Good Manners

[intothewoods]

obviously we've been raised in dramatically different environments, and have observed dramatically different things in modern society. Oprah tells young girls that they can be whatever they want to be...as long as that's a strong, assertive independent woman. pop music tells us that a woman who hasn't "got her own," who wants to in any way be taken care of by a man, is an undesirable gold-digger. and your shrink tells you that if your boyfriend needs to know where you are at all times...it is a "red flag," chances are he's a controlling a**hole and you need to run away as fast as you can. certain masculine and feminine traits, and especially the way those traits play out in relationships, are now actually labeled as psychiatric disorders. that's not fantasy land, that's what's happening in the here and now.

Oprah is all about following your own path. She has had plenty of traditional wives and moms on over the years. And there are plenty of pop songs sung by women about how they can't live without their man, etc. As for shrinks, it could be a warning sign if your partner must know where you are at all times of the day. This applies to either gender.

In terms of popular culture, ou've got a complete change from the 80s superwoman ideal to the glamorization of motherhood and stay at home moms. We have Dr. Laura and a variety of cultural figures that preach "traditional family values." We have equal numbers of women in law school, but we don't have many women who make it to law firm partner. We can debate the validity of any one of these stereotypes or broad brush points, but the fact is that there is plenty of room for men and women to be all or part of their respective traditional roles.

ETA - And I was replying to your suggestion that men who are the least bit authoritative and women who tend to be deferential are treated as outcasts, and also the suggestion that kids are raised in some sort of gender-blind universe.

 

[Braschi]

Manners are not a problem if everyone's been taught the same set. However, that's no longer the case- and I'm not sure people are fully aware of the fact. What's needed is a return to manners' basics, not their trappings, but their purpose, which, granted, is more difficult.

Hear hear!

Sorry, but this entire post just strikes me as fantasy land. I live in a place in which there are plenty of parents who make an effort not to impose traditional gender norms on their kids, and let me tell you, none of that requires you to ignore real differences between boys and girls. I don't know one parent who does this, not one. It's as plain as night and day that there are differences between boys and girls, even if you force your boy to have a doll or buy your girl toy monster trucks. Does. Not. Matter. No parent that I know would say otherwise. There is a difference between ignoring gender and recognizing that not all kids fit into a particular box.

But there is a tendency in society towards androgyny, where sexual stereotypes aren't tolerated.

My god... you're one of those people that equates big government with Nazi Germany, aren't you?

No; I work in government and haven't been issued my Hugo Boss uniform yet

It's entirely possible to do things "unknowingly". Your ultimate goal may not have been trying to insult me, but I will be offended that your means of showing respect are based on an outdated model that I want nothing to do with. And if you know me, then I expect you to understand that. If you're a stranger, I'll cut you slack.

I was talking about a stranger. If it's someone who knows you, then clearly it would be offensive.

I have not ever once heard anything like that go on ever, with anybody. I'm going to take this as hyperbole, and even then... I think you're being a little ridiculous.

You mean Kybele didn't intimate that osg was "manipulative" because she let other people pay for her?

no bigger changes than happened during the industrial revolution. and you think that in the 1950s men were men and women just shut up and got fucked? you need to stop watching MadMen and read some social history.

I agree: people really do need to look at what was actually happening at the time, instead of dramatized versions that look good on TV or sound good at rallies.

 

[JMohegan]

The past IS "the 1950s", when that decade is taken as shorthand for "the recent past, in living memory, when things were a good deal different but not unrecognizably so".

The differences between all those different eras that Kybele names are trivial (efeeminizationwise) compared to their differences from today.

In other words, big, recent changes have happened. The pill. Modern divorce law. Labor saving machinery, etc etc etc.

.... the Equal Pay Act of '63, Title IX....

I agree with you that the '50's are a good "before" benchmark, and that the changes since have been extraordinary. I don't feel threatened by them, though.

On the other hand, I do find the current trend toward the male use of superfluous grooming products and hetero manscaping somewhat disgusting. More than somewhat, actually. It's a major victory for the cosmetics industry, no question.

 

[intothewoods]

But there is a tendency in society towards androgyny, where sexual stereotypes aren't tolerated.

A tendency towards androgyny? What, because women wear pantsuits to the office? Again, the hippy-dippyiest parent gets that some aspects of gender are innate.

 

[JMohegan]

I find myself wondering where the hell some of you people live.

