similar set of rules when I was a kid
(although failure to comply in my case merieted a "mere" tongue-lashing;
my parents reserved whupping for more severe offenses).  Then when I got out
from under the parental thumb and started thinking for myself, I discovered --
surprise, surprise -- that things get a LOT simpler if you can figure out
ONE set of rules that you can simply apply to EVERYONE.  And I discovered
that it wasn't that hard... simply take all the "simple courtesy" rules you
were taught, remove the ones that are patronizing, and apply the rest to
everyone.

Tellya what, Jerry... would it help if you saw the backside of MY hand
everytime you were patronizing to a woman or failed to show sufficient
courtesy to a man? 8-) 8-) 8-)

--jim
590.22LEZAH::BOBBITTLift me up and turn me over...Mon May 06 1991 13:2213
    I treat women with as much respect as I treat men.  If I'm driving, I
    open their door first.  If we're dining, unless one of us specifically
    offered to pay beforehand, I ask if we're going dutch.  I often offer
    to help both men and women carry heavy parcels.  I hold doors open if I
    get there first.  I often ask what floor they're getting off at if I'm
    on the elevator and press the buttons for them if I'm nearest the
    panel.  Both often have the option of accepting or rejecting a hug at
    greeting and parting.  
    
    Why should I treat either gender differently?  
    Each are equally respectable until proven otherwise.
    
    -Jody
590.23this is one area where equality should reignCOOKIE::CHENMadeline S. Chen, D&SG MarketingMon May 06 1991 14:1420
    I'll have to admit I don't understand why your courtesy list need apply
    to females only - I was taught to be polite to everyone.  I also found
    it extremely uncomfortable to wait for my partner to open a door, hold 
    my chair, etc...  I guess I was always too much in a hurry, and this
    sort of waiting around was very inefficient.
    
    I am at ease when each person is courteous to the other - holding open 
    a door, using polite language, etc... is just sort of nice, no matter 
    who/what sex is doing it.  And if anyone offers such [rare, today]
    courtesies to me - I try always to say "thank you", even if I refuse
    the offer of assistance (as in offer to carry packages, or give me a
    seat on a bus or whatever).
    
    BTW - I began thinking of myself as "getting along in years" when men
    in elevators stopped calling me "honey", and started using "m'am".  I
    believe the honorific of 'sir' or whatever should be used when you want
    to show respect to anyone of either gender, and respect is almost
    always applied to someone older.
    
    -m
590.24OK .. help me with this one....MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estMon May 06 1991 14:2925
.21> 	(2) Respect and courtesy are nice things to give to EVERYONE,
.21> 	    regardless of their sexual plumbing.
            -----------
.21> ...simply take all the "simple courtesy" rules you were taught,
.21> remove the ones that are patronizing, and apply the rest to everyone.
                                                                 --------
.23> ...why your courtesy list need apply to females only.
    
OK, in all seriousness ... When at a restaurant I have always allowed
my female guest to be seated first, and, pull the chair from the table
to seat her.  I won't deny that I'd feel like a damned fool doing this
for a male guest.  Are you saying that if I do this for a female guest,
I should do it for a male guest?

.21> Your pa was just making things harder for everybody... he thought
.21> that there were two different sets of rules, and you had to learn
.21> carefully when one or the other applied.

I don't fault him.  He came from a different environment at a different
time.  In his time even DISCUSSION (the likes of which we are having now)
of these "courtesies" would be abhorrent to him .. and to most people of
his generation (he just passed away at age 76).

Jerry

590.25VAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERMon May 06 1991 14:53112
>    inre Gerry Fisher ..... often a man lighting a woman's cigarette
>    for her is considered a way of 'hitting on her'.... in college,
>    the understanding was that if you looked up at your date and
>    blew out the match, that meant you'd sleep with him...
>    
>    Bonnie

This topic, and Bonnie's reply, replays all my old memories, and 
they typically come from college age, when I KNEW that I was
socially inept.  I probably never lit a woman's cigarette for her,
let alone did I know what her response might have meant...
Inept, get it?  Inept.

Well, the feeling of "not knowing what I'm 'sposed to do" prevailed
for many years.  My wife came from a well-to-do family, that had
summered on an island on the Maine coast for decades, and I always
felt totally inept on my vacations there, with stockbroker-lawyer-
businessmen types and their wives; cocktail parties before dinner,
etc.  I could barely tolerate that scene, and a lot of it came from
feeling inept.  (Some of it came from having different values about
what mattered, but they were very gracious and "tolerant" of one 
maverick in their midst.  That tolerance only heightened my feelings
of inadequacy, of course.)

I think my problem was that I believed there was some "right and wrong"
way to be a man in the presence of women.  Kind of like the Ten (Thousand)
Commandments handed down to Emily Post, or Amy Vanderbilt, or Miss Manners
(or is it Ms Manners?) on the mountain.  And because I did not know and
obey these commandments, I was in a state of sin.  (Get the undertones,
here?)

Then, just when I thought maybe I was getting to feel almost adequate
about the whole business, along comes "the women's movement" and I was
told that most of what I had finally learned to do was "sexist and 
demeaning."  OK, so it was.  But the effect was to throw me back into 
"not knowing what to do."

   For example, is this woman, for whom I am opening the door,

       a) angry at me for belittling her, or 
       b) admiring me for my gentlemanly skill, or 
       c) oblivious to me, my action, and my confusion 
          about what I am doing?

My answer was to stop asking that question.  Asking myself that
question is the problem:  the problem is that I am depending on 
the woman to supply me with my sense of self-respect.  My sense
of self-respect and the rightness or wrongness of my actions has
to come from me, not from the woman.  (Same for her, by the way.)

So, I'm not sure how I would answer your initial set of questions,
but it is pretty independent of the woman's judgment of my actions.
I certainly would not spend additional time with a woman who reacted
strongly (pro or con) about some aspect of my behavior.

I wouldn't mind discussing it, and I would be sensitive to her
views, and I might modify my behavior.  But not if I felt she
was inflexible on the issue.  I can be flexible only if she can
be flexible.  If she is working out a lifetime of feeling put down
by men and has taken on the weight of centuries of sexism and
wants to fight it all out over my having held the door for her as
we entered the restaurant, then I won't be very flexible in my
view.  "I hold doors for women, and that's it, take it or leave it."

But I can imagine a totally different scenario.  Here's an 
imaginary conversation on a date in a restaurant, with a woman
that I have known at work and have had dinner with once or 
twice before:

  She: I noticed that you generally move ahead of me to open 
       a door and hold it for me to go through.
  Me:  Yeah, long habit, I guess.
  She: It makes me feel kind of helpless, you know?  Sort of "weak."
  Me:  Oh, I sure don't think of you that way.  I admire you
       for not being "weak."
  She: Why do you do it, other than it being a habit?
  Me:  I think it is a kind of caring thing to do.  It's a
       thing that I do for you.  I like the feeling when I'm
       holding the door and you pass close by me.  It makes me
       feel good (flirting a bit).
  She: Hmm.. (not flirting) How would it be if I held the door 
       for you, sometimes?
  Me:  Ohh..  Let me imagine that..  I'm imagining that we might
       have a little race for the door handle (grin).  Hmm...
       It might be nice...  OK, so let me turn the question around
       here, why would YOU want to do it?
  She: It might make me feel good about myself, I'm not sure.
  Me:  We could try it, when we leave the restaurant.
  She: OK, I'll remember, will you?
  Me:  I'll try.  Want to go out right now and come back in -- sort of
       practice it a little?  (grin)
  She: Yeah, we could, (grin) and we could have a rule that
       on entering a restaurant you hold the door and on exit, 
       I hold the door (grin).
  Me:  Oh boy, we could have all kinds of rules for all kinds of
       doors...  What about revolving doors, who goes first or
       last?  Who pushes harder? (laughing)
  She: Well, if you like having me pass close by, (flirting)
       maybe we could try it together, in the same opening of 
       the door, you know?  I might like that too.
  Me:  I can't wait. Let's cut through that hotel across the
       street on the way back to the car.  It's got a revolving
       door at both ends of the lobby... 
  She: First things first, my soup is getting cold...

