Chivalry: It's dead, Jim.

[RAMA]

I'm never in a situation where I have to give up a seat, but I do open doors for all women. Yes, I think they are strong enough to open them, I just like to.

RAMA

 

[Holdfast]

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons (because there clearly hasn't been enough of that in this thread yet... ), consider this:

Since when did life have to treat men and women exactly equally?

I totally discriminate between how I treat attractive women and how I treat attractive men. The former I always like having a flirty nod/wink with and indulge in a bit of idle but pleasant chit-chat with them. The latter I'll certainly have the pleasant chat with, but I wouldn't flirt with them! My best friend happens to be gay and of course does the opposite (to an even greater extent than me). Gender discrimination in the legal sense is about employment regulation, not my social interactions (provided it isn't abusive, of course). There is no requirement, moral or legal, to treat men & women the same way in one's social interactions.

Judging against Flux or whoever because of a "double-standard" holds no water with me, because I can't see anything wrong with this particular double-standard. No-one's being hurt or put-down, just that in some cases, some women are better off. No harm, no foul, as far as I can see.

 

[An Officer]

Just like in a lot of cases, some men are better off. It all balances out in the end.

 

[Mr Awe]

^^^ That's true and I'm a pretty big flirt myself. However, there's flirting and then there is general kindness. Flux was making it a general kindness thing, so that's where this gets him! If he's talking general kindness, just be nice to everyone. If he's flirting, just be upfront about it.

Mr Awe

 

[Hermiod]

The premise of this thread is that it is wrong for a man not to allow a woman to take the last seat on a train. If we are allowed to choose how we treat people based solely on their gender with no judgement then how can that be the case?

I choose not to make such an arbitrary separation so that makes me a bad person? Are the women who have said they don't want special treatment bad people too?

 

[An Officer]

^ Those women are not bad, they just don't know when they're onto a good thing.

 

[Hermiod]

^ Those women are not bad, they just don't know when they're onto a good thing.

I choose not to exploit the apparent advantages being a man supposedly gives me, do I not know when I'm on to a good thing either?

 

[Holdfast]

^^^ That's true and I'm a pretty big flirt myself. However, there's flirting and then there is general kindness. Flux was making it a general kindness thing, so that's where this gets him! If he's talking general kindness, just be nice to everyone. If he's flirting, just be upfront about it.

I take your point, and certainly he's muddied the waters with some of his later posts.

But the thread title, and original post, simply refers to chivalry, which is a fairly arbitrary self-imposed code of conduct. That could mean there's a flirty subtext... but equally chivalry does not mandate such a subtext. It just happens to be mine!

Just like in a lot of cases, some men are better off. It all balances out in the end.

Yeah, I forgot about that. You're right. Really, who's getting harmed by all this? I can't figure it out, but I'm sure I'll be told soon.

The premise of this thread is that it is wrong for a man not to allow a woman to take the last seat on a train. If we are allowed to choose how we treat people based solely on their gender with no judgement then how can that be the case?

I choose not to make such an arbitrary separation so that makes me a bad person? Are the women who have said they don't want special treatment bad people too?

Leaving aside the specifics of the thread topic for a moment because they're irrelevant to the point you're making, you're essentially asking whether it's possible to apply categorical standards to an arbitrary scale.

The answer is: yes, it is, but only in a circular self-referential manner.

So, translating that logic back into the specifics of the thread, the bottom line is that you're both arguing against a brick wall, because you're both internally consistent in your logic, with no overlap in your scales, so you are both correct in your independent analyses but have no ability to ever logically convince the other party. I think you're both enjoying the argument though, and I'm certainly enjoying the view, so do keep at it!

 

[Hermiod]

To answer your question, the only people being harmed are the ones being called 'dicks' for not agreeing with the OP.

 

[An Officer]

I choose not to exploit the apparent advantages being a man supposedly gives me, do I not know when I'm on to a good thing either?

You're missing out on some of life's glorious compensations. No wonder you're in such an ill humour.