Androgyny? Are you fucking kidding me? When you can't turn on the TV, open a magazine, or watch a bus drive by, without seeing some supersexed female in feminine flimsies, pouting with plump wannablowyou lips?

 

[where]

where have i said or implied i "get" people to do anything for me? or that i even expect such treatment? because i certainly don't...with anyone i don't know well, i expect to be treated like nothing special. i expect to have to do everything for myself, to watch my own back, and to be wary of the world at large on top of that. i don't expect any doors held open or help with my heavy groceries. there is a difference between expecting certain treatment, and appreciating certain treatment. i appreciate when those things are not as i had expected them to be.

responsibility? before i was owned i fully recognized the fact that i was 100% responsible for my own welfare, personal safety, and just general day to day life functioning. i sucked quite miserably at it, but i understood it was no one's bag but my own.

try reading what you post.

I'll give you the industrial revolution, which happened practically yesterday. I don't watch "Mad Men" and you're putting words in my mouth about the 50s.

you pulled up the 1950s, though I admit madmen was a cheap shot.

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mythologised vision of some kind of golden age where men did manly stuff and were strong and women did house-y children-ey stuff and were deferential to men. It never existed except in the movies which of course supported the dominant... hell lets forget cultural hegemony... you know damn well that the shit in films is no more real than little green men.

now you can buy into that ideal, just like some people buy into the ideal of a series of badly written sci-fi novels to base their lives upon, but that doesn't make real. it's an idealised fantasy you are living. Or wanting to live. Women have always been bolshy, difficult and argumentative and men have always bent over backwards to placate them. This is nothing new. and as scary as you may find feminism (and let's face it, fear of feminism is what this is about), it's not out to castrate you or make you less of a man, just allow some privileged women the opportunity of a slightly more level playing field.

 

[ownedsubgal]

try reading what you post.

how about you try it? i cannot believe i took the time and energy to compose a thoughtful reply to you...knowing the most likely result. sometimes my hopefulness gets on my own danged nerves.

 

[Keroin]

I find myself wondering where the hell some of you people live.

Androgyny? Are you fucking kidding me? When you can't turn on the TV, open a magazine, or watch a bus drive by, without seeing some supersexed female in feminine flimsies, pouting with plump wannablowyou lips?

Took the words right out of my mouth. How rude!

 

[Braschi]

A tendency towards androgyny? What, because women wear pantsuits to the office? Again, the hippy-dippyiest parent gets that some aspects of gender are innate.

No, because it's considered improper to treat people differently according to sex. It's improper to recognize people as being different because of their gender.

Several years ago, back when I was in Highschool (or it's equivalent), there was an "orientation" class, where a psychologist came to help students decide what career they chose to take. The idea was to help them in picking their direction for after school, what college or university to take.

She did a test, and described some of the careers and in one part asked different students if they'd already decided what to do, and if so, why they wanted to follow that particular career (you can see where this is going). One classmate said she'd decided she wanted to get married and be a housewife. Out of all the people the class, most wanting to go into some sort of college degree/engineering course, only she said she wanted to be a housewife. Of course the psychologist said that everyone had a right to choose their career, but she didn't think this was an appropriate choice for the girl. I'll admit to siding with the psychologist here, because if she didn't have a potential husband, that was something of a risky proposition.

Then I switched sides, because immediately the entire class dumped on her. Boys, girls, the teacher, all prodded on by the psychologist. They called her "backward", "stupid" and questioned her sanity. A couple of the men stood up for her, but the psychologist went after us, accusing us of being misogynists. Of course, the girl had "every right to decide for herself", but as long as it was something that was socially acceptable. The whole orientation thing dissolved into a debate over whether this girl had the "right" opinion of relationships. After that, people from the class would harass her in recess, teasing her about her "husband" and questioning whether her boyfriend was abusing her. But, she insisted with her idea, and frankly I have to admire her courage.

I find myself wondering where the hell some of you people live.

Androgyny? Are you fucking kidding me? When you can't turn on the TV, open a magazine, or watch a bus drive by, without seeing some supersexed female in feminine flimsies, pouting with plump wannablowyou lips?

I said androgyny, but I didn't say,

I think this is because we're slowly moving away from a binary gender system. Which I WHOLLY endorse.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

how about you try it? i cannot believe i took the time and energy to compose a thoughtful reply to you...knowing the most likely result. sometimes my hopefulness gets on my own danged nerves.

It's somehow comforting to know that no matter where I go on the internet, people can and will be reduced to sniping at each other like irritated avians.