I am about to MODIFY MY BEHAVIOR, but it sure didn't come 
about because the woman told me I was a sexist pig.  It came about 
because she told me how she felt, asked me why I do what I do,
and then responded when I did the same.  We're both pretty relaxed
about it and having a good time with humor and flirting thrown in.

Wil
590.26KVETCH::paradisMusic, Sex, and CookiesMon May 06 1991 15:4032
> OK, in all seriousness ... When at a restaurant I have always allowed
> my female guest to be seated first, and, pull the chair from the table
> to seat her.  I won't deny that I'd feel like a damned fool doing this
> for a male guest.  Are you saying that if I do this for a female guest,
> I should do it for a male guest?

Yes.

Or you could NOT do it for any guest, male OR female.

I know... it "somehow" feels wrong to you.  I can relate in a way.  But at
the same time, I've discovered that the best rule to follow is that what's
good enough for HIM is good enough for HER, and vice versa.

Of course, you might be right; it might be very different in the South,
at least in some circles.  I can well imagine someone who EXPECTS
preferential treatment solely because she's female (probably because she
saw her brothers being whupped all the time for not giving it...), and
being put off by someone who treats her as just "one of the guys".
Oftentimes, it's been my experience that if you can weather the initial storm,
a lot of such women come around and actually APPRECIATE being treated as a 
human being with her own capabilities, rather than as a fragile flower that
must be carried everywhere and pampered at all times.  For those that continue 
to be put off, I figure I'm better off without their company anyway 8-)

[ you have to remember, too, that a lot of customs of "courtesy" actually
  arose as a fallout of the fashions of the 19th century... it's hard to
  open your own door when you're wearing a hoop skirt or a jillion
  petticoats... and being tied up in a corset that left you barely able
  to breathe was NOT conducive to perfoming ANY kind of physical exertion! ]

--jim
590.27PELKEY::PELKEYYOIKES and AWAY!!!Mon May 06 1991 15:5426
    ...open the door for a female ?  - Yes. but I'll hold a door open for anyone.

    ...let a female enter an elevator first? - No..

    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?  - No...

    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
       someone older than yourself)? - Depends..  Usually, yes.

    ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining? - No.

    ...stand up when a female enters the room? - No.

    ...remove your hat when addressing a female? - No.  Don't wear hats.

    ...open the car door for a female? - Sometimes..

    ...when ordering, let the female order first? - Yes.

    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
       something of obvious heavy weight? -I'd do that for anyone.

    ...light a female's cigarette? - No.

    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
       a female?  - Yes.  (at least I usually try..)
590.28WORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeMon May 06 1991 16:0721
This all reminds me of a friend of mine.  He is in his late-fifties or 
early-sixties, and, wherever we would go, he would take a few steps 
ahead of me and open the door.  That was how I picked up on the fact 
that he was interested in dating me, because he was treating me the 
way he had been trained to treat the women he dated.

(This did not translate to opening my car door or pushing in my chair
at the restaurant, though.  Somethings translate to "gay," and other 
things don't, I guess.) 

I did mention to him that he didn't have to always open the door for 
me, but he continued to do it.  I just grin and let him be him.  Since 
we never did date, it wasn't a big issue for me; with someone I was 
dating, I would have a problem with it.

It's difficult to modify your behavior.


							--Gerry

590.29Right!MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estMon May 06 1991 16:1514
.28> (This did not translate to opening my car door or pushing in my chair
.28> at the restaurant, though.  Somethings translate to "gay," and other 
.28> things don't, I guess.) 

You are absolutely correct.  I guarantee you (and this is why I brought up
the specific instance of seating a date at a restaurant) if two males were
dining, one pulls the chair for the other to be seated, I'll give you 100-1
that both of them would be tagged as "gay".  No, no guessing 'bout it ...

.28> It's difficult to modify your behavior.

Definitively ... that is where I am.

Jerry
590.30I use the word "rules" very looselyVMSMKT::KENAHThe man with a child in his eyes...Mon May 06 1991 16:287
    I try to treat everyone with dignity and respect.  Sometimes this
    translates into following one of the "rules" stated in the base
    note, sometimes it translates into another action.  By basing my
    actions on dignity and respect, I find that I very seldom violate
    my companion's "rules."
    
    					andrew
590.31WAHOO::LEVESQUEl'homme de vertuMon May 06 1991 17:012
 I agree with Andrew. I try to base my behavior on politeness and respect,
and only rarely encounter difficulties. 
590.32WORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeMon May 06 1991 17:1015
>.28> (This did not translate to opening my car door or pushing in my chair
>.28> at the restaurant, though.  Somethings translate to "gay," and other 
>.28> things don't, I guess.) 
>
>You are absolutely correct.  I guarantee you (and this is why I brought up
>the specific instance of seating a date at a restaurant) if two males were
>dining, one pulls the chair for the other to be seated, I'll give you 100-1
>that both of them would be tagged as "gay".  No, no guessing 'bout it ...

...and the irony of it is that I have never met a gay couple who does 
that.


							--Gerry
590.33HPSTEK::XIAIn my beginning is my end.Mon May 06 1991 17:5714
If you believe you are a decent human-being and have good intentions 
towards your fellow men and women, then the best thing to do is 
"be true to thy self".  Sometimes, you may offend someone; other times, 
be offended.  But you will always know that you have the best intentions.  
Personally, that is all I need to sleep well every night.

I am not into manner and etiquette (aren't really sure how to spell it) 
per-say.  I make an effort to treat my fellow men and women with 
decency, respect and compassion and hope that my manner will
reflect that.  I am sure that I have made countless "social errors"
and am an uncouth uncivilized barbarian in the eyes of many and maybe a 
"sexist pig" in the others.  But to me that matters very little.  

Eugene
590.35One woman's opinion....MEMORY::MORELLOMon May 06 1991 19:0920
    When I go on dates with guys, I expect my car door to be opened.  I
    also expect them to pay for the check....if they ask me out.  After we
    have been dating for a while, I will offer to pay for the tab.  Most of
    the time I don't have the money in the first place, so when they ask me
    out and decide where we are going and they decide to take me out to
    dinner, I don't usually think of saying to them..sorry I can't afford
    it.  I assume they are planning on paying the tab....and luckily on the
    many dates that I've had, no one has ever asked me to pay, and I've
    never offered.  
    
    I don't consider myself to be weak in any way, I just think it shows
    that a man is a gentleman, and it impresses me.  Maybe I've been
    spoiled, because most of the guys I've dated for long periods of time
    always opened my car door for me and continued to over the years of
    dating.  I'm only 28, but most of the men I've encountered have done
    this for me....so I personally don't think much of the things the base
    noter said are out of date.
    
    Therese
    
590.37Wow!MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estMon May 06 1991 21:357
    RE: .-2
    
    Thank you.
    
    Now, are you busy next Saturday evening? :-)
    
    Jerry
590.38NITTY::DIERCKSbeyond repairMon May 06 1991 21:3518
    
    
    One question, to anyone who cares to answer ('specially the basenoter,
    of course):
    
    Suppose you act courteously (your idea of courteous) to a woman in your
    company.  She isn't fond of your behavior and, politely, requests that
    you not act that way again.  How do you respond?  Do you "remain true
    to yourself" and do what you think is right, or do you "suck it in" and
    modify your behavior to accomodate her wishes?  (I'm not talking major
    modifications here -- what if she just doesn't want you to open the car
    door for her or she just doesn't want you to order for her when at a
    restaurant?)
    
