Good Manners

[the captians wench]

You have every right to your sadness, Wench. Of course.

But here's the thing. Your nostalgia focuses on only part of the world as it was. You're forgetting, or ignoring, or maybe you just never really knew about, the downside of former times.

When such manners were prominent, women really were dependent, in large measure, upon men. Dependent, in the control of, and lesser than. The mores were reflective of the general societal structure.

And so, back in the day, the manager's position in your restaurant would have gone to a male, not you. Legally. After all, he had a family to support! For the same reason, your position on the lower rung would have been compensated with a smaller salary. Legally.

Never mind the fact that your lover lives across the pond, and is unable to provide for you financially, to make up the difference in your salary and career prospects. Never mind the fact that you take justifiable pride and personal satisfaction in achieving a managerial role. Back in the day, all that would have been just too fucking bad.

So while I say you're entitled to your sadness, Wench, I also would encourage you to temper it with a dose of historical reality. To that end, I *highly* recommend this book. It is at once lighthearted, and piercing.

Thank you very much for your concern, but I am aware of these parts that you mention.

I'm indepentant because I have to be, not because I ever wanted to be. I am in mid management because I had to be to afford the lifestyle that I live (travel across the pond is expencive<not that I've been making many trips>), not because I ever wanted to move up. I would actually be happier in a subordenate roll. Just because I can be a good leader, doesn't mean I prefer to be.

I know I've said it here before, but I see nothing wrong with being a stepford wife. I would love to be a kept woman. But I also know that it's not likely to happen that way and I'm happy to do what's nessisary because dispite my best efforts I can't always have what I want.

I'm not saying that that time doesn't have it's down side. I would probably still be married to my ex husband, turning a blind eye to an affair or two, and never feeling good enough. Yes there are bad parts, and while sad may have been a bit strong of a word, I do long for that type of interaction.

But I don't sit around all day wishing for things to be the way they are not. I'm much too busy for that.

 

[teknight]

The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

Changes in technology ...are threatening? Really? To whom? And since when? Fire was a big technological change: Was that wrong? Was it threatening? I mean, surely it disrupted whatever came before it, but, guess what? No one said "Screw fire, I'm going back to being lion food."

Who decided that "traditional"="good"? What is "traditional" anyway? Traditions change. (Yeah, sounds crazy, I know.)

And are you saying that manly men should be afraid of something- namely change? Are you sure you understand how this whole masculinity thing's supposed to work?
</sarcasm>

 

[the captians wench]

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.

Now this is a rule I abide by. If I invite you out, I intend to pay for the evening.

But I wouldn't ask a man I was romanticly interested in out. I'm just too shy.

 

[where]

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.

I've read many many of your posts. your replies are seldom thoughtful but only ever reflect a rather distorted view of the world but then you seemingly live in some kind of isolated bubble and get most of your information about how the world works from Oprah. Not exactly balanced, huh?

By your own admission you allow people who are impoverished pay your way because you are 'female', like having a cunt makes you somehow deserving of some kind of special treatment from humanity. To do this you manipulate people into seeing you as a helpless victim and then when someone comes along and challenges you, you go back to the old little girl cry of 'why can't it be like it used to be? Why are all the nasty people picking on me? Booo Hoo!' but of course, because you are so hopelessly ignorant, you think that 'how it used to be' was like some scene from an old movie or the story of O or some other such tosh.

You can live in your constructed fantasy world, but when you start making claims about what is 'normal' behaviour, then you better have some kind of evidence (preferably other than Oprah) to back it up.

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.

My world is your world. you go on about men becoming feminized but you can't back the claim up.

and my mum was also a radical second waver. Set up the first battered wives hostels and hostels for single mothers. My brother is possibly the most misogynistic man you are ever likely to meet. His loathing and contempt for women runs very very deep. So being raised by a feminist doesn't qualify for understanding new man status.

Though I suppose it does mean you can cook, which is a definite bonus!

 

[Cattypuss]

Good god.

Since when did "treating women like physical and intellectual subhumans" = "courtesy"?