 

[rosco rathbone]

try reading what you post.





you pulled up the 1950s, though I admit madmen was a cheap shot.

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mythologised vision of some kind of golden age where men did manly stuff and were strong and women did house-y children-ey stuff and were deferential to men. It never existed except in the movies which of course supported the dominant... hell lets forget cultural hegemony... you know damn well that the shit in films is no more real than little green men.

now you can buy into that ideal, just like some people buy into the ideal of a series of badly written sci-fi novels to base their lives upon, but that doesn't make real. it's an idealised fantasy you are living. Or wanting to live. Women have always been bolshy, difficult and argumentative and men have always bent over backwards to placate them. This is nothing new. and as scary as you may find feminism (and let's face it, fear of feminism is what this is about), it's not out to castrate you or make you less of a man, just allow some privileged women the opportunity of a slightly more level playing field.

This all has much more to do with whatever is going on in your own world than anything I ever said. As far as the 50s go, I was just responding to ITW, who brought it up.

My mom would laugh at the "fear of feminism" thing. Let's just say that I was raised by a hard-core Second Waver.

 

[Braschi]

It's somehow comforting to know that no matter where I go on the internet, people can and will be reduced to sniping at each other like irritated avians.

Birds with sniper rifles... now there's a though

Hold on, gotta call the Pentagon.

 

[teknight]

It's somehow comforting to know that no matter where I go on the internet, people can and will be reduced to sniping at each other like irritated avians.

Have you ever considered that it might be you, that you're having this effect on others?

 

[JMohegan]

No, because it's considered improper to treat people differently according to sex. It's improper to recognize people as being different because of their gender.

Several years ago, back when I was in Highschool (or it's equivalent), there was an "orientation" class, where a psychologist came to help students decide what career they chose to take. The idea was to help them in picking their direction for after school, what college or university to take.

She did a test, and described some of the careers and in one part asked different students if they'd already decided what to do, and if so, why they wanted to follow that particular career (you can see where this is going). One classmate said she'd decided she wanted to get married and be a housewife. Out of all the people the class, most wanting to go into some sort of college degree/engineering course, only she said she wanted to be a housewife. Of course the psychologist said that everyone had a right to choose their career, but she didn't think this was an appropriate choice for the girl. I'll admit to siding with the psychologist here, because if she didn't have a potential husband, that was something of a risky proposition.

Then I switched sides, because immediately the entire class dumped on her. Boys, girls, the teacher, all prodded on by the psychologist. They called her "backward", "stupid" and questioned her sanity. A couple of the men stood up for her, but the psychologist went after us, accusing us of being misogynists. Of course, the girl had "every right to decide for herself", but as long as it was something that was socially acceptable. The whole orientation thing dissolved into a debate over whether this girl had the "right" opinion of relationships. After that, people from the class would harass her in recess, teasing her about her "husband" and questioning whether her boyfriend was abusing her. But, she insisted with her idea, and frankly I have to admire her courage.


I said androgyny, but I didn't say,

What you said was:

But there is a tendency in society towards androgyny, where sexual stereotypes aren't tolerated.

And again, I'll ask, where the heck do you live?

Here's one example, just one.

http://www.toysrus.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2289910

Click boys, and then girls, and then come on back and try that again.


As for your tale of a psychologist and a high school with recess, I'd say all involved missed the salient points entirely. Those being:

1 - It is imperative for all healthy adults to have a means of supporting themselves, i.e., the capacity to hold down a paying job, earn rent, money for food, etc.

2 - One prepares oneself for a job or career with college/university/vocational training.

3 - "Housewife" and "househusband" are not paying jobs. They are a means of sharing responsibilities within a committed relationship.

4 - Even those who dream of performing the role of housewife or househusband must prepare for the possibility of delayed marriage, no marriage, divorce, unemployed or underemployed or low wage earning spouse, etc. Hence 1 & 2 remain imperative for everybody - regardless of gender.

That's not androgyny. That's common sense.

.

 

[KoPilot]

I said androgyny, but I didn't say,

Okay, so now you're insinuating that fluidity between the two ends of the gender spectrum means... that people are going to want to stop looking sexy to somebody?

You seem awfully offended by the idea of people not wanting to exclusively pick one or the other and follow through with all of the trappings and stereotypes...

 

[Chgris]

So I have a question, since it was suggested that a poster think about everything else that went on at a certain time when she feels sad about the loss of manners from that time.

What is so terrible about keeping the manners of that period while accepting that economics, politics, and gender roles have changed?

