The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

Yep. I see that drug crap being sold like it was nothing and I have to restrain myself from going on a Carry Nation rampage right there on the spot. It's absolutely unconscionable.

When we had our gas station condoms were sold under the counter -- they were only supposed to be sold by registered pharmacists in those days -- and we had a five-cent slot machine in the back room for a while. But nobody ever ended up strapped to a hospital bed struggling to remember who they were from those things.

Someday our society will be called to account. And when it is, there are going to be some pretty severe entries on the debit side of the ledger.

 

[GHT]

if you really look at it long enough, ultimately leads back to somebody somewhere trying to make or -sometimes even worse - protect a profit. And the bigger the bucks at stake, the deeper the damage.

You are not wrong, but it's not all money, although you are on the right track. It's called avarice. Putin has all he could ever want, and more, but he has his eye on re-establishing the Soviet Empire, with him ruling over it all. There are those for whom lust is the be all, never mind that they may be with another. Coveting, avarice and lack of self control. But I do agree that money is by far the biggest motivation.

 

[GHT]

It would be interesting to know how the ladies of the F/L feel about chivalry. Is it sexism? According to this, http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...exism-study-says/story-fnet09p2-1227259050431 it most definitely is. How sad. I've been on the receiving end of someone's tirade about courtesy and manners.

A lady leaving an indoor shopping mall, laden with bags, was pushing the door with her backside. "Allow me," I said, with a smile. She ripped into me, giving me a lesson in sexist gestures. For a second, although it seemed much longer, we held eye contact. "As a small boy my mother told me that many people would come in and out of my life, I had but a split second to make an impression," I told her. Adding, "It was my mother's lesson in life skills that motivated me to open the door for you, not because of your gender." We held eye contact again. She seemed to be assessing me. "Wise woman, your mother," she finally said, turning on her heel and walking away.

Mother passed away many years ago, but it didn't stop me looking heavenward, and smiling with my arms outstretched. And in my mind's ear, I heard: "Good lad."

 

[GHT]

. The only exception to that is the Shetland, which is a breed that is barely domesticated. And it shows. They call it "unimproved" which means they don't have a flocking instinct and aim for your knees when you try to catch them.

Remind me never to go ram raiding in Scotland. Ram the fence, load up the sheep and get the flock out of there!

 

[LizzieMaine]

It would be interesting to know how the ladies of the F/L feel about chivalry. Is it sexism? According to this, http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...exism-study-says/story-fnet09p2-1227259050431 it most definitely is. How sad. I've been on the receiving end of someone's tirade about courtesy and manners.

A lady leaving an indoor shopping mall, laden with bags, was pushing the door with her backside. "Allow me," I said, with a smile. She ripped into me, giving me a lesson in sexist gestures. For a second, although it seemed much longer, we held eye contact. "As a small boy my mother told me that many people would come in and out of my life, I had but a split second to make an impression," I told her. Adding, "It was my mother's lesson in life skills that motivated me to open the door for you, not because of your gender." We held eye contact again. She seemed to be assessing me. "Wise woman, your mother," she finally said, turning on her heel and walking away.

Mother passed away many years ago, but it didn't stop me looking heavenward, and smiling with my arms outstretched. And in my mind's ear, I heard: "Good lad."

Chivalry only exists if it's the year 1310, and you're a knight. Otherwise, holding a door for someone is simply being considerate. I've had doors held for me and I hold doors for others -- it should have nothing to do with the gender of the holder or the holdee. No explanation is needed or expected. For what it's worth, I'm fifty-two years old, and never once in my life have I heard or seen any tirades by anyone over the holding of doors. I've read about them on the Internet but I've never actually seen or heard one in real life.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe much of codified, formal "etiquette" to be pretentious middle-class nonsense. The only manners that matter are those that involve showing kindness and consideration to other people, no matter who they are.

 

[jamespowers]

A lady leaving an indoor shopping mall, laden with bags, was pushing the door with her backside. "Allow me," I said, with a smile. She ripped into me, giving me a lesson in sexist gestures. For a second, although it seemed much longer, we held eye contact. "As a small boy my mother told me that many people would come in and out of my life, I had but a split second to make an impression," I told her. Adding, "It was my mother's lesson in life skills that motivated me to open the door for you, not because of your gender." We held eye contact again. She seemed to be assessing me. "Wise woman, your mother," she finally said, turning on her heel and walking away.

