Cads on the subway

[dhermann1]

The other phenomenon I frequently see on the subway is that when a woman with a gaggle of little ones enters the train, very often a young woman (much more rarely a young man) will give up her seat.
I think manners really is an issue of perceiving the level of discomfort or difficulty of another person, and acting upon that feeling. It's called empathy. What's really declined is the natural ability to empathize with others.

 

[klind65]

The other phenomenon I frequently see on the subway is that when a woman with a gaggle of little ones enters the train, very often a young woman (much more rarely a young man) will give up her seat.
I think manners really is an issue of perceiving the level of discomfort or difficulty of another person, and acting upon that feeling. It's called empathy. What's really declined is the natural ability to empathize with others.

Amen.:eusa_clap

 

[klind65]

I don't pay on dates. I also don't ask men out, call them on the phone or let men come to my house when I am alone and in a relationship. If I did, and I have, asked them out, then obviously I pay and even pick them up.

Senator Jack, thank you for pointing the men's feelings out. I could not think of a delicate way to state that. There is a way to offer a man a seat without making him seem past his prime, and it takes a diplomatic skill to do so.

While you're right in equality, I still live in a place where I cannot get a job doing something I am better at then most men, simply because I am a woman. I do damn fine mud/finishing work on drywall, and I've been told flatly they won't hire a woman to do it. I also live in a place where the barber shop I take my son to has a sign stating "No women" and I get met IN the parking lot to get his hair cut. I also work at a place where the men that eat there don't bring their wives and make women uncomfortable for eating there. I figure based on this here, I got the right to be a little bit of a wilting flower in my town.

Interesting. I guess I was right about the difference in location.

 

[klind65]

Id like to see people stop pretending there is an invisible barrier keeping them from stepping OFF a crowded bus, so people who are seated can get off promptly at their stop without having to crawl over heads to do so.

Here in LA I RARELY see people give up their seats, and if they do, they are ALWAYS young women, my self included. Thats one reason I hate sitting in the very front of the bus. Its bad form, and when spry 18 year olds take up the front seats while an elderly person has to WALK to the back, it makes me want to vomit.

In SF its a law, you HAVE to give up your front seat to an elderly passenger. I dont know if its a rule here, sans the disabled.

LD

I am happy to hear civility is alive and well in San Francisco; I think what eventually will happen if incivility continues its ascendancy is that laws (like the one you cite) will have to be instituted. Sad, but necessary. Perhaps one day, common sense will return and the laws will no longer be necessary. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Feraud]

Thanks for your intelligent posts. I've received some sarcastic and facetious responses while I really mean to take it seriously. To address what you said, this comes right to the crux of the issue in my opinion. As I understood it equality meant primarily equality of opportunity in education and employment/equal in the eyes of the law /equal pay etc... but no one can change the biological fact of the physical differential between men and women. Women are NOT possessed of as much brute physical strength as men nor have they the same testosterone levels, ergo they will never be "as strong as men". Also, they give birth (which carries with it its share of burdens and sometimes considerable pain ). Giving birth, by the way requires tremendous endurance - a different type of strength to be sure.

I don't see how any interpretation of "equality" by intelligent people can attempt to abrogate biology. I cannot understand the seeming need to go to extremes. Life is seldom so cut and dry. Why can't people allow women equal opportunity while observing and honoring the physical differential??? I see no contradiction here, only two separate facts that at the same time are true. Someone once said the ability to tolerate ambiguity is the hardest thing to accomplish. Equality never meant "identical to". As the French say, "Vive la difference". I grew up observing my father's traditional courtesies toward my mother and have always thought it the most beautiful code of conduct I've ever seen. It endowed him with a certain power and control, ( not meant nefariously ) while engendering in her a sense of being loved, cherished and adored?? I would want nothing less from my husband. She never felt (so she told me) "lesser" or "unequal" to him, quite the opposite.

You speak about biology and differing physiologies but consider the task. Standing upright. This particular act takes little of the brute strength you seem to think woman are lacking to do.
We musn't try to force facts to fit our opinions.

This excludes the elderly, ill, pregnant ladies, etc.

 

[Senator Jack]

I don't see how any interpretation of "equality" by intelligent people can attempt to abrogate biology. I cannot understand the seeming need to go to extremes. Life is seldom so cut and dry. Why can't people allow women equal opportunity while observing and honoring the physical differential??? I see no contradiction here, only two separate facts that at the same time are true. Someone once said the ability to tolerate ambiguity is the hardest thing to accomplish. Equality never meant "identical to". As the French say, "Vive la difference".

