@Miss Chicken you got a link to the original discussion? Might prove illuminating.....
Who Should Be Served First?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
One of my friends, I am not sure which friend, posted it on her Timeline saying she could not believe such attitudes still existed. I read many of the comment but I am not sure if I commented myself nor can I remember where my friend reposted it from.
My family doesn't have a "formal" eating policy, but when there is ever a meal provided for my band, the students eat first, followed by any adult chaperones/helpers, and last me. it's the same idea-the men eat first, then the officers. As the C-n-C, everyone goes ahead of me.
A
Amaris
Guest
For me, it's simpler to feed the person who either hasn't eaten yet, or is likely the hungriest. Everyone gets served before myself, and I wouldn't have that any other way.
I think this might have been the original post
https://www.facebook.com/MamasUncen...802089669953/2043995308950613/?type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/MamasUncen...802089669953/2043995308950613/?type=3&theater
This reminds me a scene in the 2004 King Arthur movie.
"A round table? What sort of evil is this?"
"Arthur says for men to be men, they must first all be equal."
Kor
Folks who need assistance of some kind, I think. Small children, older folk maybe.
If it were rank order or something I'd see my mom fed before anyone else in most of our family gatherings; she's the oldest by a decade and actually one of the few of her generation who generally is in attendance at these things any more.
Of course, this is rarely really a question - it's not like we generally line up or are particularly formal.
If it were rank order or something I'd see my mom fed before anyone else in most of our family gatherings; she's the oldest by a decade and actually one of the few of her generation who generally is in attendance at these things any more.
Of course, this is rarely really a question - it's not like we generally line up or are particularly formal.
Plates aren't edible unless they're the ones that come with lettuce, tomato, sour cream, cheese, meat or meat substitute of choice, select herbs and spices, served by a person you'd like to marry or at least give a generous tip to in return for knowing they are in a stressful and frequently undervalued profession, if I were to opine a belief.
That and it's not 300BC anymore. For a plethora of reasons, which - upon reflecting upon - are as multifaceted as they are too ghastly to adumbrate right now, and it has less to do with one particular train of thought that some have already opined upon - despite that being one such reason but not for what people might be thinking, I'd wager.
Well, I'll mention one, more in an indirect reason than a direct one, but it does involve "respecting one's elders".
Anyone who lived 2318 years ago probably knows what I mean, in full context... but that was their world and how they saw it, under contexts that can no longer apply.
Anyone who lived 2318 years ago probably knows what I mean, in full context... but that was their world and how they saw it, under contexts that can no longer apply.
The actual meaning is not merely a plate. What it means is a plate of food. In other words, the male head of the household is (according to whoever thought up that repugnant sentence) to be served his plate of food before everyone else, particularly the children.
Some people and some cultures held children in very little regard, considering them miniature adults whose function was to work at whatever tasks they were capable of doing, learn what they were taught, and marry according to the father's wishes. Unless the plan was for the child to go into the church or if the family was wealthy enough to afford higher learning, education past the basics wasn't a priority, either.
Children should be served first, but I hardly give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
She was utterly wrong. The proper order is always by social rank, i.e. women before men, guests before family members, older people before younger. One exception: the hostess get served last (that's mainly a technical reason since usually it is she who fetches and serves the dishes).
Going by social rank, the children would indeed be served after the man, since they rank lowest while his rank depends on who else participates in the meal (see above).
While at a first glance this order seems utterly outdated, I still think it has some importance as it automatically anchors in the kids' minds the concept of different social ranks and respect for higher ranking persons (which will later in life be vital for their own social rank and progress and will keep them from making embarassing faux pas).
I got the impression that many children and young adults today have by frequent indulgence and informality by their parents been inadvertendly educated into believing they rank highest and all their wishes must be obeyed instantly. This attitude makes it almost impossible to integrate them into a team or even society in general. They get shunned by their peers and fired by their bosses because they constantly misbehave by not considering the needs and rights of others. All this could have been avoided if only their parents had shown them in time that other people have rights and (deserved) privileges that outrank their own ones.
What utter utter shite.
well, naturally you are entitled to your own opinion - as am I, btw - but there is no necessity at all to be rude (nor to misspell, I might add)
I didn't say you weren't, what you wrote though is, total shite.
How about we aim to be less hierarchical in families. "Rank" is repugnant.
Wasn't the whole concept of rank or whatever term we want to use built on who brought in the money to keep things running smoothly. Usually in the past that was the men because of sexism sort of kept that status intact. I wonder what things were like in homes were the woman earned the most money. Also I go to wonder if this was much of a thing with poor people. My family has been poor and we never had that kind of thinking. Granted I lived with a asshole stepdad and then with just my mom and sisters so your not going to get much rank stuff going on in a single parent hosehold. When I lived with my dad for 2 years it was kind of different in that he is rich but he was almost always gone on business so I spent more time with my stepmom but I never noticed much difference even though they were little more "Brady Bunch" than my mom and sisters were.
Jason
Jason
Ah, thanks, hierarchy was the word I couldn't remember. I desperately try to avoid using my dictionary atm since it weighs 6 lbs (no kidding!) and my tennis elbow troubles me again.
jayson, I envy you your upbringing. I'm perfectly trained in matters of protocol but any trace of the Brady Bunch spirit of your mom and sisters was sorely missed in my parents. With them the motto used to be "no prob if you beat the kids but in case they survive make sure they know how to properly address a bishop or archduke." (
just in case you meet either, the correct addresses are: Your Eminency//Your Imperial Highness)I think that it's a rather modern concept to base social rank/hierarchy almost exclusively on income. Only one or two generations ago, age and general respectability would have dominantly been taken into account. For example, it used to be a matter of course with our parents and grandparents that the old grandmother or auntie got the most comfortable chair, the warmest room and the most tender piece of meat. And that a guest is treated with particular courtesy goes without saying, even today. Or imagine you could have the Bronte sisters, Immanuel Kant or Diogenes for dinner - they all were comperatively poor but enjoyed huge respect for their intellectual achievements.
Similar threads
