Being a Gentleman

[superstring01]

Adults need children to hold doors open for them? Pathetic.

Having her children hold the door isn't about what adults need. Odd that you missed that. Learning to have a servan mentality (ie a servant to humanity) is an essential part of teaching humility and morality. It tells the person "you're never too good to humble yourself and do something nice.")

It's called good parenting.

 

[mordea]

Having her children hold the door isn't about what adults need. Odd that you missed that. Learning to have a servan mentality (ie a servant to humanity) is an essential part of teaching humility and morality. It tells the person "you're never too good to humble yourself and do something nice.")

It's called good parenting.

Indeed. It's about putting children in their place. I do the same to my dog when I order it to roll over and play dead.

 

[superstring01]

Indeed. It's about putting children in their place. I do the same to my dog when I order it to roll over and play dead.

That was about the single most dense comment I've heard on this forum in ages.

You've attempted to equate a perpetually unequal relationship (humans and dogs) to an evolving relationship (parent and child). Idiotic. What's sad is that you ignored the point about considering one's self a servent of humanity, ignored the point about humility and attempted to spin the entire thing into some master-servant relationship.

Maybe you should pay attention: Like sensory development, many social lessons can only be taught effectively during a certain window. For example, optical reception can only be developed--neurologically--during the first four years of life. If the optic nerve is pinched, and the brain never forms the synaptic connections during that period, they will lock in place. Even if the optic nerve is repaired after that time, the brain will never have the appropriate cerebral mechanisms to effectively process sight. Likewise, social lessons must be imprinted at certain times in life. Humility, being essential to a strong sense of self, is impressed upon children early on. Having a child hold the door for a parent doesn't teach the child to be a mindless slave, it teaches them that, in life, there is always someone to serve and respect. Respecting a person doesn't mean giving one's mind over to them or being a slave to them. Proper parenting, especially at a young age, teaches a child that, in fact, it's more than okay to pause and hold the door for an old lady, the handicapped or--shit--for any person who approaches. Often in life (and I dare you to go out an NOT see this) you'll see people simply walk through a door, cut in line, or take some other socially cold tact, without consideration to the negative effects it has on the person behind them. This happens on account of the fact that, in this age, people have evolved an attitude of "why should I?" instead of, "why shouldn't I?"

Clearly you're a contrarian who lacks the ability to see this. More striking is the fact that you miss the overall point, foolishly ignore the minutia, and attempt to draw some similarity between a human-canine relationship and the parent-child relationship.

~String

 

[mordea]

You've attempted to equate a perpetually unequal relationship (humans and dogs) to an evolving relationship (parent and child). Idiotic.

Quite the contrary. It's simply an analysis of attitude's held by individuals who expect servitude and slavish obedience from certain segments of society, such as children. In order for the parent to remain the superior in the parent-child relationship of today's society, the child must be constantly reminded of its subservience (much like the dog-human relationship). Hundreds of years ago no-one would have denied this, however today authoritarianism is becoming a dirty word. So parents try and claim that they put a child in its place for the child's benefit. To this I say "Hah!".

What's sad is that you ignored the point about considering one's self a servent of humanity,

I did not ignore it, I simply consider it poppycock. Teaching your child to be subservient does not assist them. Quite the contrary, it prepares them to be a good little worker bee, nothing more. The most successful individuals in the adult world are not the most generous, honest and kind. Quite the contrary, they are deceitful, mean and double-faced.

By the way, I don't appreciate your tone and outright personal attacks. Quit it. Further personal attacks will be reported. This is your only warning.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I like a guy who has dignity and follows his own well thought out code of behaviour.

Someone who is polite, gentle natured but aggressive when necessary, is very attractive.

But those things are good qualities in both sexes. I NEVER expect a man to treat me with kid gloves, or put me first.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Having her children hold the door isn't about what adults need. Odd that you missed that. Learning to have a servan mentality (ie a servant to humanity) is an essential part of teaching humility and morality. It tells the person "you're never too good to humble yourself and do something nice.")

It's called good parenting.

I agree with this principle but I don't agree with expecting children to hold doors for adults. I wouldn't treat a much younger person like that, it's like saying they're worth less than me as a human being, so I get to go through the door first.