Men still know the difference, all right; it's the women who have to sort it out. The catchphrase of equality for the past twenty years has been 'celebrate our differences,' but it seems that only refers to cultural, racial, and national differences: black, white, asian, hispanic, Canadian, Wake Islander, etc. As far as celebrating the differences between men and women? No. We can't have that any more. That's no longer allowed.

Regards,

Jack

 

[klind65]

Thank you. I don't offer my seat to women with the thought that they are inferior (although physically, men do tend to be stronger). Rather, it is an act which, to me at least, is a way of bestowing honor to the female gender. Yes, very old fashioned and chivalric, I know...

Thank God! Finally some common sense. Yea, no surprise, men are stronger. Duh???? [huh] Thank you. And there is nothing wrong with "old fashioned and chivalric", quite the opposite. Keep the faith.

 

[klind65]

Id like to see people stop pretending there is an invisible barrier keeping them from stepping OFF a crowded bus, so people who are seated can get off promptly at their stop without having to crawl over heads to do so.

Here in LA I RARELY see people give up their seats, and if they do, they are ALWAYS young women, my self included. Thats one reason I hate sitting in the very front of the bus. Its bad form, and when spry 18 year olds take up the front seats while an elderly person has to WALK to the back, it makes me want to vomit.

In SF its a law, you HAVE to give up your front seat to an elderly passenger. I dont know if its a rule here, sans the disabled.

LD[/Q Yes. What will probably happen if incivility continues in its ascendant trajectory, is that laws like the one you cited will have to be instituted en masse, FORCING people to be considerate and polite. Sad to think we've sunk to such a level; good form used to be ingrained in kids by their parents. Still, things never stay the same - Civility can return!

 

[klind65]

I dont know, Jack's making a crucial point. We as women cant have hypocrisy over equality when its convenient for us. Yet we seem to want it all the time.

-Expecting a guy to give up his seat when we are perfectly able to stand.
-Wearing a super low cut blouse at an inappropriate time and wanting to betaken seriously.
-Getting mad when a fella holds the door open for you (whats that about?).
-Calling someone a Cad when you dont agree with what they are saying, although they are making a valid point.
They are all relative.

Hey, I dont like it either, but its true. Cant have it both ways although we want it both ways.

LD

There are differences of opinion about "having it both ways". I think it will come down to men who feel women are identical to them including physiologically - will treat them simply as other men. And men who still see and celebrate the differences between us and haven't confused equality with sameness will not. Thanks

 

[olive bleu]

What is amazing to watch sometimes is what happens when 20-25 kids from a daycare get on all at once, on their way to an outing. Obviously, small children can't be expected to stand for safety reasons. All over the bus, people begin popping up out of their seats , practically falling over themselves in a bus-wide show of goodwill. I would love to witness this kind of enthusiasm extended toward the elderly and disabled

 

[Senator Jack]

As much as it could make a FORTUNE in fines from it, the city (NY, that is) is not in the business of enforcing ethics or manners. What defines 'elderly'? Does a rider have to surrender a seat to everyone who appears to be over sixty-five? Will documentation have to be produced? And, as Elaina noted already, with many women it's hard to tell if they're pregnant or just oversized. Does a fined rider have to go to court and plead genuine ignorance between the two? (I know more than a few times I couldn't tell.)

I know it seems I'm advocating the abandonment of manners, but that's not the case at all. I just believe that in every argument, all sides have to be studied.

Regards,

Jack

 

[Miss Neecerie]

There are differences of opinion about "having it both ways". I think it will come down to men who feel women are identical to them including physiologically - will treat them simply as other men. And men who still see and celebrate the differences between us and haven't confused equality with sameness will not. Thanks

I think the point that you are missing here is that as Jack is saying...the -men- know the difference and in no way think we are identical to them. Not just 'golden era' men....-all- men. And the stats on male vs female salary back this up......the equality is a social construct forced into being.

But society, based on the 'equality' thing, has told them to please ignore what they know and not behave as if they realise there is a difference.

If this social prohibition were lifted tomorrow, behaviour would change. Granted, it would then also allow men who honestly feel that women are -inferior- (as opposed to being different, which is not the same value judgement) treat women poorly and like objects in public again.....which is one of the reasons women asked for an got equality to begin with....

I do not think there is a shining win-win for -everyone- ...no matter the social era, manners, etc......