I've had the same thing hapen to me out here in the 70s. I was much less cordial. I just said fine. Step back through the door so I can slam it in your face and you are now magically equal again. She didn't for some reason.
That has actually been dialed back a bit out here. I now open doors and they thank you and are quite surprised. Perhaps my own action many years ago woke someone up. Either that or they are just so used to being ignored and walked on that they are surprised when someone takes a second out of his day to help.However, the old hippie lady down the street still doesn’t want my help bringing in her trash cans when I offered. C’est la vie.

 

[Harp]

You are not wrong, but it's not all money, although you are on the right track. It's called avarice. Putin has all he could ever want, and more, but he has his eye on re-establishing the Soviet Empire, with him ruling over it all. There are those for whom lust is the be all, never mind that they may be with another. Coveting, avarice and lack of self control. But I do agree that money is by far the biggest motivation.

Ironically, coin has checked Putin-at least for now.
Russia's sovereign rating fell to BBB- last January, and the Ruble plunged as $151.5 billion bled a capital exodus in 2014,
while the slump in oil, Russia's chief export has contributed to a worsening economic picture.

 

[Fading Fast]

Chivalry only exists if it's the year 1310, and you're a knight. Otherwise, holding a door for someone is simply being considerate. I've had doors held for me and I hold doors for others -- it should have nothing to do with the gender of the holder or the holdee. No explanation is needed or expected. For what it's worth, I'm fifty-two years old, and never once in my life have I heard or seen any tirades by anyone over the holding of doors. I've read about them on the Internet but I've never actually seen or heard one in real life.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe much of codified, formal "etiquette" to be pretentious middle-class nonsense. The only manners that matter are those that involve showing kindness and consideration to other people, no matter who they are.

I agree with this overall - kindness and consideration should flow to and from everyone - and I, too, have heard of the "hold the door" rampage but, at 50, and as someone who has held the door for women (and men, when it is just a nice thing to do / is appropriate to the flow) my entire life have never encountered it. But I am not questioning that it happens.

But what do you think about letting women off of elevators or into / out of buildings first? Or pulling out and pushing a chair in for a woman at a table (in a social not business setting)? I was raised this way, and think it is polite and not sexists, even if its origins were sexists. I think we can have anachronistic cultural norms - even ones with pasts that, today, we wouldn't accept - if they have evolved into simple courtesies.

I am familiar with the argument that even these little "courtesies" perpetuates a patriarchal society and the idea that women are weak, but I disagree that it does. Women did, do and will continue to do great things - small and large - whether a few anachronistic courtesies exist. I have much more confidence in women than to worry that these small social norms do any harm. But as this post adduces, I do think about the other side of the argument and thought this an appropriate discussion to the thread's theme.

 

[jamespowers]

Someday our society will be called to account. And when it is, there are going to be some pretty severe entries on the debit side of the ledger.

Not going to happen any time soon. Things will just keep ratcheting down and being accepted as the new normal until there is nothing left to ratchet down. Then something might happen. It took Rome quite a long time. :doh:

 

[dh66]

Yep. I see that drug crap being sold like it was nothing and I have to restrain myself from going on a Carry Nation rampage right there on the spot. It's absolutely unconscionable.

When we had our gas station condoms were sold under the counter -- they were only supposed to be sold by registered pharmacists in those days -- and we had a five-cent slot machine in the back room for a while. But nobody ever ended up strapped to a hospital bed struggling to remember who they were from those things.

Someday our society will be called to account. And when it is, there are going to be some pretty severe entries on the debit side of the ledger.

I can't even remember the last time I saw a condom vending machine in a gas station bathroom. Sort of ironic, really, considering all the other things they sell right out the front door these days.

 

[Bushman]

It would be interesting to know how the ladies of the F/L feel about chivalry. Is it sexism? According to this, http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...exism-study-says/story-fnet09p2-1227259050431 it most definitely is. How sad. I've been on the receiving end of someone's tirade about courtesy and manners.