And please, don't give me some purist nonsense about everything was tainted by this or that about the time period.

As for gender roles, I personally don't care what your plumbing is, provided you can do the job. But if it requires a larger frame and stronger body than said male or female wanting to do the job, don't go changing the standards just to accomodate them. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, anyone who has been in the military knows it does.

Oh, and the woman who berated me for holding a door open for her? I simply told her "You're welcome. Next time I'll let you wait outside in the wind and snow until you open it yourself and I go through first."

 

[intothewoods]

No, because it's considered improper to treat people differently according to sex. It's improper to recognize people as being different because of their gender.

Several years ago, back when I was in Highschool (or it's equivalent), there was an "orientation" class, where a psychologist came to help students decide what career they chose to take. The idea was to help them in picking their direction for after school, what college or university to take.

She did a test, and described some of the careers and in one part asked different students if they'd already decided what to do, and if so, why they wanted to follow that particular career (you can see where this is going). One classmate said she'd decided she wanted to get married and be a housewife. Out of all the people the class, most wanting to go into some sort of college degree/engineering course, only she said she wanted to be a housewife. Of course the psychologist said that everyone had a right to choose their career, but she didn't think this was an appropriate choice for the girl. I'll admit to siding with the psychologist here, because if she didn't have a potential husband, that was something of a risky proposition.

Then I switched sides, because immediately the entire class dumped on her. Boys, girls, the teacher, all prodded on by the psychologist. They called her "backward", "stupid" and questioned her sanity. A couple of the men stood up for her, but the psychologist went after us, accusing us of being misogynists. Of course, the girl had "every right to decide for herself", but as long as it was something that was socially acceptable. The whole orientation thing dissolved into a debate over whether this girl had the "right" opinion of relationships. After that, people from the class would harass her in recess, teasing her about her "husband" and questioning whether her boyfriend was abusing her. But, she insisted with her idea, and frankly I have to admire her courage.


I said androgyny, but I didn't say,

In some contexts it is inappropriate and illegal to treat people differently because of their gender. That's not androgyny. At any rate, does that mean people are able to ignore all differences in gender? Hardly.

Your scenario is indicative of the default assumption that women and men alike should choose a career path for themselves. As you point out, there is no guarantee that you will find someone who wants and can afford to support you will you raise the children. Unfortunately, husbands may die, or become ill or disabled or laid off or any other host of reasons why you should have some means of providing for yourself. Now, the choice to stay at home and raise your children is sometimes denigrated. And yet, like I said in an earlier post, many women of a certain class and income level do leave the workforce and stay at home. When the time comes, it's not like you've chosen to go work for the circus or live on a commune. Your classmate will have found plenty who have made the same choice, and plenty of validation for that choice.

 

[KoPilot]

What you said was:

And again, I'll ask, where the heck do you live?

Here's one example, just one.

http://www.toysrus.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2289910

Click boys, and then girls, and then come on back and try that again.


As for your tale of a psychologist and a high school with recess, I'd say all involved missed the salient points entirely. Those being:

1 - It is imperative for all healthy adults to have a means of supporting themselves, i.e., the capacity to hold down a paying job, earn rent, money for food, etc.

2 - One prepares oneself for a job or career with college/university/vocational training.

3 - "Housewife" and "househusband" are not paying jobs. They are a means of sharing responsibilities within a committed relationship.

4 - Even those who dream of performing the role of housewife or househusband must prepare for the possibility of delayed marriage, no marriage, divorce, unemployed or underemployed or low wage earning spouse, etc. Hence 1 & 2 remain imperative for everybody - regardless of gender.

That's not androgyny. That's common sense.

.

Thank you.

 

[JMohegan]

So I have a question, since it was suggested that a poster think about everything else that went on at a certain time when she feels sad about the loss of manners from that time.

What is so terrible about keeping the manners of that period while accepting that economics, politics, and gender roles have changed?

If we accept that gender roles have changed, then it can no longer be considered polite, or courteous, to define "good" manners in a gender-specific way.

For example -

We accept that it's okay for a female to invite a male out to dinner, at a restaurant of her choosing.

Would it then be courteous for the female to expect the male to pick up the entire tab for that meal, simply because he is male? Of course not. He may do so, depending on the particulars of their specific relationship. But as a general rule, such an expectation would be incredibly rude.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Have you ever considered that it might be you, that you're having this effect on others?

It has been considered, but I do not know how I would have this effect when I am uninvolved in the discussion between the individuals.