The death of sexism (if/when it comes - certainly not in my lifetime) will NOT be the same as the death of courtesy, for fuck's sake.

Do women REALLY need to have doors held open for them and be treated as incapable of ordering their own meal etc etc etc etc etc - do they REALLY need to be treated as "the weaker sex" in order to "feel like a woman"?

Hell, I deal with men as equals and they deal with me as an equal. Do I feel "unwomanly"? Of course I don't. I happen to be a very hetero woman who adores men as both lovers and friends. And I always feel 100% woman, even when (shock, horror!) a man treats me as his equal in all regards.

Courtesy is treating others with respect and consideration - it's not treating others as somehow inferior and incapable.

If a man holds a door open for me I say thanks, and smile, and walk through. Just as often, I'll hold a door open for a man.

And I'm happy to say that I'm confident enough in my femininity that I feel just as much " a woman" in both scenarios.

Like Keroin, I'll say if it floats your boat and you find a partner who feels them same then all power to you. It just baffles me when women need to feel weak in order to feel like women.

 

[Cattypuss]

You can live in your constructed fantasy world, but when you start making claims about what is 'normal' behaviour, then you better have some kind of evidence (preferably other than Oprah) to back it up.

This is very common behaviour from osg. She expects people to regard her very extreme lifestyle choices (and yes, they are choices, no matter how she may choose to see them) as 100% acceptable (which most of us do) but then she presumes to tell those who fall in the majority as regards the choice spectrum that they are "weird". Totally ridiculous and very very blinkered. We all are very subjective in most of our judgements but most of us have the maturity and nous to recognise that fact. Maybe she needs to look up "normal" in a dictionary.

She also has a tendency to pour scorn on those who engage in BDSM for sexual kicks. Which makes you wonder why she haunts a board populated mostly by such people.

 

[where]

This is very common behaviour from osg. She expects people to regard her very extreme lifestyle choices (and yes, they are choices, no matter how she may choose to see them) as 100% acceptable (which most of us do) but then she presumes to tell those who fall in the majority as regards the choice spectrum that they are "weird". Totally ridiculous and very very blinkered. We all are very subjective in most of our judgements but most of us have the maturity and nous to recognise that fact. Maybe she needs to look up "normal" in a dictionary.

She also has a tendency to pour scorn on those who engage in BDSM for sexual kicks. Which makes you wonder why she haunts a board populated mostly by such people.

I know. and really I shouldn't fall for it because I think it's mostly attention seeking.

 

[Cattypuss]

I know. and really I shouldn't fall for it because I think it's mostly attention seeking.

Yes indeedy.

 

[RJMasters]

wow.

So an officer comes up to me see...and she asks....did you see what happened here?

I said no, I think it was a myth....no I mean a chia-pet.

She looks around at all the peices of the bodies strown around the place and looks back at me....and points her stick at my chest.

A chia-pet did this?!

No, no, I corrected myself I mean a chimera...yeah that's it.

Have you been drinking?

No.

Well what do you think happened here? She asked.

I told her, you know how fucked up it is when a bunch of rednecks decide to take a fag out and beat the shit out of them because they can't tolerate them?

Yeah, but what's that got to do with this?

You know how fucked up it is when men get paid more for the same job that women do?

Damn straight I do!

Well I think, with a reverse kind of redneck mentality, a bunch of fags and women just kicked the holy shit out of anyone who had any kind of affiniation for traditional roles. I think they humillated them for their sexual preferences and how they would like them to be in society, then they just started beating on them.

A reverse kind of redneck what? Sir, Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

No maam.

Ok, then what happened next?

One of the seriously bad ass bitches came over to me and said, if anyone asks, nothing happened here, you didn't see nothin. Its all just a myth, got it? Then she told me she would like to have dinner with me sometime.

What did you say?

I said um....I don't eat dinner anymore cause its too dangerous of a sport.