A lady leaving an indoor shopping mall, laden with bags, was pushing the door with her backside. "Allow me," I said, with a smile. She ripped into me, giving me a lesson in sexist gestures. For a second, although it seemed much longer, we held eye contact. "As a small boy my mother told me that many people would come in and out of my life, I had but a split second to make an impression," I told her. Adding, "It was my mother's lesson in life skills that motivated me to open the door for you, not because of your gender." We held eye contact again. She seemed to be assessing me. "Wise woman, your mother," she finally said, turning on her heel and walking away.

Mother passed away many years ago, but it didn't stop me looking heavenward, and smiling with my arms outstretched. And in my mind's ear, I heard: "Good lad."

This is precisely the kind of 3rd Wave Feminism that I hate. The kind where people insist it's "police officer", not "policeman" or it's "human kind" not "mankind". At some point in the past few decades, men became the evil chauvinistic pig bent on ruling over the entire planet just because they held doors open for ladies. I hold a door open for anybody that's behind me. Not because I'm a chauvinist, but because it's the right thing to do. Just like saying "thank you" when the door is held open for you, or saying "please" when asking somebody for something. There's a thing called manners that are slowly disappearing in society.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree with this overall - kindness and consideration should flow to and from everyone - and I, too, have heard of the "hold the door" rampage but, at 50, and as someone who has held the door for women (and men, when it is just a nice thing to do / is appropriate to the flow) my entire life have never encountered it. But I am not questioning that it happens.

But what do you think about letting women off of elevators or into / out of buildings first? Or pulling out and pushing a chair in for a woman at a table (in a social not business setting)? I was raised this way, and think it is polite and not sexists, even if its origins were sexists. I think we can have anachronistic cultural norms - even ones with pasts that, today, we wouldn't accept - if they have evolved into simple courtesies.

I am familiar with the argument that even these little "courtesies" perpetuates a patriarchal society and the idea that women are weak, but I disagree that it does. Women did, do and will continue to do great things - small and large - whether a few anachronistic courtesies exist. I have much more confidence in women than to worry that these small social norms do any harm. But as this post adduces, I do think about the other side of the argument and thought this an appropriate discussion to the thread's theme.

I don't see any need or point to having a chair pulled out for me. I grew up in a working-class family, and when you got to the table it was grab a seat and plonk it down, shove your napkin down the front of your clothes, and pass the gravy. I'm not going to haul off and belt somebody for doing it, but it just comes across to me as forced, pretentious, and silly. Same thing with helping me on with my coat. It can get done a lot quicker if I do it myself, and I don't see the need of wasting a lot of time finagling into position to put a coat on. Elevators? I think whoever's at the front of the elevator ought to get out first. Otherwise you've got people jostling around, feet get stepped on, and it wastes everybody's time. And I sure as hell don't want a man holding a ladder for me when I'm wearing a dress.

Here's a story where this kind of thing *can* cross into genuinely sexist. Back when I was getting established in radio, around the mid-eighties, I worked at this homey little station managed by a gentleman of the old school -- he was getting up in years, he was tight as hell with the payroll, but all in all he was a pleasant man to work for. And then came the "Secretary's Day" incident. For those outside the US, this is one of those cheesy "Hallmark holidays" the Boys came up with to sell more cards and flowers, and the manager went in big for it. The first year I was there, I was astonished to see that when Secretary's Day rolled around, all the women in the office got flowers.

Now, on the surface, that was a sweet gesture, and you could argue his heart was in the right place. But most of the women in that office *weren't secretaries.* We were reporters, salespeople, and News Director. The latter woman, an imposing sort who had won a wallfull of awards for broadcast journalism, went in and told him exactly what she thought of being considered a "secretary." I kind of felt sorry for him after she got done tearing him a new one.

But, see, the thing is, it wasn't just a matter of him being an old guy who didn't get it. About a year later he ended up getting sued for demoting the Sales Manager back to the ranks after she took six weeks off to have a baby. His argument was that a woman needed to spend more time with her child, and she would therefore not be able to handle the managerial workload. And he actually said this out loud to her. She was not at all amused by this, and neither was the state Department of Labor. She got reinstated at full pay along with damages and the pay she'd lost due to the demotion, and then quit to take a very prestigious job with an ad agency. *That* was active sexism in action. The Secretary's Day thing was just a window into how he really viewed all of us, and we should have expected something like that to happen eventually.

