|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Manners vs Etiquette
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Was it good manners of me to cover my head, visiting a Gurdwara some years ago? Or capitulation to an unnecessary and irksome etiquette foisted on women, which shouldn't apply to any woman, least of all non-Sikhs?
Both! I would do the same. But if their practice came up in conversation, I might say I think it's sexist, depending on the situation.
I'm not saying no one should hold the door for another. I'm saying the old etiquette that said men should hold the door for women was sexist. Fortunately things have changed, despite some holdouts.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
For example, when someone wearing a hat enters a church he may remove it because he respects the custom of the people who worship there,
Hat customs, in British, American, Canadian, etc. are not church by church designations; but rather more general societal issues, filtered through things like age. But it is your society. Accepting, challenging or ignoring those rules is doing so within that context.
quote:
Was it good manners of me to cover my head, visiting a Gurdwara some years ago? Or capitulation to an unnecessary and irksome etiquette foisted on women, which shouldn't apply to any woman, least of all non-Sikhs?
It is both good manners and capitulation to custom. Not sure how sexist the idea of a covered head is in this situation as the men will have their heads covered as well. How irksome depends on you. But you are stepping into someone else' culture, so walking into a place of worship is not the time to challenge, if there is one. Also, the head covering in a Sikh context is tied to religion, unlike hat wearing in a Christian one.
quote:
Especially when we're not sure we're being disrespected.
It should not be about whether we, personally, are being disrespected. Respect is a good thing. Unnecessary rules about what is respectful are not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying no one should hold the door for another. I'm saying the old etiquette that said men should hold the door for women was sexist.
Evidence?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying no one should hold the door for another. I'm saying the old etiquette that said men should hold the door for women was sexist.
Evidence?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Link
quote:
Miss Manners noted, not approvingly, that “chivalry originally applied only to upper-class ladies, and while a version of it was extended to the middle class in the nineteenth century, it never inspired anyone to defer to the lower classes.”
Sexism and classism in one quote.
Notice the word still.
More
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Yeah, it wasn't a great example of sexism, was it! Only of custom and the etiquette, with the additional complication of being a stranger in a foreign situation.
A reminder, too, of the strangeness of finding oneself a stranger in a foreign situation, even in one's own country; which again adds to the blurriness of what we do, and why, perhaps.
If we feel it's reasonable to expect non-Sikhs to cover up in such visits, then it must be reasonable to expect all visitors to Christian places of worship to carefully observe whatever customs obtain in those places?
If I cover up in a Gurdwara, shouldn't I cover up in a church who's custom also says I should? Oh dear!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If I cover up in a Gurdwara, shouldn't I cover up in a church who's custom also says I should?
I would. But I'd only ever be present in such a church as a tourist, and when I'm a tourist, I follow the rules of the place that I'm in, whether I like them or not.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Also, the head covering in a Sikh context is tied to religion, unlike hat wearing in a Christian one....
Unless it's a Christian woman wearing a hat in church or a Christian man removing his hat in church, surely?
Re; opening doors - I open doors for lots of people, male, female, old, young. It can be a nice thing to do for anybody. What drives me bonkers is when someone thinks they're being oh-so-helpful-and-polite trying to hold an outward-opening door open from the inside because they think they should let the lady go through the door first ... forcing the lady to squeeze between the gentleman's armpit and the doorjamb.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Also, the head covering in a Sikh context is tied to religion, unlike hat wearing in a Christian one....
Unless it's a Christian woman wearing a hat in church or a Christian man removing his hat in church, surely?
Re; opening doors - I open doors for lots of people, male, female, old, young. It can be a nice thing to do for anybody. What drives me bonkers is when someone thinks they're being oh-so-helpful-and-polite trying to hold an outward-opening door open from the inside because they think they should let the lady go through the door first ... forcing the lady to squeeze between the gentleman's armpit and the doorjamb.
I loathe and despise that move, particularly since I am overweight. Also the one where they stand against the inner door frame and do likewise. Which forces me to say to certain spatially-challenged In-duh-viduals, "I'm sorry, I'm too fat to squeeze by you." (or similar in whatever slightly more graceful words I can find) At which point they get really huffy and resentful.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Unless it's a Christian woman wearing a hat in church or a Christian man removing his hat in church, surely?
The Bible does say that a woman should be veiled ion church, because: quote:
For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man
So, if you buy that this sexism is the will of God, I suppose you should go in covered.
ETA: This reply should answer Anselmina as well.
[ 03. September 2017, 00:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Evidence?
Link
There's no evidence there. It's an agony uncle giving his opinion. No research is cited, no source documents. If you think that's evidence, I don't know what to tell you. Your high school history teachers need to be flogged.
quote:
quote:
Miss Manners noted, not approvingly, that “chivalry originally applied only to upper-class ladies, and while a version of it was extended to the middle class in the nineteenth century, it never inspired anyone to defer to the lower classes.”
Sexism and classism in one quote.
This certainly shows evidence of classism (assuming Miss Manners did her homework, which seems reasonable at least for sake of argument). Sexism, not so much.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Also, the head covering in a Sikh context is tied to religion, unlike hat wearing in a Christian one....
Unless it's a Christian woman wearing a hat in church or a Christian man removing his hat in church, surely?
Re; opening doors - I open doors for lots of people, male, female, old, young. It can be a nice thing to do for anybody. What drives me bonkers is when someone thinks they're being oh-so-helpful-and-polite trying to hold an outward-opening door open from the inside because they think they should let the lady go through the door first ... forcing the lady to squeeze between the gentleman's armpit and the doorjamb.