 

[superstring01]

Quite the contrary. It's simply an analysis of attitude's held by individuals who expect servitude and slavish obedience from certain segments of society, such as children.

For a time, it's important for children to learn to serve. Leadership is taught at another age. Failing to teach a child that there is no excuse for snobbery (the kind you're showing now) makes them social malcontents and thankless. As the child grows (as my parents did with mean) the stress on service never ended, but the nature of the service did. In the case of my family--for example--we were required to adopt a family at the holiday times; raise money for the things we provided and then bring them whatever we could. My parents never even remotely instilled a "slave" mentality, but part of great leadership and part of a well adjusted personality is knowing how to serve another human being; by recognizing that YOU are never above anybody.

As manager of HR and executive recruiter for the company that employs me, this moral lesson has kept me on an ethical path that I've seen many, MANY others stray from and subsequently fail. By always keeping the servant mentality in my mind, I'm able to identify those who see themselves as "the exception" who think that others should serve them while they hold a superior position. When a leader can humble himself and serve those who he supervises, you know he/she is a true leader. That is an integral part of the servant mentality.

To this I say "Hah!".

To this I say, "It's obvious that you either have no children or have no clue what it takes to rear a well-adjusted, ethical, grounded human being."

I did not ignore it, I simply consider it poppycock. Teaching your child to be subservient does not assist them.

I see you confused the words "subservient" and "servant". You wonder why I wonder as to your reading comprehension. What part do you consider poppycock? The part about teaching ethics, the part about teaching humility or the part about always holding a "servant" mentality? You do realize that holding a "servant" mentality is critical for any executive position; as they are servants of someone (and the good ones always keep this in mind).

Teaching a person to always see themselves as a servant of humanity (meaning that their life, in some way, should be best spent by always seeing themselves as a servant to the human races; always taking pride in what they contribute to it). I did state this fact.

The fact is, in life, there will always be someone to serve. And it's telling--again--that you missed this point. Even the greatest leaders on earth, from the dawn of time, have had a "servant" mentality. It's one in which the individual is always aware of who they serve and when to stop serving.

By the way, I don't appreciate your tone and outright personal attacks. Quit it. Further personal attacks will be reported. This is your only warning.

Knock yourself out!

~String

 

[Norsefire]

What exactly should be different about the genders? Why does either require special treatment?

It's simply the culture; generally, men ought to protect their ladies.

I am not saying ladies are weak nor am I saying that ladies cannot protect themselves; I am only saying that it is customary for a man to look out for a lady. That's being a gentleman. That's the manners side of it, and boys grow up today looking at ladies as nothing more than objects, and not caring about intellectualism or virtue. At least, that's the way I see it (there are exceptions, of course)

Both genders ought to be taught good values.



By the way, I must say, I agree with String 100% in this thread.

 

[John99]

Growing up as a young boy, I was taught to be a gentleman; you know, 'being a man'. Eating like a civilized person; holding doors open for women (and assisting them in other ways); never lie or cheat or steal. And always show good manners and respect.


More or less, I have followed those customs. Though the sad bit is that it seems many people are growing up without being taught these proper values. If you examine the culture and youth of today, you will find that it idolizes and teaches, above anything else, arrogance and stupidity; drug use; 'sluttiness'; inappropriateness, cursing, violence, and just overall being a punk. Furthermore, people today just don't have a problem being obscene, pirating, stealing, and cheating; neither do people today have a sense of a love for intellectualism and knowledge. At least, that is the way most people seem to be, in my opinion.

Yes, a very brash description but a very accurate one, I think. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone; I do not mean to generalize, but I only point out that the culture has taken a downside.

These virtues are embodied in a code of ethics called Chivalry. Originally, Chivalry was the code of ethics a Knight was supposed to value, though of course that isn't the context we would use it in in this day and age. Instead, especially in the past decades, Chivalry has been defined as gentlemanship - with all the virtues I was talking about.

Today, however, men grow up never being taught manners or gentlemanship.