 

[Fading Fast]

This is precisely the kind of 3rd Wave Feminism that I hate. The kind where people insist it's "police officer", not "policeman" or it's "human kind" not "mankind". At some point in the past few decades, men became the evil chauvinistic pig bent on ruling over the entire planet just because they held doors open for ladies. I hold a door open for anybody that's behind me. Not because I'm a chauvinist, but because it's the right thing to do. Just like saying "thank you" when the door is held open for you, or saying "please" when asking somebody for something. There's a thing called manners that are slowly disappearing in society.

But what about pulling a chair out for a woman at a table in a social setting - and not to make a big flourish about it, but just because it is an old courtesy (and I've done this in divvy bars and serve yourself pizzerias -i.e., it's not about social airs or pretensions)? The reason I ask is that this isn't one I'd do for a man (unless he needed a hand for some reason), but if it is natural (and, again, not done loudly or showy) something I do for a woman as I was taught to and think it is a nice anachronistic courtesy.

And I do agree that it is silliness or maybe as you said "third wave" feminism to start changing names of things. Janet Yellen is the Chairman of the Fed - a very powerful and respected position - that until all the storm and stress over "chairman" and "chairperson" started back in the '80s or '90s, I never even thought about a gender-bias to the word. She's the Chairman and - whatever you think of her policies (I happen not to agree) - I have great respect for how accomplished she is - the need to rename it seems silly at best, over controlling or insecure at worst.

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't see any need or point to having a chair pulled out for me. I grew up in a working-class family, and when you got to the table it was grab a seat and plonk it down, shove your napkin down the front of your clothes, and pass the gravy. I'm not going to haul off and belt somebody for doing it, but it just comes across to me as forced, pretentious, and silly. Same thing with helping me on with my coat. It can get done a lot quicker if I do it myself, and I don't see the need of wasting a lot of time finagling into position to put a coat on. Elevators? I think whoever's at the front of the elevator ought to get out first. Otherwise you've got people jostling around, feet get stepped on, and it wastes everybody's time. And I sure as hell don't want a man holding a ladder for me when I'm wearing a dress.

Here's a story where this kind of thing *can* cross into genuinely sexist. Back when I was getting established in radio, around the mid-eighties, I worked at this homey little station managed by a gentleman of the old school -- he was getting up in years, he was tight as hell with the payroll, but all in all he was a pleasant man to work for. And then came the "Secretary's Day" incident. For those outside the US, this is one of those cheesy "Hallmark holidays" the Boys came up with to sell more cards and flowers, and the manager went in big for it. The first year I was there, I was astonished to see that when Secretary's Day rolled around, all the women in the office got flowers.

Now, on the surface, that was a sweet gesture, and you could argue his heart was in the right place. But most of the women in that office *weren't secretaries.* We were reporters, salespeople, and News Director. The latter woman, an imposing sort who had won a wallfull of awards for broadcast journalism, went in and told him exactly what she thought of being considered a "secretary." I kind of felt sorry for him after she got done tearing him a new one.

But, see, the thing is, it wasn't just a matter of him being an old guy who didn't get it. About a year later he ended up getting sued for demoting the Sales Manager back to the ranks after she took six weeks off to have a baby. His argument was that a woman needed to spend more time with her child, and she would therefore not be able to handle the managerial workload. And he actually said this out loud to her. She was not at all amused by this, and neither was the state Department of Labor. She got reinstated at full pay along with damages and the pay she'd lost due to the demotion, and then quit to take a very prestigious job with an ad agency. *That* was active sexism in action. The Secretary's Day thing was just a window into how he really viewed all of us, and we should have expected something like that to happen eventually.

Three thoughts -

- He got what he deserved / very glad her being wronged was corrected

- I grew up in a "Wonder Years" neighborhood - and we didn't pull chairs out for women at home, but we did in restaurants (and again, not fancy ones). At home I wouldn't help my mom on with her coat (unless she needed it), but would at a restaurant. And before anyone thinks we were putting on airs, you had to know my parents, my Dad and Mom would be the first to tell you that they were happy to have food on their plate when they grew up and that we worried about paying the bills today, etc., it was just what was done from a manner perspective.

- I made a point in my first post on this on not doing these things in business but social setting only.