    	Greg -- who believes in letting the situation and the "person"
    dictate how I behave
    
    
590.39Ok ... I'll try it .. MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estMon May 06 1991 23:1011
    I've just confirmed a date for Thursday evening ...

    When I go to pick her up at her apartment, I'll politely ask if she
    minds if I open the car door for her, politely say that I'm from the
    deep South and have been brought up to be polite and show extra courtesy
    to females, and, sincerely hope that I in no way offend her by
    demonstrating those courtesies ... 

    I wonder ... just for the heck of it ... how she'll respond ...
    
    Bubba
590.40HPSTEK::XIAIn my beginning is my end.Tue May 07 1991 00:1121
re .38
    
I think we are in agreement, but I would look at it from a different
perspective.  I assume that people will be kind to me till proven 
otherwise.  I also believe that I am a decent person with sensitivity 
and would treat other people with respect and compassion.  If someone 
brings up an issue, I will trust my feelings to guide me to do 
the right thing.  That means if the point is brought up politely and 
discretely, chances are my gut feeling will compel me to comply.  
Of course, my gut reaction to a rude comment or behavior will be 
something else.  In that case, reason usually comes in to put everything 
in perspective.                 

To assume that people will be good to you; to trust yourself that you
are a decent person and will be good to others.  This is the true meaning 
of "To thy self be true".  It really isn't this complicated, and most
of it is just common sense and common decency, but it can be difficult
in practice, and God knows I don't always follow my own advice.  Yet,
I tried and will continue to try and that is the best anyone can do.

Eugene
590.41about assuming how people will treat you...IMTDEV::BERRYDwight BerryTue May 07 1991 10:0111
    >>>To assume that people will be good to you; to trust yourself that you
are a decent person and will be good to others.  This is the true meaning 


    My mom sent me something which I use to keep on my frig... It went
    something like this... (sent to me when I was going thru a divorce)...

    "Expecting the world to treat you good because you are a decent person,
    is like expecting a bull not to charge just because you are a
    vegetarian."
590.42What's the fuss?TLE::ALIVE::ASHFORTHLord, make me an instrument of thy peaceTue May 07 1991 11:5626
Y'know, I've just sort of "popped in" on this conference after an acquaintance
suggested it to me; haven't yet decided if it's worth "staying." If all the
topics are this shallow, it's not too promising.

I figured a conference with a name like "MENNOTES" would have long ago realized
that mutual respect for differences transcends tyrannical insistence on
*women's* liberation to the exclusion of the rights of all others. The replies
I've seen to this note seem to miss the total inappropriateness of *any*
individual having the arrogance to be outraged by someone else showing courtesy
in his/her own traditional way. It's fairly common for anyone in the company of
people from other cultures to respect their ways; why is this not applied to men
and women, or (as is also brought up in this note) people of different
generations?

I personally behave politely to males and females, old or young, and
respectfully alter my behavior if they find it objectionable. However, if
attacked for daring to behave as I believe I should at the time, I object to
what I see as arrogance and "social tyranny." I've purposely left out *what*
behavior I personally believe is courteous, as it's not relevant; the point is
that courtesy is an intent, not an action, and thus has an infinite number of
translations, all valid. I see no reason to expect individuals brought up with
certain traditions of courtesy to instantly behave in ways which they personally
find *discourteous,* just to avoid public or private censure of their actions.

Cheers,
	Bob
590.43InconsistentDEMON::EXCOOP::COURTTue May 07 1991 12:3853
...open the door for a female?
...let a female enter an elevator first?
...allow female's to exit an elevator first?

   Yes, almost always, unless the logistics don't make any sense.  For instance, 
   if she gets to a door before me, or is standing behind me on the elevator. 
   I've been called a gentleman more often than sexist.  If a woman opens a door 
   for me, I say, "Thank you."

...say "ma'am" when addressing a female?

   "Ma'am" and "Miss" aren't really part of my vocabulary.

...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?

   No.  If it's a date and she asked me out, she can pay.  If I asked, I pay.  
   If it's not a date, we'll probably split the check.  If we're really good 
   friends, we take turns picking it up, more or less.

...stand up when a female enters the room?

   No, too weird.  But I do tend to wait, say at a restaurant, for the woman 
   (or women) to sit before I do.

...remove your hat when addressing a female?

   No.  Is she wearing one?

...open the car door for a female?

   I open the car door for my passengers, male or female.  If she's driving, she 
   can open her own door (and mine).

...when ordering, let the female order first?

   Always, unless she's not ready.  In that case, I'll order first.   However, I
   never order for her.

...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
   something of obvious heavy weight?

   Always.  But, on the other hand, if my arms are free, I'll offer the same to 
   a man.

...light a female's cigarette?

   Absolutely not.

...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
   a female?

   Guilty.

590.44linkageVAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERTue May 07 1991 12:4637
RE: .41
    
    >>>To assume that people will be good to you; 
       to trust yourself that you are a decent person and 
       will be good to others.  

    >>>"Expecting the world to treat you good because you are a decent person,

Those are two different statements.  The first statement says
how you expect others to behave toward you and how you expect 
to behave toward them.  The second statement has the word "because"
in it and that is why the second statement is dangerous.

There is no linkage, no cause and effect, between my being a decent
person and therefore being treated decently by others (especially
strangers, or those who are in opposition to me).  That's one of
life's illusions, fostered on us from an early age.  "Eat your
vegetables, and you will get dessert."  Get a degree and you will
have a nice job.  Be pretty, witty, etc, and you will have a happy
marriage.  Be a decent person and the world will treat you well.

If you believe all that, you will have some rude awakenings.  That's
what the second statement is warning against.  It is warning against
assuming a linkage between one thing and another, when there is no
basis for the linkage.

But the first statement is not making that linkage.  The first 
statement is just a statement about how I will behave and how I
expect others to behave.  It is optimistic, but not naive.  When 
I'm decent and the other person turns out nasty, I may be disappointed,
but it is a disappointment about them, not about me.  I certainly
don't react to their nastiness by being nicer, thinking that if I
can just be real, real nice to them, they'll stop being nasty to me.
That's the classic lack of self-esteem that victims have in abusive
situations.

Wil
590.45R2ME2::BENNISONVictor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56Tue May 07 1991 12:588
    My 14 year old daughter made me aware of something last night.  She
    told me I never opened the door for my wife (her mother).  The fact
    is that my daughter probably has never seen me open the door for my
    wife because I only do it when we are out on a "date".  If we are
    just taking the kids to a softball practice or something we are on
    equal ground.  On a "date", we are falling back onto old dating habits.
    
    					- Vick
590.46SWAM1::ANDRIES_LAand so it goes ...Tue May 07 1991 14:4712
>Y'know, I've just sort of "popped in" on this conference after an acquaintance
>suggested it to me; haven't yet decided if it's worth "staying." If all the
>topics are this shallow, it's not too promising.
    
    Briefly review the previous 589 topics before making a blanket
    assessment of this conference.
    
    Are you familiar with Dale Carnegie?
    
    Cheers,
    LArry
    
590.47Read before respondingTLE::ALIVE::ASHFORTHLord, make me an instrument of thy peaceTue May 07 1991 15:123
Re .46:

Are you familiar with the word "if?"
590.49QUARK::LIONELFree advice is worth every centTue May 07 1991 15:343
Enough, folks!  Let Bob draw his own conclusions.  Now back to the topic....