 

[Holdfast]

The thread's been rapped on the knuckles and told to play nicely already, so that deals with that.

Beyond internet hurt feelings, is there anyone in the real world harmed by these actions?

 

[JonathonWally]

If I had the choice between spending the evening with a drop-dead gorgeous guy who was a jerk and an average-looking guy who was kind and thoughtful I would go with the latter. Most of us women (there are ALWAYS exceptions to everything) are wired like that.

Being a jerk has always worked for me

QFT

 

[Iasius]

I guess the problem some people here have with the original post are these two sentences:

Call me old fashioned, but I always feel like a dick if I'm sitting and a lady or older person is forced to stand
[...]
The lady is now standing over by one of the doors, around about 5 other guys sitting.

That implies that he thinks those five guys are dicks.

Now that may not have been his intention and I really don't care either way myself (I personally prefer to stand myself, especially since most of the time I'll be on public transport for a couple minutes at most).

I just don't think it's fair to say that guys should give up their seats to able-bodied women and if they don't, they're dicks.

In fact, I think saying that it's basically an obligation for a nice man to give up his seat to any women takes away the niceness of the act. For me, being nice is mostly about going out of your way to be helpful to others (regarding this topic anyway). Ie if men aren't generally supposed to give up their seats, but do so anyway, then they're being nice (but those who don't, aren't rude).

On the other hand, someone giving up their seat to infirm people is not really being nice (since it's expected), however if they don't they are being rude.

 

[Hermiod]

I choose not to exploit the apparent advantages being a man supposedly gives me, do I not know when I'm on to a good thing either?

You're missing out on some of life's glorious compensations. No wonder you're in such an ill humour.

When I see something funny I'll laugh. In the meantime perhaps you can enlighten me as to what advantages I'm supposed to be getting?

 

[An Officer]

That implies that he thinks those five guys are dicks.

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Iasius]

That implies that he thinks those five guys are dicks.

That's a bit of a stretch.

I think so too, my point was that I see how it could be taken that way.

 

[An Officer]

When I see something funny I'll laugh. In the meantime perhaps you can enlighten me as to what advantages I'm supposed to be getting?

Hermiod, you may be beyond help.

This is field day worthy material.

 

[Hermiod]

When I see something funny I'll laugh. In the meantime perhaps you can enlighten me as to what advantages I'm supposed to be getting?

Hermiod, you may be beyond help.

This is field day worthy material.

Still waiting for the funny. Nothing wrong with my sense of humour, thanks. Seriously, is there some list of special privileges I wasn't CC'ed on?

 

[Trippy]

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons (because there clearly hasn't been enough of that in this thread yet... ), consider this:

Since when did life have to treat men and women exactly equally?

I totally discriminate between how I treat attractive women and how I treat attractive men. The former I always like having a flirty nod/wink with and indulge in a bit of idle but pleasant chit-chat with them. The latter I'll certainly have the pleasant chat with, but I wouldn't flirt with them! My best friend happens to be gay and of course does the opposite (to an even greater extent than me). Gender discrimination in the legal sense is about employment regulation, not my social interactions (provided it isn't abusive, of course). There is no requirement, moral or legal, to treat men & women the same way in one's social interactions.

Judging against Flux or whoever because of a "double-standard" holds no water with me, because I can't see anything wrong with this particular double-standard. No-one's being hurt or put-down, just that in some cases, some women are better off. No harm, no foul, as far as I can see.

QFT and an extra thrown in

Simply: Do I expect a man to give up a seat for me? No. Do I take a seat when offered? Yes, and with thanks and a smile.

Most times, I just try to get a seat for my son as a child's balance is not as developed as an adult's and I stand.

 

[Smiley]

If a man gives up his seat for an able-bodied man with no extra baggage, then he is thought to be weird. It's like getting penalized for having an earlier entrance to the bus/train/subway. Also, the man is not as likely to appreciate the gesture because it goes against the social custom.

Like it or not, there is a difference in public perception regarding the same act of kindness done for people of different genders. A person cannot always act the same way toward male and female because the consequences are different.