 

[intothewoods]

on that one point we agree...your kids are who they are, and we can't fix them to a particular mold no matter how hard we may try. of course we can certainly create an environment in which they are deeply ashamed of, or even afraid, of being themselves, and feel unaccepted and invalided in every possible way...and that is why i stated this,

but the fact is that there is plenty of room for men and women to be all or part of their respective traditional roles.

is just false. we can agree to disagree on the rest. now as for me personally, i never said anything about the entirety of who i am being rejected by my "parents"...by my mother, most definitely, but that ceased to affect me by age 12. no, i was referring to society-at-large...from pop media and culture to next door neighbors to psychologists and therapists to social peers and everyone in between. the only place i've been able to find thus far where it's okay to be me is in a relative bubble off on the fringes of mainstream society. it would be nice to not be restricted to that tiny bubble, that's all.

Because it's false in your experience doesn't make it so for all of the people who find their space to choose a traditional path. And, again, I know plenty of them.

Btw, as a bit of evidence that gender neutral parenting is not mainstream, it was featured on a show called Extreme Parenting on the Discovery Network. Right up there with Unparenting -- where the parents do not tell their kids what or when to eat, when to bathe, everyone is equal in the home, etc. -- and the natural parenting mother who practices elimination communication rather than diapers, buries the placenta in the backyard and various other similar lifestyle choices.

I didn't say you were rejected by your parents. I said I was not -- and that experience is pretty crucial in one's development. I've known quite a range of people with varying personalities and chosen paths in life, and none have been rejected by therapists, social peers, next door neighbors and everyone in between. As far as pop culture goes, join the enormous club.

 

[JMohegan]

Thank you very much for your concern, but I am aware of these parts that you mention.

I'm indepentant because I have to be, not because I ever wanted to be. I am in mid management because I had to be to afford the lifestyle that I live (travel across the pond is expencive<not that I've been making many trips>), not because I ever wanted to move up. I would actually be happier in a subordenate roll. Just because I can be a good leader, doesn't mean I prefer to be.

I know I've said it here before, but I see nothing wrong with being a stepford wife. I would love to be a kept woman. But I also know that it's not likely to happen that way and I'm happy to do what's nessisary because dispite my best efforts I can't always have what I want.

I'm not saying that that time doesn't have it's down side. I would probably still be married to my ex husband, turning a blind eye to an affair or two, and never feeling good enough. Yes there are bad parts, and while sad may have been a bit strong of a word, I do long for that type of interaction.

But I don't sit around all day wishing for things to be the way they are not. I'm much too busy for that.

There's nothing wrong with being a housewife or househusband, and nothing wrong with a preference for a subordinate role.

However, in one way I'd say you *are* quite independent, Wench - not by necessity, but by choice. Independent, as in: not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself.

You chose to participate in an unconventional relationship, with a man halfway across the world. In order to afford your non-traditional lifestyle, you worked hard and became mid-manager.

Hats off to your self-determination, Wench. And hats off to those who fought for your right to it.

 

[JMohegan]

My world is your world. you go on about men becoming feminized but you can't back the claim up.

Not speaking for Rosco, just myself, I see three traditionally feminine ways in which boys (in the US, in general) are now being raised.

1 - Sedentary lifestyle.

2 - Avoidance of physical risk.

3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult.

I don't think that makes our society androgynous. But I do think it would be foolish to presume that such changes aren't having a marked effect on our society.

 

[eastern sun]

No one's saying you can't be courteous- the question is "What does it mean to be courteous?"

Toil isn't a sign of worthiness- get that obsolete idea out out of your head....or give up all the modern trappings, and be "pious/worthy." And here's why I know this to be a fact: if toil were somehow a good, then we'd have stuck with it, instead of creating all this modern machinery to perform the work for us. Toil only means that you're incapable of producing much of value.

Wow. You ask "What does it mean to be courteous?" . . . And then you come up with a statement like this.

I am one of the toilers on this earth.

I call it the three c's - Cooking. Cleaning. Childcare.

Somebody's gotta do it.

And I don't buy the idea that if I were actually capable of creating something of real value that I would be making a better choice by hiring some more useless or impoverished woman to do it for me. I don't buy that idea at all.