				Steve
590.50ByeTLE::ALIVE::ASHFORTHLord, make me an instrument of thy peaceTue May 07 1991 15:364
Yo, Hoyt- if you're out there, see ya 'round. Heavy, deep, and real this ain't.

Cheers,
	Bob
590.51PERFCT::WOOLNERPhotographer is fuzzy, underdeveloped and denseTue May 07 1991 16:4314
    Just wondering how people here are defining "order for" my companion. 
    Do some of you mean, "I'm deciding what food my companion will eat and
    I will tell the waitperson what to serve each of us"?  Or do you mean
    "I will ask my companion what s/he would like to eat, and I will then
    tell the waitperson what to serve each of us"?
    
    The manners that I was brought up with (however they may be judged here!)
    dictate that the lady makes her selection from the (sometimes
    price-less) menu and tells the gentleman what she'll have.  The
    gentleman then orders for the couple, and the waitperson should have
    the manners to address all questions and acknowledgments, and tender
    the bill, to the gentleman.
    
    Leslie 
590.52Sorry, Bob, I thought this was a FUN note :-)AKOV06::DCARRIts not the neat, its the notion!Tue May 07 1991 19:0883
    My, what fun :-)   Judging from a quick reading of the replies, I
    wonder how I became so damn gentlemenly? :-)  After all, I've lived in
    New England (home of the rude) forever!  And I've done most of those
    things in the basenote, and NEVER got a response like the basenoter...
    And I would have responded PRECISELY the same way at the car door -
    cross her off your list! :-)
    
    Anyway, I do tend to agree with Bob's "hit and run" first note :-), at
    least where he says if a person has a problem with somebody showing
    courtesy they grew up learning, that's THEIR problem, not yours...
    And I also DEFINITELY vary my behavior based on the 'social scene', and
    the company...  I've been fortunate enough to sample a wide variety of
    life's events, and I _think_ I've been pretty successfull in adapting
    my behavior to the situation...   
    
    For example, if you go to a fancy restaurant, or a black tie affair,
    you'll notice all the "historical" touches: waiters holding the chair
    for the lady (actually, I've had _my_ chair held for me in one
    extremely fancy restaurant - you know, the type where they have 5
    waiters hovering around you all night?); opening the napkin for the
    lady; the valets opening (both) car doors, and doors to the hotel; 
    etc...   And, I'll admit that I am MUCH more of a gentleman on a date
    than I would be at lunch with the gang from the office.  Isn't
    everybody???  
    
    To answer your survey, though:

>    ...open the door for a female ?
    
    Always, but I do that for men and women...
    
>    ...let a female enter an elevator first?
>    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?
 
    My 'elevator rules' are:  my date goes out before me.  Then, depending
    on the number of people in the elevator (male/female ratio :-), and
    where I am, determines if I immediately follow, or wait for all women
    to leave first...  If I'm in front, I follow the date.  (Hey, ya know
    whats fun on an elevator?  Get in and... DON'T turn around!!  Ya know,
    look toward the back instead of the front, like everybody else... 
    Drives some people NUTS, you can just tell!! :-)  
    
>    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
>       someone older than yourself)?
>    ...stand up when a female enters the room?
>    ...remove your hat when addressing a female?
 
    never learned these...   And the last two I find rather silly,
    actually..
    
>     ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?
    
    I always PICK IT UP...  but these days, I'll accept some help, if
    offered (however, I more often than not say, no, allow me, you get the
    movie...  I like that response about "no, I'll get this one, you get
    the next one, at a really expensive place" :-)  - But do you REALLY
    keep track of who pays in your day-timer???  Wow, too organized for
    me...
    
>    ...open the car door for a female?
>    ...when ordering, let the female order first?
>    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
>       something of obvious heavy weight?
    
    Always - again, dating rituals
    
>    ...light a female's cigarette?
 
    Geez, I wish I knew about that "blow it out and I'll go to bed with
    you" business :-)  I might start!! :-)
    
>    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
>       a female?

    A female?  No, not usually, I'm afraid...  but a lady?  yes (well, I
    try :-)...
    
>    even had trouble trying to decide to use the word "female" or "lady"
    
    That's easy...  They're ALL "female", but only the ones you want to
    date again (or blow out your match :-) are "ladies" :-)
    
    Dave
590.53SELECT::RIVERSA mortal among TitansTue May 07 1991 19:2718
    If you do all those things Jerry said he was raised to do, I think you
    ought to go ahead and do them.  If a woman minds, a polite woman will
    *politely* inform you that she doesn't mind and not make snide remarks
    about her ability to perform XXX for herself.  
    
    I can't imagine why opening a door for a woman should be considered a
    slight against that woman's status in society.  I don't mind if a door
    is opened for me.  If I don't want someone to order for me (and I must
    admit, it is a very rare occasion when 99% of those things on Jerrys
    list are done on my behalf), I will politely tell Mr. XXX to go ahead
    and order first..
    
    What would get my goat is if a show or clear, obvious effort was made
    to show me how gentelmanly someone was (ie, if a man rushed across a
    good deal of space to open a door for me, or made a show of doing XX
    else).  It would be so obvious it would seem unnatural and seem phony.
    
    kim
590.54WORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeTue May 07 1991 19:3265
>Y'know, I've just sort of "popped in" on this conference after an acquaintance
>suggested it to me; haven't yet decided if it's worth "staying." If all the
>topics are this shallow, it's not too promising.

Now, I was brought up in The Deep New England.  ;-)  And, when pappy 
spoke to me as an itty, bitty boy, just before he whooped me again 
with the back of his hand, he'd say:

	"Boy!  Never go into someone else's house and insult the 
	 hosts!"

Maybe it's just me, but that's the way I was brought up!

(Please, Bob, if you want a deep topic, start one.  Lead by example.  
Insults like these won't get you very far, in my opinion.)

===========================================================================

>The replies
>I've seen to this note seem to miss the total inappropriateness of *any*
>individual having the arrogance to be outraged by someone else showing courtesy
>in his/her own traditional way. It's fairly common for anyone in the company of
>people from other cultures to respect their ways; why is this not applied to men
>and women, or (as is also brought up in this note) people of different
>generations?

Maybe because, built into a lot of cultures, are oppressive and 
discriminatory practices that hurt people.  For example, there are a 
lot of cultures that would probably burn me at the stake for being gay 
(check out the laws of Iran).  I don't think that I am being
unreasonable, in an instance like this, to show disrespect for that
part of their culture, especially when we are in my cultural space or
in a mixed space (a space in which both my culture and her/his culture
are valid and in operation).  However, if I am in Iran, for the sake 
of my future sex life, I'd better do as the Iranians do.  (Hey, I'm a 
liberal, but I'm no fool!)

>However, if
>attacked for daring to behave as I believe I should at the time, I object to
>what I see as arrogance and "social tyranny." 

I find it interesting the number of stories I hear about people being 
"attacked" for being courteous.  I have serious doubts about the 
validity of many of these reports.  "Attack" can be in the eye of the 
beholder?

>...the point is that courtesy is an intent, not an action, and thus has an 
>infinite number of translations, all valid. 

To whom is the point the intent and not the action.  I'm sure that 
people fighting against the gay-rights law in Massachusetts might have 
beautiful and loving intentions of saving my soul, but their actions 
can have immense effects on my health, on my well being, and on my 
family.  From a "let's get into their heads so that we can understand 
the enemy" point of view, I value their intent.  However, from a pure 
political point of view, I could care less about their intent.  Theire 
good intentions can kill me.

[I'm doing a real flip-flop on "intentions" today, aren't I?  Ain't it 
great being an inconsistent Homo Sapien???]