I loathe and despise that move, particularly since I am overweight. Also the one where they stand against the inner door frame and do likewise. Which forces me to say to certain spatially-challenged In-duh-viduals, "I'm sorry, I'm too fat to squeeze by you." (or similar in whatever slightly more graceful words I can find) At which point they get really huffy and resentful.
I generally go with, 'I'm not as thin as you think I am' - so everyone gets to act like they made flattering assumptions.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Another door-holding behavior that's obnoxious is someone who sees you halfway across the parking lot, and holds the door for you while you still have a long ways to walk. It makes you feel like you have to run so they don't have to stand there so long. I think it's rather passive-aggressive.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do I assume that the perpetrator, even with the best intentions and the deepest respect, has done something sexist and should be censured and corrected; or do I politely just carry on?
I think what we're talking about here is acts of communication. Tipping one's hat has no inherent meaning. Meaning resides in the minds of the people who send and receive the communication.
If they take the act as having the same meaning, well and good, successful communication achieved.
If not, then to insist that one's own meaning is the right one is missing the point. A philosophical error.
If you judge that the perpetrator intends respect, your job as the recipient of the communication is to take it as an act of respect, and respond appropriately. Maybe smile.
Conversely, if you're on the other side of the interaction, wondering whether you should tip your hat to or hold the door for Mrs Jones, then you should think about what it is likely to mean to her.
In both cases you may get it wrong. But communication is what it's about.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
here's no evidence there. It's an agony uncle giving his opinion. No research is cited, no source documents. If you think that's evidence, I don't know what to tell you. Your high school history teachers need to be flogged.
I gave three links with the same advice. Meets the standards of the historicity of Jesus, among others.
And I gave you recognised authority in the Miss Manners quote.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha quote:
Miss Manners noted, not approvingly, that “chivalry originally applied only to upper-class ladies, and while a version of it was extended to the middle class in the nineteenth century, it never inspired anyone to defer to the lower classes.”
Sexism and classism in one quote.
This certainly shows evidence of classism (assuming Miss Manners did her homework, which seems reasonable at least for sake of argument). Sexism, not so much.
How in world can you say instruction on how to treat one sex is not sexist?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sociologist Norbert Elias, in his book The Civilizing Process posited that manners developed in order to facilitate getting along and etiquette evolved to differentiate the social classes. Rather than give you homework, I'll merely link to a summary.
quote:
Elias' historical perspective of the civilizing process relates to the dynamics between the nobility and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie adopted a certain habitus that was formed in nobility courts and adopted its manners and customs. The more the bourgeoisie resembles the aristocracy, the more the aristocracy has to refine its mode of conduct in order to distinguish itself and maintain prominent positions. This resulted in a growing sensitivity to nuances which has led to an ever increasing refinement of human behavior.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
...though of course painstaking attention to all these pettifogging rules of etiquette may also serve to identify the parvenu. People who don't do something because it's 'non-U', for example, when a Real Aristocrat would say, along with the Brothers of Cool, 'Whatever I select is correct.'
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
On the other hand, following rules of common courtesy -- being kind and thoughtful, being generous and welcoming instead of grasping territorial, communicating in various,verbal and non- verbal ways that one is friendly and harmless -- has an important role to play in keeping us from slobbering each other with rocks and sticks, doesn't it? -- the way that other species use various behaviors to diffuse aggression?
Here in northern jackpine country more than a few kids grow up without learning any manners. They don't hold doors open for anyone, including the old and disabled; they interrupt, or more frequently stare in sullen silence instead of being able to engage in even minimal polite conversation; they step ahead of people without excusing themselves...they don't say please or thank you...they're just feral, for lack of a better term. They also typically fail at service secfor jobs because they just don't have good " people" skills. And those are the kids who also get in fights and feuds -- just like their equally feral parents. IMHO, had they been given tools, at an early age, for polite social interaction, their lives would be less chaotic and aggression- filled. They don't know how to manage their " lizard brain" emotions and responses in their social interactions. Manners help do just that.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
On the other hand, following rules of common courtesy -- being kind and thoughtful, being generous and welcoming instead of grasping territorial, communicating in various,verbal and non- verbal ways that one is friendly and harmless -- has an important role to play in keeping us from slobbering each other with rocks and sticks, doesn't it? -- the way that other species use various behaviors to diffuse aggression?
In the Norbert Elias book I mentioned, that is how manners began. Rules that allow interaction and minimise conflict. Etiquette began as a class divider.
Do a Youtube* search for Behaving Ourselves: Mitchell on Manners. The first episode talks about this.
*available on iPlayer UK
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I guess my issue with saying, " Oh, those etiquette rules are classist and sexist and antiquated -- Let's just forget about them " tends to disadvantage persons who are in lower classes, who are trying to get ahead and navigate in business and social circles where the rules still apply.i speak as a farm kid who, despite being instructed by my mom -- who came from a poor family but who wound up living in the white collar world of an executive secretary in her earlier life -- ft lost and inadequate when I went off to u diversity and had to interact with people from far more affluent backgrounds.I had to study to learn how to act around these people without seeming like a bumpkin.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But that is because of classism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Can a thing be a good idea even if the original premise of the idea is flawed?
Like marriage?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
that is how manners began. Rules that allow interaction and minimise conflict. Etiquette began as a class divider.
Are you saying it's down to individual motivation ? If I tip my hat to you as a gesture of acknowledgment and respect, that's good and you call it members. If I perform the same gesture with the intention of drawing your attention to the fact that I'm a member of the hat-wearing classes who has mastered the social conventions of that group, then it's bad and you call it etiquette ?
Or are you clinging to the idea that the feature has either one meaning or the other and we can find out what the right meaning is by looking at the origin story of that gesture ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