 

[teknight]

Wow. You ask "What does it mean to be courteous?" . . . And then you come up with a statement like this.

I am one of the toilers on this earth.

I call it the three c's - Cooking. Cleaning. Childcare.

Somebody's gotta do it.

And I don't buy the idea that if I were actually capable of creating something of real value that I would be making a better choice by hiring some more useless or impoverished woman to do it for me. I don't buy that idea at all.

You're a house maker. Cool. That's not the toil I was talking about. I was referring to the "foremothers" that were previously mentioned that did everything 'cause they had no choice but to. You do have choices. So, I'm not talking about you.
To put it in a more modern perspective: The really messed up parts of Africa, like, let's say, the Democratic Republic of Congo where they make, on average $200/ year. That's a failed country (I'm not picking on them, but it's fact). In a lot of ways, they're like our ancestors (going a long way back). To survive they need to put in a lot of work for very little return. They would gladly give up their sad toil to switch places with... you. But, the option isn't all that available to them. They don't have a choice between being productive and being poor (and, btw, the two go hand in hand), so their toil is nothing worthy. It's not saintly of them to be killing themselves for $200/year. It's sad and wrong.

I never claimed I was being courteous in my reply.

Now, let me ask you this: why do you choose to say that the woman you wouldn't be hiring would be "useless"? Why that word?

Sorry to hear that you feel what you're doing is "toiling" but I wasn't talking about you.

 

[eastern sun]

Old code: Male always gives up his seat on a bus to a female.

New code: Healthy, strong person gives up his/her seat on a bus to anyone demonstrably less so.

Interesting sidenote - in New York City, it's obvious that the teenage boys being raised by their grandmothers are still operating on old code. New code hasn't become universal by a long shot.

I liked your comment on the general coarsening of society.

When I was in my early twenties, I went through a period when I challenged the social code whenever I could. My mother would take me out to a fancy restaurant and I would refuse to eat with a fork and a knife, using my fingers to make a statement to her and to the world at large that I would not behave as I was supposed to. I refused to wear shoes at job interviews. I was pretty crazy.

Today I have the same expectations of my children that my mother had of me. And I appreciate courtesy and etiquette whenever and wherever it is expressed, as it speaks to me of consideration given to something other than oneself.

I went out on a first date with a dominant man who ordered for me without expressly asking what I wanted or telling me that he was going to order. When he asked what sounded good, I thought he was asking my opinion of what he was considering for himself, and I ended up eating it. I gave my honest opinion when asked though. I did think the dish sounded good. And it was. I liked the experience. But I'm prone to enjoy myself in that kind of situation.

 

[intothewoods]

Interesting sidenote - in New York City, it's obvious that the teenage boys being raised by their grandmothers are still operating on old code. New code hasn't become universal by a long shot.

See also Asian American teen boys walking arm in arm or holding hands with their mothers in San Francisco.

 

[teknight]

Not speaking for Rosco, just myself, I see three traditionally feminine ways in which boys (in the US, in general) are now being raised.

3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult.

I don't think that makes our society androgynous. But I do think it would be foolish to presume that such changes aren't having a marked effect on our society.

Hold on, JM. Where's #3 coming from? I'm reading it as 'it's wrong that women are sharing that responsibility", but, at the same time, I'm putting words in your mouth...I think. Where are you getting your notion from?

 

[eastern sun]

You're a house maker. Cool. That's not the toil I was talking about. I was referring to the "foremothers" that were previously mentioned that did everything 'cause they had no choice but to. You do have choices. So, I'm not talking about you.

To put it in a more modern perspective: The really messed up parts of Africa, like, let's say, the Democratic Republic of Congo where they make, on average $200/ year. That's a failed country (I'm not picking on them, but it's fact). In a lot of ways, they're like our ancestors (going a long way back). To survive they need to put in a lot of work for very little return. They would gladly give up their sad toil to switch places with... you. But, the option isn't all that available to them. They don't have a choice between being productive and being poor (and, btw, the two go hand in hand), so their toil is nothing worthy. It's not saintly of them to be killing themselves for $200/year. It's sad and wrong.