I gotta get out of here, I'm feeling punchy!

							--Gerry
590.55METSYS::GOODWINCrazy like the parrot. WORRRRR!!!Wed May 08 1991 11:4862
    ...open the door for a female ?
    
    	I hold the door open for everyone, if it's not going to cause me
    trouble.
    
    ...let a female enter an elevator first?
    
    	No.
    
    ...allow female's to exit an elevator first?
    
    	No.
    
    ...say "ma'm" when addressing a female (especially when addressing
       someone older than yourself)?
    
    	No... we don't use ma'm here in the UK!
    
    ...automatically pick up the check when the two of you are dining?
    
    	Depends who asked who first!
    
    ...stand up when a female enters the room?
    
    	No.
    
    ...remove your hat when addressing a female?
    
    	Don't know too many people who wear hats, wouldn't if I did.
    
    ...open the car door for a female?
    
    	I open the door for everyone.
    
    ...when ordering, let the female order first?
    
    	Don't mind.
    
    ...offer to relieve the burden when you see a female carrying
       something of obvious heavy weight?
    
    	I offer to help anyone who looks overburdened.
    
    ...light a female's cigarette?
    
    	Not carrying matches or a lighter, I wouldn't.
    
    ...refrain from using foul/off-color language in the presence of
       a female?
    
    	Nope.
    
    I walked into an Indian takeaway with the girlfriend of a friend.
    Naturally the host assumed I was paying, so offered me the bill. I
    pointed at my friend, since we'd all given her the money. The host said
    "it's her turn is it?". My friend was slightly annoyed at the
    presumption...
    
    As for deciding what's PC etc... do what feels right for you. If people
    don't accept it, make allowances. But don't sweat it!
    
    Pete.
590.56dancing into the elevatorVAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERWed May 08 1991 12:2849
    A lot of the discussion here is around specific behaviors
    that were listed in the base note.  (around doors, elevators,
    greetings, restaurants, etc)
    
    And a lot of the responses focus on "a man doing things for
    a woman, when the woman is quite capable of doing it for herself".
    And other responses seem to imply that one does for a woman
    only what one does for a man.  That is, there should be no
    distinction between the behavior toward one and toward the other. 
    I think the focus on the specific behaviors and the capabilities
    of the woman, and the equating of women to men and men to women
    misses the point.  It's as if there was some kind of scientific
    logical answer to the problem.
    
    Suppose we looked at all this stuff as a kind of dance.
    
    One way to look at dancing is that it is an isolated activity.
    You get up on the dance floor and dance, and it doesn't matter
    if there is anyone else there at all, and it may not even matter
    whether your "partner" is also dancing.  It seems to me that
    some folks dance that way these days.  
    
    On the other hand, some folks dance with their partner in some
    way, even if the only contact that they maintain is visual.
    And then there are the more traditional types of dance, in which
    body contact is made, from swing to the more formal dances like
    waltz.  And then there is contra dancing, etc.
    
    Suppose I am very skilled at swing. (lindy, jitterbug, etc)
    That's now a "traditional" dance step.  I meet a woman who is
    very emotive on the dance floor, but she doesn't want to be
    touched, or led in any way.  She wants to get up on the dance
    floor and do her thing.
    
    We're going to have a tough time if we go dancing.  We are
    each going to have to learn, and change, if we want to be a
    dancing couple.  And it won't happen in one evening.  Will
    I throw out all my dancing skills and learn to dance her way?
    Will she overcome her aversion to being touched and led and
    learn to dance my way?  Will we both learn the other's way,
    and will we alternate going to discos and swing dance parties?
    
    Opening doors, ordering food, going first or last, is all
    part of a dance, and learning to dance together means just
    that, learning.   It's work, it means change, and it may
    be painful at times.  But the pleasure of the dance is the
    payoff.
    
    Wil                       
590.57LEZAH::BOBBITTLift me up and turn me over...Wed May 08 1991 16:5031
    I see your analogy, and it's quite apt.  But I generally don't dance
    with strangers.  I'm far more comfortable dancing with people I know
    and trust.  So I may accept an open door from a stranger, but it will
    feel funnier than if I accept it from a friend.  If I'm on a date with
    someone (first date)  I will generally feel anything from flustered to
    frightened/offended if they try the gamut of the "courtesy rituals". 
    Like if they try to help me with my coat, it will probably cost me some
    grace as I was trying to put it on myself and I need to let him hold it
    up properly for me to get into it, I will be flustered.  If they do the
    (I HATE THIS ONE!  IT's MY ONLY REAL HOT BUTTON IN THE LOT!) bit where
    the place the hand in the small of my back to steer me through a door
    or something (as if I had a little steering wheel there and needed
    guidance or something), I might feel it was an intrusion on my personal
    space or an insult to my capability to move myself about on two legs
    and navigate normal corridors or entryways.  
    
    If I *know* the person, I'm much more likely to accept this kind of
    behavior.  If it's someone I don't know at all well, I may smile and
    accept it out of courtesy but still feel weird and somehow belittled
    (like I couldn't do it myself, even though I KNOW that's not how it was
    intended).
    
    Truth be told, I've gotten graciously used to having doors held for me,
    and often than them with a smile (be they male or female), or even quip
    brightly something about "chivalry is not dead" - so I'm learning, but
    it's at the expense of my own discomfort in having to dance SOMEONE
    ELSE'S STEP that was not originally my own.
    
    -Jody
    
    
590.58still dancingVAXUUM::KOHLBRENNERWed May 08 1991 18:1039
    Sure, I'm with you on that, Jody.
    
    You don't invite being steered through doorways, 
    especially by relative strangers on a first date.
    The man who tries to steer you through the doorway 
    on the first date either doesn't care about your
    views on that or is not getting the signal.  And
    I am sure that you are giving some kind of signal.
    
    And that *is* the dance.  Signals, moves, words,
    gestures, looks, the space that you keep around
    you, etc.
    
    The guy who doesn't get your signal is just not
    very skilled in this dance.  Assuming he's not
    adamant about dancing his way (only), and is willing
    to learn, the two of you might be able to recover
    from his faux pas.
                  
    A year later, when the two of you are in a close
    relationship and you are emerging from a theater
    after seeing a heart-wrenching movie, you will both
    know what form of touch is desireable.  (It *might*
    be his hand in the small of your back.)  The process
    of getting into the relationship is the process of
    learning that dance.  (And it includes making some
    mistakes, getting corrected, apologizing, etc.)
    
    (BTW, My "imaginary" conversation in the earlier note 
    was about a couple who are on their second or third date,
    and who already know each other in the context of work.)
    
    (This is making me laugh, because there was an earlier
    topic about whether to have sex with a stranger who walks
    up and proposes it.  This discussion of the "dance" that
    goes on in dating seems pretty far removed from going to bed!)
    
    Wil
590.59YUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartThu May 09 1991 10:1931
    
    I take the line that I am a product of my environment, and so
    is my date. We'll both have had some kinda "manners code" 
    drilled into us. We may or may not have modified it as we came
    through life, in response to feedback or by personal choice.
    
    Learning each others "niceties" is part of the fun
    of getting to know someone. On a first date, I'd want my date
    to be comfortable with me as a main objective (and obviously
    I'd be deciding if I was comfortable with them too), so I'd
    let him do whatever he was comfortable with - it tells me
    something about him, and doesn't really offend because he doesn't
    know my views. On a second date, I'd mention if he did anything that 
    really bothered me and ask him to stop doing it.
    
    If, knowing my views, he continued to do whatever annoyed me then
    I'd get aggressive about it.
    