Unless I have this aura....man I've gotta find the shut off button for that...

 

[Chgris]

If we accept that gender roles have changed, then it can no longer be considered polite, or courteous, to define "good" manners in a gender-specific way.

For example -

We accept that it's okay for a female to invite a male out to dinner, at a restaurant of her choosing.

Would it then be courteous for the female to expect the male to pick up the entire tab for that meal, simply because he is male? Of course not. He may do so, depending on the particulars of their specific relationship. But as a general rule, such an expectation would be incredibly rude.

I'm afraid that I find this example to be a red herring. Since things having changed is assumed to be what makes acceptable the female asking out the male, the "old" manners would be inadequate to the situation, as it would never have existed. Therefore a thinking person would adapt to the situation based on their own code.

I don't see how that invalidates the value of the original code of conduct. It simply points out that it does not cover all situations. So you add to it, not trash the entirety of it.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm afraid that I find this example to be a red herring. Since things having changed is assumed to be what makes acceptable the female asking out the male, the "old" manners would be inadequate to the situation, as it would never have existed. Therefore a thinking person would adapt to the situation based on their own code.

I don't see how that invalidates the value of the original code of conduct. It simply points out that it does not cover all situations. So you add to it, not trash the entirety of it.

Old role = women as invitee only.

New role = women as possible initiator of the event.

Old code = person with cock pays the bill.

New code = person who initiated the event pays the bill.


Perhaps you could give me an example of gender-related manners that you feel society should still honor as a general expectation for all well-mannered folks?

 

[Chgris]

Old role = women as invitee only.

New role = women as possible initiator of the event.

Old code = person with cock pays the bill.

New code = person who initiated the event pays the bill.


Perhaps you could give me an example of gender-related manners that you feel society should still honor as a general expectation for all well-mannered folks?

Hmmm... maybe I didn't express it properly. I certainly didn't say anything about "person with cock". What you put there is an adaptation of the old code. The initiator of the date pays the bill. No different except that the sex has changed. In fact leaving out the sex completely arrives at a workable code.

As to your next question, the old "Women and children first." is what comes to mind immediately. And if anyone doesn't know what it means, it refers to women and children taking precedence in a lifeboat.

Also I believe someone referred earlier to giving up a seat on a bus/subway to a woman or the elderly. That also is worth keeping in place. And no, I'm not doing it to denigrate a female as being less capable than me of standing for the trip. I would simply rather they have the protection of the seat in the event of an emergency.

And I'm sorry, but I will never stop opening doors or assisting a female or elderly companion with sliding in a chair or carrying a parcel. Call me outdated, old-fashioned, or whatever you wish. I am who I am.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Oprah is all about following your own path. She has had plenty of traditional wives and moms on over the years. And there are plenty of pop songs sung by women about how they can't live without their man, etc. As for shrinks, it could be a warning sign if your partner must know where you are at all times of the day. This applies to either gender.

Oprah is all about following your own path as a woman...again, as long as that path includes being independent and assertive. also there is nothing inherently dependent or deferential about a woman who chooses to be a housewife or stay-at-home-mom. women who make such a choice will tend to get plenty of support in our culture, as long as they fit that assertive and independent role. the stay-at-home mom running the show, controlling the kids, keeping hubby on a short leash and taking no guff is not much different than the woman who's running a small business or managing a large a company.

We can debate the validity of any one of these stereotypes or broad brush points, but the fact is that there is plenty of room for men and women to be all or part of their respective traditional roles.

but that's just the thing, that's not a fact. talk about a fantasy land! the example Braschi provided was a good one, of how certain feminine roles and choices are no longer given any validation or respect by mainstream culture. i would imagine you haven't had the unfortunate experience of it being drilled into you from age 5 to 30 that everything you are is wrong, defective and dysfunctional because you were never able to conform to mainstream standards and expectations. lucky you, and i certainly envy that.

of course there are teensy glimpses of hope from time to time...like the public schools in DC which are gender segregated, and teach boys and girls differently with the understanding that entirely different methods are required for the success of both (such as boys being permitted to be loud and rambunctious, so long as they are productive). of course there are plenty of folks who find this completely sexist and furthermore, unsuccessful...so we will see if it lasts. but in the big picture, things continue to look mighty grim.

 

[Keroin]

And no, I'm not doing it to denigrate a female as being less capable than me of standing for the trip. I would simply rather they have the protection of the seat in the event of an emergency.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...

In the event of an emergency...trust me, I would be much better on my feet than you.