I never claimed I was being courteous in my reply.

Now, let me ask you this: why do you choose to say that the woman you wouldn't be hiring would be "useless"? Why that word?

Sorry to hear that you feel what you're doing is "toiling" but I wasn't talking about you.

To be accurate, I'm a house slave; but in all these conversations, I will be perceived as a housewife. To me, there's a difference.

I chose the word "useless" following your comment on "nothing of real value."

 

[the captians wench]

There's nothing wrong with being a housewife or househusband, and nothing wrong with a preference for a subordinate role.

However, in one way I'd say you *are* quite independent, Wench - not by necessity, but by choice. Independent, as in: not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself.

You chose to participate in an unconventional relationship, with a man halfway across the world. In order to afford your non-traditional lifestyle, you worked hard and became mid-manager.

Hats off to your self-determination, Wench. And hats off to those who fought for your right to it.

Thank you again. But, again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking the way things are now, excet that I personally would like to see some of these things come back in style.

I've held doors open for men, a la doorman style. It's looked upon as good customer service at my place that if your in a position to hold the door for someone, you do it. It still feels awkward to me, and as often as not the man will shuffle around me, hold the door and insist I procede first. When they do this I get that little tingle in my tummy. I like that tingle.

I will never see that OP as the man being presumtuous, because like I said before, if I were in that place a lot more conversation would have happened between "what looks good" and "the lady will have". And if it didn't happen that there wasn't conversation, and he did name a dish that I had not settled on, well yes that could be considered presumtuous, but I don't see it as controling and that's the issue I thought was being discussed.

Maybe it is an assertion of dominance, but I don't see it in a bdsm way, more a primitive "I am man" way, which I happen to like.

I still say that before it got to the going for dinner part, we'd both know the intentions of the other, and whether this act was acceptable or not. And I can't be wrong in assuming that most people work this way, can I? I mean do people usually have dinner with out knowing that base of compatibility?

ETA: Oh and btw, according to my high school advanced English teacher there is something wrong with wanting to be a housewife and she nearly failed me because I did my seinor exit project on that asperation.

 

[teknight]

To be accurate, I'm a house slave; but in all these conversations, I will be perceived as a housewife. To me, there's a difference. To others, there appears not to be.

I chose the word "useless" following your comment on "nothing of real value."

Ah. OK. Hmm, I see how you were offended. What I meant was value in an economic sense (econ student, so, can't help getting teknical): what you do has value. However, if everybody in society was still operating on the level of a "housewife"- and, please bear with my gross generalization and distortion here- by which I mean, if everybody was growing food, cooking, cleaning, and caring for kids, then everybody'd be poor, 'cause no one would be making the machinery to simplify life (your washing machine, microwave, stove, fridge, phones, computers, etc). That, however, is a crap example, going from housewife to medieval peasant. But that's what I'm talking about.
A more apt point is this: As a society, we've gotten as far from the savanna as we've gotten (replace savanna by caves if that works for you) because we've specialized. We choose to do very specific tasks and trade with others, because that lets us be more productive, and, therefore, better off (overall), 'cause now we can have the doctors, engineers, entertainers, factory workers that make our life a lot more bearable than it's been in the past. Yes, yes, modern stresses and whatnot, but our quality of life is still better than it's ever been before. Why? Cause people are more productive.
Does that little (and overly simplistic) econ lesson shed more light on what I was saying?

 

[teknight]

ETA: Oh and btw, according to my high school advanced English teacher there is something wrong with wanting to be a housewife and she nearly failed me because I did my seinor exit project on that asperation.

<completely off topic, but:>
You mean "aspiration, right (also, senior)? 'cause, otherwise, I might see why you Advanced English teacher would have wanted to fail you, and it's more basic than gender rights and whatnot.