    The only things on your list, Jerry, that bother me are those that
    involve touching (guiding, handling). I am not prepared to be
    pushed into physical contact (at any level) for the sake of manners.
    Also, oddly, I hate having my cigarette lit for me. For some weird
    reason this has connotations of intimacy for me, and I wouldn't
    want a casual aquaintance doing it. Just a personal quirk. 
    All of these things feel intrusive to me, and I'd probably tactfully
    try to stop them even on a first date, come to think of it...
    
    'gail
    'gail
    
    
590.60Courtly Love Holdover BehavioursRHODES::RONDINAThu May 09 1991 12:3116
    Like most other males of my generation I was taught to "respect"
    females, that they needed protecting, and above all they were some
    kind of super species, far evolved beyond the semi-civilized state
    of men.  Thus, men were to "raise" themselves to this god-like sphere
    females lived in by showing deference and good manners to them by
    observing the manners and courtesies heretofor mentioned.
    
    Then I learned that all these manners were holdovers from the era
    of courtly love.  The older I get the more that I see they are really
    obsolete if positioned as something "men must do to either "win"
    women or to show them our level of civlized behaviour".  Rather
    I have chosen to practice something far more applicable - The Golden
    Rule, which is gender-less.
    
    My 2 cents, and FWIW.
    
590.61?YUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartThu May 09 1991 13:563
    
    What's the Golden Rule?
    
590.62MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estThu May 09 1991 14:585
    .61> What's the Golden Rule?
    
    	"He who has the gold makes the rules"?  :-) :-)
    
    
590.63YUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartThu May 09 1991 15:174
    
    Or she??  :-)
    
    'gail
590.64Oops...MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estThu May 09 1991 15:227
    RE: .-1

    That was a generic "he" and not a genetic one ....

    Bubba

    (Whew!  Have I gracefully escaped confrontation?)
590.65Not to bore our audienceYUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartFri May 10 1991 11:266
    
    >(Whew!  Have I gracefully escaped confrontation?)
    
    Only publically....
    
    'gail 
590.66Wonderful! evening ......MORO::BEELER_JEIacta alea estFri May 10 1991 13:4629
    .65> Only publically....

    Yes, and, you owe me $250 for a new monitor.  When I started reading your
    mail this morning ... my monitor went up in a ball of smoke! :-)

    Now, back to the subject at hand....

    Picked up my date at her apartment last evening ... as we approached my
    humble DECmobile I very eloquently told her that I was from the Deep
    South and accustomed to some "extra" courtesies toward females and
    certainly would not want to embarrass her ... I reached to open the car
    door for her and said "do you mind?" ....

    Her response echoed something that I read (either here or in SOAPBOX) ...
    "No, Jerry, I was born and raised in California and that type of
    courtesy is all to uncommon out here ... I'm looking forward to being
    treated like I live at Tara"

    An absolutely wonderful evening ...first stop was my house where I
    picked her a small bouquet of roses, carnations, orchids, and daisies which
    she carried during the evening .....

    I turned on the Southern charm .. thoroughly expected to see Rhet
    Butler appear at any time ....

    Maybe it is just ... regional courtesies ... but it was nice ... and I
    *asked* first ...

    Jerry
590.68IMO, of courseYUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartFri May 10 1991 15:1513
    
    Sounds like a great date! How nice for you - and her!
    I think it was a good, and honest, idea to ask first.
    
    Herb - I'm sure she can decide for herself what she considers 
    "patronising", tyvm.
    I think your comment is vastly more patronising than Jerry's behaviour.
    
    Btw, sorry about the terminal.
    I didn't think the mail was that "hot"....;-)
    
    'gail          
    
590.70Another female viewpointASDG::FOSTERCalico CatFri May 10 1991 18:0827
    Jerry, I skipped ahead, so I may have missed some replies, but I think
    your approach in .66 was perfect and its what I was going to suggest.
    
    A guy I dated recently told me a similar story. That he was used to
    doing the gentlemanly things but had gotten burned so badly, he didn't
    know what to do anymore. We ended up doing an experiment, and I
    realized that there is a proper way to open a door for someone else,
    i.e. going behind the door, pulling it open, letting the person pass,
    and then stepping around the door and going in, letting it shut behind
    you.
    
    I NEVER KNEW!
    
    My first reaction to the guy was that we'd try to share the common
    courtesies. But then, another part of me said, "Hey, let's at least find
    out what its like to be pampered a bit!" Unfortunately, I'd already
    told him not to. So I never found out.
    
    Lots of people consider me a feminist, so I don't think there are ANY
    assumptions you can really make. Some women will be offended when you
    do, some will be offended when you don't. Some will stop dating you if
    you don't. Some will harrass you because you do.
    
    That's why telling them up front and "buying in" to a standard set of
    rules works best. For me, if I dress for him, in the dress and heels
    and coiffure, a treasure on any man's arm, I want the protocols. If its
    a casual thing, it doesn't matter.
590.71BIGUN::SIMPSONNumber five. The naughty bits.Mon May 13 1991 01:4311
    Jerry,
    
    I do wish you'd be consistent.
    
    If you insist on a mode a behaviour (which you call 'courtesy') which
    is predicated upon the assumption that women are helpless and inferior
    then don't apologise because you used an old saying in its traditional
    masculine form.
    
    On the other hand, if you are prepared to modify your verbal behaviour
    in order not to offend then why not your social behaviour as well?
590.72YUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartMon May 13 1991 11:287
    
    Re .69
    
    You're right Herb - I did misread your intentions.
    
    Sorry I sniped atcha.
    'gail
590.74COMET::DYBENMon May 13 1991 16:1911
    
    Simpson,
    
    > predicated upon the assumption that woman are helpless and inferior
    
     Where do you get this from..Do you really think that every time a
    man opens a door for a woman he is saying " You poor inferior woman
    you probably don't have the know how to open the door"..?? This 
    strikes me as yet another insecurity based assumption..
    
    David
590.75WMOIS::REINKE_Bbread and rosesMon May 13 1991 17:186
    David,
    
    The origins of those customs were indeed to help out a woman
    who was perceived as being unable to take care of themselves.
    
    Bonnie
590.76hey give me some dataCSC32::W_LINVILLElinvilleMon May 13 1991 21:017
    re .75

    	I don't believe these customs were intended to convey women in an
    inferior light. So please back up your statements with factual data.


    			Wayne
590.77COMET::DYBENMon May 13 1991 21:0111
    
    Bonnie,
    
    > The origins of those customs were indeed to help out a woman
    > who was perceived as being unable to take care of themselves.
    
     No doubt that is how the feminist would write the history books,
    I however would like you to prove this statement..I know that I
    do not  display courtesy for the reasons you suggest...
    
    David
590.78DPDMAI::DAWSONA Different LightTue May 14 1991 00:5613
    RE: .75   Bonnie,
    
                        I doubt seriously that many men these days percieve
    women as "helpless".  The origins of customs are really irrelevant at
    this late date and time.  Most women like the manners I exhibit.  How
    do I tell the difference?  Ask?  In many circles that would considered
    rude and in bad taste.  As my father told me often "I would rather get
    into trouble for something I *DID* rather than something I didn't
    do".....Like open doors, standing when a women walks into a room, and
    offering to light her cigarettes.
    
    
    Dave
590.79COMET::DYBENTue May 14 1991 02:096
    
    -1 Dave
    
       Dittos..
    
    David
590.80thoughts on manners and the status of womenBIGUN::SIMPSONNumber five. The naughty bits.Tue May 14 1991 10:06138
"Women are by no means inferior to men," said Socrates, "All they need is a
little more physical strength and energy of mind."

Such was a more polite view of women in ancient Greek society.  Women had
almost no more rights than slaves, although, like the Hebrews, the Greeks
expected their wives to be chaste and soberminded, competent as spinning,
weaving and tailoring, able to allocate suitable tasks to the servants, to
be economical with her husband's money and property, to bear children, and
to govern the household wisely and virtuously.