 

[Bushman]

But what about pulling a chair out for a woman at a table in a social setting - and not to make a big flourish about it, but just because it is an old courtesy (and I've done this in divvy bars and serve yourself pizzerias -i.e., it's not about social airs or pretensions)? The reason I ask is that this isn't one I'd do for a man (unless he needed a hand for some reason), but if it is natural (and, again, not done loudly or showy) something I do for a woman as I was taught to and think it is a nice anachronistic courtesy.

I've never actually done this for anybody. I've seen it done in old movies, but I was never taught to do it myself growing up, so I assumed it was simply one of those antiquated gestures that nobody did anymore.

 

[LizzieMaine]

But what about pulling a chair out for a woman at a table in a social setting - and not to make a big flourish about it, but just because it is an old courtesy (and I've done this in divvy bars and serve yourself pizzerias -i.e., it's not about social airs or pretensions)? The reason I ask is that this isn't one I'd do for a man (unless he needed a hand for some reason), but if it is natural (and, again, not done loudly or showy) something I do for a woman as I was taught to and think it is a nice anachronistic courtesy.

Again, I just don't see the point. We never ate out much when I was a kid, and when we did it usually was in a lunchroom with booths or a cheap Chinese restaurant. We just sat down. I never had a meal in a restaurant with tablecloths until I was in my twenties, and to this day I rarely eat anywhere that has loose chairs. So it would just feel clumsy and silly to me. As I say, if somebody did do it I wouldn't make a big deal of it, but I suspect my eyes would roll. Not for political reasons but because chair-holding isn't any part of my native culture. I feel the same way about casual hugging or cheek-kissing. My people just don't do that sort of thing. It's completely alien to our way of life.

As for renaming things, I believe in calling people what they want to be called. That's simply common courtesy. We never said "policeman" when I was growing up, we said "cop," and when I was a reporter we simply said "patrol officer." We usually said "Board Chair" when referring to the head of the School Board or the Board of Selectmen. After I got out of journalism a lot of towns changed Board of Selectment to "Select Board," which still sounds kind of clumsy to me, but a whole generation has grown up since then without knowing anything different. It would've been hard, but I think I would have adjusted.

I think too much time is wasted complaining about words -- really, how much skin off anyone's backside is it to say "patrol officer" instead of "policeman?" Generally when people get wound up over that sort of thing, they're revealing something unpleasant about themselves.

 

[dh66]

You are not wrong, but it's not all money, although you are on the right track. It's called avarice. Putin has all he could ever want, and more, but he has his eye on re-establishing the Soviet Empire, with him ruling over it all. There are those for whom lust is the be all, never mind that they may be with another. Coveting, avarice and lack of self control. But I do agree that money is by far the biggest motivation.

I suspect that if you dig deep enough there is an underlying financial factor. Putin is a very powerful man, of that there is no doubt, but no man is an island. There are behind the scenes players with their eyes on the money. Those who continue to support his policies would not do so if they saw nothing to gain in the long run.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

So now according to this "study" if you're a total douchebag you're a "hostile sexist" but if you treat women respectfully then you're a "benevolent sexist." :doh:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...betrayed-facial-expressions-claims-study.html

 

[LizzieMaine]

They say the Daily Mail is the cheesiest, pot-stirringest paper in the UK. I wouldn't take much of anything they say seriously.

That said, I think you could call sending your female news director flowers on "Secretary's Day" a pretty definitive act of "benevolent sexism." Such a thing does exist -- it's about viewing women as accessories, not as people. We don't want to be walked on, but we don't need to be put on a pedestal, either.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think too much time is wasted complaining about words -- really, how much skin off anyone's backside is it to say "patrol officer" instead of "policeman?" Generally when people get wound up over that sort of thing, they're revealing something unpleasant about themselves.

But who is the one who gets wound up - the people who want to change the name or the people who don't? And if it's both, then the argument you are making - I think reduces to - is that the right stance is to let others fight it out and then accept the outcome.

I really don't care if its chair or chairman (chairperson sound odd to me), but it was clear that chairman was changed to chair by some very motivated people for a variety of reasons - even if I don't care about the name, I might care about the agenda behind it.

I don't think caring about the agenda reveals something unpleasant about me, in part, because I really don't care about the name, but the ideology and politics of these issues are very real.