Humanity -always- has someone at the bottom of the ladder to treat less then nicely.....time shifts, the group at the bottom of the ladder shifts....but the fundamentals don't.

Man's Inhumanity to Man......

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If this social prohibition were lifted tomorrow, behaviour would change. Granted, it would then also allow men who honestly feel that women are -inferior- (as opposed to being different, which is not the same value judgement) treat women poorly and like objects in public again.....which is one of the reasons women asked for and got equality to begin with....

Well said, Miss Neecerie. :eusa_clap

Of course, this male “protection” can be carried to extremes or misinterpreted which in fact happened during the eras when females weren’t allowed to pursue careers, or vote or really do much of anything. Any idea can be taken to extremes. And yes, I agree with Paisley that there is no ostensible reason for an able bodied woman to sit any more than a man.

Well said, Klind65. :eusa_clap

HOWEVER, since we have a historical tradition which is very beautiful and respectful, why not retain it?

It is a beautiful and respectful act; but I fear that it shifts the focus away from acts that are more meaningful and respectful to women, such as equal pay for equal work and longer maternity leaves.



.

 

[klind65]

I think the point that you are missing here is that as Jack is saying...the -men- know the difference and in no way think we are identical to them. Not just 'golden era' men....-all- men. And the stats on male vs female salary back this up......the equality is a social construct forced into being.

But society, based on the 'equality' thing, has told them to please ignore what they know and not behave as if they realise there is a difference.

If this social prohibition were lifted tomorrow, behaviour would change. Granted, it would then also allow men who honestly feel that women are -inferior- (as opposed to being different, which is not the same value judgement) treat women poorly and like objects in public again.....which is one of the reasons women asked for an got equality to begin with....

I do not think there is a shining win-win for -everyone- ...no matter the social era, manners, etc......

Humanity -always- has someone at the bottom of the ladder to treat less then nicely.....time shifts, the group at the bottom of the ladder shifts....but the fundamentals don't.

Man's Inhumanity to Man......

Thank you. This is one of the most helpful posts I've received. As you've recognized, I am really at pains to understand this issue and not just dismiss it or make fun of it. I agree it is a social construct - and not based on the real biological facts which constitute the difference between us. And I understand that it had to be instituted to correct the nefarious view of women as inferior on all levels. But since it is an arbitrarily enforced construct , could it be possible that one day the presence of the physical differential will again be honored WITHOUT relegating women once again to the status of an underclass? From your comments about human nature, I would guess you would say no. But I think it is possible: Social customs and cultural expectations can change according to paradigm shifts. I read a watershed book years ago called " The Chalice and the Blade" by Eisler which suggested that humanity, after having gone through centuries under a "dominator model" of gender configuration wherein one was always above the other, was moving into a "partnership model" of relations. Now, as this book was written years ago, I assume we are in the transition period now. So, to address your doubt, perhaps human nature can change to the point where it is able to "tolerate ambiguity" and not need to punish women for their equal opportunity by denying and not honoring their difference. Thanks again.

 

[klind65]

Well said, Miss Neecerie. :eusa_clap





Well said, Klind65. :eusa_clap






It is a beautiful and respectful act; but I fear that it shifts the focus away from acts that are more meaningful and respectful to women, such as equal pay for equal work and longer maternity leaves.



.

But I still say we can have both! Maybe humanity hasn't matured that far yet, (or some of us haven't) but it is something we can move toward.

 

[klind65]

Perhaps the greatest example of that "vintage" sense of a "greater" propriety would be to make amends directly those we have offended. Perhaps you are on the wrong train altogether.

Just my modern version of social grace. [huh]

I appreciate a free exchange of ideas including those different from my own. But is it necessary to be unkind?

 

[klind65]

...and there is your answer klind65 look no further!

Oh well, in the end, one has to live according to one's principles whether or not they accord with the mainstream ethos. As regards traditional propriety and this thread, I am satisfied that those from the old school will automatically know what I mean and those who don't will never understand.

 

[Senator Jack]

Oh well, in the end, one has to live according to one's principles whether or not they accord with the mainstream ethos.

Mm. Try being a socialist in a capitalist country.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

But I still say we can have both!

I'd like that very much. :eusa_clap


.

 

[klind65]

Mm. Try being a socialist in a capitalist country.

Yes, very funny. But how has history changed in the past? Someone somewhere has to follow a different vision. The idea of injustice had to have occured to someone before it eventually resulted in the French Revolution. OK, a grand comparison, but the idea is the same.