The poet Hesiod explained why it was necessary to marry:

"He who evades, by refusing marriage, the miseries that women bring upon
us, will have no support [children] in the wretchedness of his old age...
On the other hand he whose fate it is to marry may perhaps find a good and
sensible wife.  But even then he will see evil outweigh good all his life."

On the whole, it was considered better to "buy the woman, don't marry her. 
Then you can make her follow the plough if necessary."

The Roman view of woman as chattel was similar.  When, after Hannibal had
been defeated the women of Rome took to the streets to demand the end of
the Oppian law, which forebade them to keep more than half an ounce of
gold, drive in carriages or wear dyed clothes (supposedly as wartime
economy measures).

Cato was furious, and lashed out in the Senate.  If a woman had something
to say then she should say it in private, to her husband, and even then she
had no business entertaining opinions about political matters:

"Woman is a headstrong and uncontrolled animal, and you cannot give her the
reins and expect her not to kick over the traces...  What they want is
complete freedom...  If you allow them one right after another, so that in
the end they have complete equality with men, do you think you will find
them bearable?  Nonsense!"

The Church didn't help.  It is no coincidence that it is Eve who succumbed
to Satan's wiles first, and then tempted Adam.  In the meantime, except
where there was doctrinal conflict, the Church perpetuated the civil and
conventional law of Rome.

St Paul dictated that women had been created for the benefit of men, and
must defer to them in all things, must not teach in church, must cultivate
silence and submit meekly to instruction.

If we leap forward several hundred years we find a revolution in progress. 
The Age of Churlishness is being transformed into the Age of Chivalry, and
with a fundamental change in the way men view women.  Medieval contact with
Islam introduced to the West the Arab love song.

Of course, Islam had no great view of its women either.  Women were
supposed to be veiled, and one Byzantine scholar has noted that Byzantine
marriages were not always consumated, one the groom had lifted the bride's
veil for the first time - after the ceremony.  Islam also allowed for
polygamy.  But one important rule of Islamic conduct was the almost
complete segregation of men from women, even at home.  Indeed, the wealthy
frequently had separate homes for wives and daughters, where they could be
splendidly isolated.  And so, when the Arab love song developed as a genre,
it is no surprise that the lady in question was remote, unapproachable and
unattainable, and that the composers shaped her into an ideal of their own
imagination.

Various trends influenced the rise of chivalry, and with it a remarkable
rise in the status (socially rather than legally) of women in Western
Europe.  Both came from the East.

One was the cult of the Virgin Mary, long an object of adoration and
worship in Byzantium.  One was the Islamic notion of the feminine ideal. 
(There were of course others, but these two stand out among the confluence
of influences).

The new ideal was, rather than despised or repressed, placed high on a
pedastal.  Christian virtue was the vehicle that carried women to an
immaculate plane, cleansed their love of carnality and left it free to soar
into the realm of the spiritual.  

However great, though, her virtue, there was still no suggestion that the
Lady had anything remotely resembling a brain.  She was a strange,
beautiful, virtuess and bloodless figment of the male imagination.  She
waited, eternally patient, sometimes gazing out the window of her prison,
sometimes occupying her time with her needlework, while her gallant hero
fought impossible fights while on his way to claim her.  It is directly
from here that courtesy based on the notion of woman as helpless and
dependent derive.

Another leap forward, to the age of middle-class Victoriana.  The
courtesies are refined and recognisable.  Women still can't vote, hold
public office and in many cases property, although perhaps some derived
pleasure from being considered vulnerable, virginal and remote, pure angels
to be worshipped, cherished and deferred to.  

Mrs. Sarah Ellis wrote a book to the women of England in 1842.  It was, she
said, essential to recognise "the superiority of your husband simply as a
man... In the character of a noble, enlightened, and truly good man, there
is a power and sublimity so nearly approaching what we believe to be the
nature and capacity of angels, that... no language can describe the degree
of admiration and respect which the contemplation of such a character must
excite... To be admitted to his heart - to share his counsels, and to be
the chosen companion of his joys and sorrows! - it is difficult to say
whether humility or gratitude should preponderate in the feelings of the
woman thus distinguished and thus blest."

The husbands reponded by protecting their wives from the harsh nastiness of
reality.  In 1840 a London court ruled that a husband was justified in
kidnapping a refugee wife and keeping her under lock and key because "the
happiness and honour of both parties place the wife under the guardianship
of the husband and entitle him... to protect her from the danger of
unrestrained intercourse with the world, by enforcing cohabitation and a
common residence."

Perhaps the last word but one should go to Harriet Stanton Blatch, the
American suffragette:

"We are up against a hard proposition in the American man...  In England...
the police put us off the streets; they send us to jail!...  In America,
they blandly admit us before the legislative committees, listen to all we
have to say, treat us with perfect courtesy... and never so much as bother
to answer our arguments... [It's] highly insulting!"

Interestingly, the rough and lawless territory of Wyoming was the first
American state to give women over 21 the vote.  At the first elections the
total number of active voters *dropped*, because even the roughest of the
rednecks stayed away from the polling places in case their presence should
offend the ladies!

It should be clear, even in this cursory overview, that the status of women
in the West has changed from being useful drudge animals to prized
ornaments, and that what passed (and passes) as courtesy was embedded on
notions of male supremacy and female inadequacy.  Even today, though some
symbols of change exist, such as the vote and the right to work, the
fundamentals haven't.  No matter how polite a man may think he is, to act
in the traditional manner is to reinforce the stereotypes and
generalisations of the past.  Of course, the women need to help, too.

As G. K. Chesterton said after WWII:

"Twenty million young women rose to their feet with the cry, 'We will not
be dictated to,' and promptly became stenographers."
590.81YUPPY::DAVIESAJust the London skyline, sweetheartTue May 14 1991 11:007
    
    Re -1
    Thanks for entering that. I found it interesting reading.
    I recommend John Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman" as an
    interesting look at "real women" versus "Victorian perceived women".
              
    'gail
590.82Perceptions of women...KVETCH::paradisMusic, Sex, and CookiesTue May 14 1991 12:0811
Re: .80

Sounds like you've read Reay Tannahill's "Sex in History".  Great book.
I recommend it highly to all.

[side note, and perhaps a complete rathole:  it's interesting to note that
in ancient Greece and Rome, it was WOMEN who were assumed to be insatiable
lust-driven creatures, and MEN who were assumed to be civilized models of
proper behavior.  Now the exact opposite seems to be the stereotype...]

--jim
590.83It's called EQUAL RIGHTS GRANPA::FBENJAMINPEPPERPOT MANTue May 14 1991 14:2819
    IMHO, I think it's a lot of baloney, the changes that some men put
    themselves through to impress a woman. I personally would not do
    anything for a woman that I wouldn't do for a male friend, and that is,
    to show them the same respect that they show towards me.
    
    I generally treat people the way that they treat me, male or female. If
    you expect special treatment from me, make sure that that you are ready
    to do the same for me. None of that carte blanche special treatment for
    females BS. 
    
    A lot of females try to capitalize on the double standards of society
    for their own gain, and it's usually some foolish male who is always
    ready and willing to succumb. It's 1991 and the word is EQUAL RIGHTS,
    and that entitles females to the same hardships as males, equally, not
    at the females convience.
    
    It's equal pay for equal share, both pain and gain....
    
    Thank You All....
590.84WMOIS::REINKE_Bbread and rosesTue May 14 1991 16:2229
    In re manners etc..
    