Am I the only one who has noticed that? Honestly, people: start holding yourself to a higher standard. Be a gentleman yourself, and maybe in the future people will start valuing those virtues once again.

The corruption and idiocy you see today are the products of a culture that no longer values Chivalry. Honestly, as a nation (or a species) we had better get a good sense of values and instruct the next generation if we want at least a half decent society to live in.

Could be more that your perspective is changing so you notice these things more. Best thing is for peple to live in an area that meets their expectations. For example, you wouldnt (i am assuming) live in a liberal area but many people like to.

 

[pjdude1219]

Quite the contrary. It's simply an analysis of attitude's held by individuals who expect servitude and slavish obedience from certain segments of society, such as children. In order for the parent to remain the superior in the parent-child relationship of today's society, the child must be constantly reminded of its subservience (much like the dog-human relationship). Hundreds of years ago no-one would have denied this, however today authoritarianism is becoming a dirty word. So parents try and claim that they put a child in its place for the child's benefit. To this I say "Hah!".



I did not ignore it, I simply consider it poppycock. Teaching your child to be subservient does not assist them. Quite the contrary, it prepares them to be a good little worker bee, nothing more. The most successful individuals in the adult world are not the most generous, honest and kind. Quite the contrary, they are deceitful, mean and double-faced.

By the way, I don't appreciate your tone and outright personal attacks. Quit it. Further personal attacks will be reported. This is your only warning.

but you are being kind of an idiot teaching people to be polite is not them same thing as teaching them to let people walk all over them. My parents taught me to be polite. I hold doors open for people say please and thank you and will offer to help perfect strangers. I am by no means the docile little worker bee you claim that that will cause.

 

[Orleander]

I agree with this principle but I don't agree with expecting children to hold doors for adults. I wouldn't treat a much younger person like that, it's like saying they're worth less than me as a human being, so I get to go through the door first.

oh sweetie :facepalm:

 

[Raithere]

Why does it need to be gender or age specific? I think the issue is one of politeness and consideration of others vs some traditional concept of chivalry or servility.

I'll hold the door for a man or woman carrying packages or attempting to herd their children into or out of a building. Or for whomever is behind me simply because I arrived at the door first, at the very least holding the door open for them to catch rather than letting is slam in their face.

At the same time I expect these parents to keep their children from running around the dining room screaming while I am trying to have a pleasant dinner, my dining partners to pay attention to conversation and the other diners present rather than taking cell-phone calls and texting, the old man with the hacking cough to cover his mouth, and the gaggle of teens to keep their voices at conversation level.

It's simply being polite and should apply regardless of demographic. If people then wish to make additional gestures of respect, care, or attention they are appreciated but not expected. My wife appreciates it when I assist her with her coat and I appreciate it when she hands me my gloves but neither of us will be upset if it doesn't happen.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

The reasons why are very important

Orleander is actually onto a very important notion:

My son opens the door for me because I stand there and give him 'the look' until he does.
He doesn't open doors for girls his age because they usually beat him to it. Are today's young women raised to wait for a man to open doors and pull out chairs for them?

As a male member of Generation X, I have witnessed the denigration of chivalry. I remember this one time at a Shari's near my school, my mother got upset with me for not holding the door properly. A large woman was coming out, I was going in, and my mother was too close behind me to pull the door open and hold it, so I slipped through and held the door open from the inside. My mother thought this consummately rude, but what the hell was I supposed to do, smack her in the head with the door?

And over time I dated a number of my peers who resented the idea that I should hold the door or move a seat for them. They are perfectly capable women, thank you very much.

So the conflict arose, at least for Generation X, of calculating chivalry within a feminist environment. Much of the "courtesy" we learned growing up has to do with the presumption of frailty and incapability about women. Other aspects have to do with maintaining a woman's appearance. The underlying message of these facets of courtesy and chivalry are that women are incapable and supposed to just look nice.

For many of my peers, this marked permission to abandon courtesy and chivalry. For others, it simply demanded a modification. People hold doors, period, around here; it is actually rather unexpected to follow someone out a door and have it slam back in your face. Instead of simply holding doors for women, many men have become even more courteous, instinctively or explicitly holding a door for the entire train of people passing behind them.