 

[intothewoods]

ETA: Oh and btw, according to my high school advanced English teacher there is something wrong with wanting to be a housewife and she nearly failed me because I did my seinor exit project on that asperation.

Again, I don't think anyone has said nothing has changed for men and women, nor has anyone said that everyone values housewives or wants their daughters to share that aspiration. As I and others have said before, there are practical reasons why that isn't a good sole career goal. Women in the past sometimes found that out too -- husbands die, leave, get sick, etc. All I am saying is that there is still support for that choice. It may be common for girls to choose a profession, but someone has to take care of the kids and plenty of women still stay home to do so. Are all of the things that could be broadly labeled "women's work" denigrated and undervalued by society? Sure, as many felt it was in the past too.

Btw, if you want to see a path that is denigrated, ridiculed and often leaves the person who chose it feeling very isolated, talk to a stay at home dad. I know stay at home moms who aren't allowed by their husbands (yes, allowed, and they aren't BDSM) to hang out with stay at home dads.

 

[eastern sun]

Ah. OK. Hmm, I see how you were offended. What I meant was value in an economic sense (econ student, so, can't help getting teknical): what you do has value. However, if everybody in society was still operating on the level of a "housewife"- and, please bear with my gross generalization and distortion here- by which I mean, if everybody was growing food, cooking, cleaning, and caring for kids, then everybody'd be poor, 'cause no one would be making the machinery to simplify life (your washing machine, microwave, stove, fridge, phones, computers, etc). That, however, is a crap example, going from housewife to medieval peasant. But that's what I'm talking about.
A more apt point is this: As a society, we've gotten as far from the savanna as we've gotten (replace savanna by caves if that works for you) because we've specialized. We choose to do very specific tasks and trade with others, because that lets us be more productive, and, therefore, better off (overall), 'cause now we can have the doctors, engineers, entertainers, factory workers that make our life a lot more bearable than it's been in the past. Yes, yes, modern stresses and whatnot, but our quality of life is still better than it's ever been before. Why? Cause people are more productive.
Does that little (and overly simplistic) econ lesson shed more light on what I was saying?

Your education is still incomplete.

There would be no specialized roles at all if there were no foundation of peasants feeding them and cleaning up their shit. Is the foundation on which a society is built of no real value?

That's how we end up in world economic crises. When the structures are built with no real foundations.

I hope your economy professors are not misleading you.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm getting the impression that many people seem to think that human rights is a zero sum game. When women gain more privilege and status in society, that that somehow by its very occurrence reduces the amount of privilege and status of men.

Am I reading this viewpoint correctly?

 

[teknight]

Your education is still incomplete.

There would be no specialized roles at all if there were no foundation of peasants feeding them and cleaning up their shit. Is the foundation on which a society is built of no real value?

That's how we end up in world economic crises. When the structures are built with no real foundations.

I hope your economy professors are not misleading you.

I never claimed my education was complete (or ever will be). The day I claim that, had better be the day I die, 'cause, otherwise, I'd be an idiot.

Society, as it exists today, is built not on peasants, but on this whole diversified labor thing. Yes, we need to eat, but there's more to us than our stomachs.

So, are you saying that capitalism and the lifestyle it's brought about for you are evil? 'cause you can still become a house slave in parts of the world where you won't be too affected by it.

Yes, there are excesses, and yes, people have made idiotic blunders, especially when they claimed to know everything- the current crisis was brought about, in part, by financial companies claiming to know everything. That was idiotic, moronic, wrong. Somebody, somewhere did know that no bubble ever lasts, but they were drowned out by group think and the majority. However, all this speculative bullshit does have a very real foundation- it's investment. Giving your money to other people so that they can create newer and better things, which wind up enriching your pockets, and giving the world better things. There is value in that. But I choose not to denigrate it, just 'cause the economy's hiccuped. It's done so before (and it's rebounded) and it will do so again (and it will rebound again.) That the world will not look the same after the rebound merely means that the unproductive industries and companies have been wiped out, which is a good thing.

A quick reality check:
-not all investments will succeed. Shit happens. On average, however, more succeed than fail.