    A lot of what we now call manners came out of the Victorian era, and
    were indeed a product of regarding women as 'helpless' and weak.
    (Women for example were considered unfit for higher education, as
    it would cause their weak brains to develop brain fever, and make
    them unfit for childbearing.)
    
    Holding doors came out of the fact that women wore long skirts often
    bustled or heavily crinolined. If a door was not held for her she
    wouldn't be able to get through it.
    
    Offering your arm, goes back to the very tight corsets that women
    wore (bringing their waists down to 20" or less) and which often
    made them faint and dizzy when they stood.
    
    Other manners may have derived from the rising middle class copying
    the styles of deference of the serfs towards their aristocracy
    (taking off hats) to hazard a guess.
    
    In general, however, much of the courtly behavior towards women,
    was because they were regarded as more delicate, more sensitive,
    more child like, more in need of protection, etc. than men.
    
    This is not to say, as I've said before on this subject, that
    gentlemanly manners in a social setting mean that now. They are
    more of a 'courtship rite'.  But that is where they originated.
    
    Bonnie
590.85I still think that the feminists have a good point, tooWORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeWed May 15 1991 14:0662
>                        I doubt seriously that many men these days percieve
>    women as "helpless".  The origins of customs are really irrelevant at
>    this late date and time.  

This is where you are wrong.  Think of it from the point of view of 
the woman.  Your intensions are fine, and they count.  However, the 
effects of being treated a certain way also count.  And the effects 
that were designed hundreds of years ago are still in effect today.  

For example, women often are still dressed so that they are, in
effect, hobbled (heels, tight skirts, etc); if you don't believe me,
get dressed up in drag and try to move around fast.  If trouble
occurs, you are, in essence, "dependent" on someone (a man) to help
you to move quickly.  Also for example, if I am having my doors opened
for me, my chair pushed in, and, in essence, being waited on by the
man, the effect of me being weaker and more needy than the man is
still in effect, regardless of the intentions of these modern men. 

What some women are trying to get across is the idea that women cannot 
feel strong until they are allowed to act strong.  Women being 
able to help and support men (hold doors for them, push their chairs 
in, light their cigarettes) helps the woman to feel strong.  (Men, 
don't you feel strong when you use your strength?  Why deny that to 
women?)  And it will also help men to get off their high horse about 
always having to be the "strong one," and help them to get in touch 
with their more vulnerable and needy sides.

Perhaps that is the scariest thing about feminism.  If women get in 
touch with their strong sides, men might be nudged to get in touch 
with their weaker, more feminine sides.

>   Most women like the manners I exhibit.  

Many women are not consciously aware of the ways in which they have accepted a 
role that makes them "the weaker one."  Women who do accept this 
traditional role often tend to use their strength in more indirect and
manipulative ways (read: Nag), ways that men often complain about.
Also, life is more difficult when you have to think about what you are
doing and when you have to negotiate; the old, feminine role is
comfortable and change is difficult.  I can see why a lot of women 
would say, "This feels good, to heck with the change."

>    How do I tell the difference?  Ask?  In many circles that would considered
>    rude and in bad taste.  As my father told me often "I would rather get
>    into trouble for something I *DID* rather than something I didn't
>    do".....Like open doors, standing when a women walks into a room, and
>    offering to light her cigarettes.

Fair enough.  So, what's the problem, here?  Why don't you follow your 
father's advice, use the traditional manners, and just not be too 
surprised when some women do not accept the gesture as being healthy 
for them?  Once you find out that a certain women does not appreciate 
the traditional manners, then you can talk to her about it, in 
private, and work out an agreement that works for both of you.  (If 
you don't know her well, then you can just brush it off.)

Why do many traditional men have to make the feminists "wrong"?  Why
can't both parties just be "different" and respect the reasons on both 
sides? 

							--Gerry
590.86WORDY::GFISHERWork that dream and love your lifeWed May 15 1991 14:0816
>                                      -< hey give me some data >-

Why are you asking the helpless female to do work for you.  You're a 
strong man, you can look it up yourself, right?  ;-)

>    	I don't believe these customs were intended to convey women in an
>    inferior light. So please back up your statements with factual data.

You get to base your actions on a "belief," yet others have to "back 
up their statements with factual data."

Me senses a double standard, here.  Also, do you really think that 
she would lie to you on purpose?


							--Gerry
590.87proofCSC32::W_LINVILLElinvilleWed May 15 1991 19:558
    Many women have lied to me in the past including my wife to achieve
    what ever objective they had in mind. I'm sure they had a reason for
    lying, most people do. I'm not saying anyone here is lying but at the
    same time I can not say they are telling the truth. I can only ask for
    proof of their statements, nothing more.


    			Wayne
590.88I have no reason to lieWMOIS::REINKE_Bbread and rosesThu May 16 1991 11:498
    Wayne,
    
    all I can say for 'proof' is that this is what I've experienced, and
    what women I know have experienced, this is what I've read about
    in both fiction and non fiction. It is like asking me to 'prove'
    that I breathe, with statistics from a book.
    
    Bonnie
590.89Byzantine not equal IslamicPTOVAX::HAGERJimThu May 16 1991 15:2639
RE: .80

>Of course, Islam had no great view of its women either.  Women were
            ^^^^^
>supposed to be veiled, and one Byzantine scholar has noted that Byzantine
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>marriages were not always consumated, one the groom had lifted the bride's
>veil for the first time - after the ceremony.  Islam also allowed for
                                                ^^^^^
>polygamy.  But one important rule of Islamic conduct was the almost
                                      ^^^^^^^
>complete segregation of men from women, even at home.  Indeed, the wealthy
>frequently had separate homes for wives and daughters, where they could be
>splendidly isolated.  And so, when the Arab love song developed as a genre,
                                        ^^^^
>it is no surprise that the lady in question was remote, unapproachable and
>unattainable, and that the composers shaped her into an ideal of their own
>imagination.

>One was the cult of the Virgin Mary, long an object of adoration and
>worship in Byzantium.  One was the Islamic notion of the feminine ideal. 
            ^^^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^

Does not compute!

Byzantine and Islamic are mutually exclusive in the history of the area.

The Byzantine Empire was not Islamic; far from it. Another name for the
Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was
the home of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Its capital was Constantinople,
founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine, sometime shortly after the fall
of Rome, I think. It remained the bastion of the Eastern Orthodox Church
until the Ottoman Turks conquered it in 1492, I think. That's when it
became Islamic, but it was no longer the Byzantine Empire; it was then the
Ottoman Empire. 

And besides, I don't think the Turks are considered themselves Arabic.
Islamic, yes; Arabic, no. But that's another story.
Jim
590.90Byzantium and Islam are culturally inseparableTRODON::SIMPSONNumber Five. The naughty bits.Fri May 17 1991 02:3912
I'll concede that I phrased that badly, but by the same token the two 
influences are inseparable.  Islam didn't develop in a vacuum - the whole of 
the Middle East was dominated culturally by Byzantium, more so even than by 
Persia, no matter what the Turks, Arabs, Egyptians and so forth might have 
wished.  Byzantium itself was a curious cultural mix of Greeks, Turks, 
Armenians, Georgians, Roumanians and others.  The Middle East peoples viewed 
Byzantium much as the Teutonic tribes viewed Rome: they simultaneously feared, 
envied and respected her, and it was this as much as any other thing that kept 
the cultural dominance real long after both Empires had lost (although no-one 
knew or admitted it at the time) any real ability to enforce their will.  Islam 
took much from Byzantium (and the Jewish writings), and ultimately gave much 
back.
590.91Thought this group might appreciate the p-name ;-)AKOV06::DCARRAre the Wyld Stallyns a p.c. band? ;-)Wed Jul 24 1991 15:301