And therein lies the choice between Jedi and Sith. Any number of other factors can affect the decision in the moment, but did we hold doors for women because we were trying to be courteous to our fellow human being, attempting to assist an incapable person, or hoping to impress a chick so we might get a little?

I've known men who hated feminism because they offended a date by trying to be too manly and chivalrous. And if you'd like a glimpse inside the neurosis of anti-feminism, try talking to one of the guys who hates the idea of doing special things for women, but set down that path because he wasn't supposed to go out of his way to do special things for women.

The art of being a gentleman has its merits, but there exists a question of its foundation. For many, being a lady or gentleman is simply part of common courtesy. For others, it's a way of reminding themselves that they are, in fact, better than other people. And when those people lose that leverage, the whole effort of dignity, reserve, and propriety falls apart.

 

[Lori_7]

all agendas aside, i think it's nice when people are cordial, and mannerly, and conscientious of others.

 

[kira]

From my observation, there are men who are genuinely gentlemen, but there are also men who only turn become gentlemen toward attractive ladies, lol! :facepalm:

 

[Lori_7]

this may be an appropriate thread in which to bring up a pet peeve of mine...moshing. grrrr...

a fairly recent development, predominately enjoyed by young men.

i go to a lot of shows, and i don't feel like i should be assaulted just because i'm at a music venue. put that behavior in any other venue, and it's assault.

not necessarily the "lord of the flies dance" itself, but the act of clearing the way for it. here about 75% of the floor is taken up by about 5% of the crowd. bullshit!

i was at the bamboozle festival in jersey a few years ago, and i was standing around waiting for the next band to start, talking to a friend, when all of a sudden someone shoves me from behind. really hard. i was wearing some capris from hot topic, and my chucks, and a "i <3 dorks" t-shirt. from behind, i probably looked like a teenage girl. i turned around, and confronted the teenage boy who had shoved me. when he saw that i was his mother's age, i could see the color drain out of his face. i walked up to him, and in a very taxi driver kind of way said "did YOU just shove ME?"

"i'm sorry ma'am! i was just trying to clear the floor so we can mosh!"

how is that ok?

 

[visceral_instinct]

this may be an appropriate thread in which to bring up a pet peeve of mine...moshing. grrrr...

a fairly recent development, predominately enjoyed by young men.

i go to a lot of shows, and i don't feel like i should be assaulted just because i'm at a music venue. put that behavior in any other venue, and it's assault.

not necessarily the "lord of the flies dance" itself, but the act of clearing the way for it. here about 75% of the floor is taken up by about 5% of the crowd. bullshit!

i was at the bamboozle festival in jersey a few years ago, and i was standing around waiting for the next band to start, talking to a friend, when all of a sudden someone shoves me from behind. really hard. i was wearing some capris from hot topic, and my chucks, and a "i <3 dorks" t-shirt. from behind, i probably looked like a teenage girl. i turned around, and confronted the teenage boy who had shoved me. when he saw that i was his mother's age, i could see the color drain out of his face. i walked up to him, and in a very taxi driver kind of way said "did YOU just shove ME?"

"i'm sorry ma'am! i was just trying to clear the floor so we can mosh!"

how is that ok?

He was wrong to push you. He should have politely asked you to move.

But I wouldn't say moshing is wrong. It's an accepted custom that a small area at the front is for people to mosh. Most people are happy to move to one side if impact isn't their thing.

I love moshing. Not the wisest thing for a 52kg female, but I do it anyway, and my skeleton does seem to be made or strong stuff...

 

[Orleander]

...But those things are good qualities in both sexes. I NEVER expect a man to treat me with kid gloves, or put me first.

I always expect my man to put me first. I put him first.

 

[mike47]

I also try to be a gentleman. I am very intolerant towards rudeness and poor manners.

A gentlemen is a man with principles of fairness, justice and equality to all .
The rest will differ from culture to culture .
In some cultures a gay man is a gentleman while in other cultures he is always a trash .

 

[Orleander]

...In some cultures a gay man is never a gentleman while in other cultures he is always a trash .

well hell. Gay men can't win can they.