Is the age of chivalry dead?

[ECCOnoob]

I hold doors open for people, allow them to go in front of me in the supermarket, give them my ticket if there is still a good while on a parking ticket, and nine times out of ten they always say thank you. The ones who don't always say thanks are the ones I hold doors for them. I usually in a loud voice say THANK YOU!! If someone does me a favour I say thank you, and tell them I will pass that kindness on.... and always do. It just makes the world a nicer place, and good manners cost nothing.

 

Totally agree with all of that.

 

However, the issue purported in the original post appears to be whether someone should change their actions JUST because someone happens to be female.

 

Elderly persons, disabled persons, pregnancy, people with children etc all of course have exceptions which quite rightly should be adhered to. But lets focus back on a key point which seemingly is overlooked.

 

If a perfectly healthy younger man is seated on a train before a perfectly healthy younger female boards, why is there some unwritten social code that they should give up their seat JUST because the other passenger is a woman?

 

Why should that male be seemingly criticised for not doing so?

 

Why, if everyone is now supposed to be treated equally, does such a social behaviour still exisit on the single ground of being female?

 

Does that not portray a vision that women have to be treated differently to men and thus undermine the whole principle of equality that is being fought?

 

Doesn't that portray an image that a woman is somehow weaker and needs special treatment over and above that of a man?

 

I am not being a jerk here but this is an interesting point which shows to me a massive contradition in a societies' behaviour and dilemma that we are seemingly facing.

 

Courtesy, politeness and respect should be to everyone - regardless of gender surely.

[Guest makapaka]

I thought you lot didn't use public transport?

 

Who’s lot are you talking about?

[monkey104]

Totally agree with all of that.

 

However, the issue purported in the original post appears to be whether someone should change their actions JUST because someone happens to be female.

 

Elderly persons, disabled persons, pregnancy, people with children etc all of course have exceptions which quite rightly should be adhered to. But lets focus back on a key point which seemingly is overlooked.

 

If a perfectly healthy younger man is seated on a train before a perfectly healthy younger female boards, why is there some unwritten social code that they should give up their seat JUST because the other passenger is a woman?

 

Why should that male be seemingly criticised for not doing so?

 

Why, if everyone is now supposed to be treated equally, does such a social behaviour still exisit on the single ground of being female?

 

Does that not portray a vision that women have to be treated differently to men and thus undermine the whole principle of equality that is being fought?

 

Doesn't that portray an image that a woman is somehow weaker and needs special treatment over and above that of a man?

 

I am not being a jerk here but this is an interesting point which shows to me a massive contradition in a societies' behaviour and dilemma that we are seemingly facing.

 

Courtesy, politeness and respect should be to everyone - regardless of gender surely.

 

Hmm, I get your point about a younger healthy female and maybe as an older, not as fit as I like to think I am male I may think twice.

However the ladies present were all in the upper age bracket and were I not on crutches I would have given up my seat.

[ANGELFIRE1]

What exactly is dog-eat-dog here????

 

Women have been demanding equality for years and years. Now they got it.

 

Putting the whole obvious and correct elderly and disabled scenarios aside, the bottom line is, those men have have just as much entitlement to use a seat as a woman. In this age of equality why should there still be some unwritten social code that they should give it up just because someone is female?

 

Another minor point, I was always told by Ma and Pa to walk on the road side of the footpath with my lady friends on the inside. I believe this stems from when the Gentleman had a sword, lady on the left so the man could use his right arm and sword to defend her. Might be tripe buy it sounds feasable.

 

Angel1.

[Mister Gee]

Who’s lot are you talking about?

 

He's a Tory who doesn't like using public transport.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10631086&highlight=public+transport#post10631086

[Flanker7]

Another minor point, I was always told by Ma and Pa to walk on the road side of the footpath with my lady friends on the inside. I believe this stems from when the Gentleman had a sword, lady on the left so the man could use his right arm and sword to defend her. Might be tripe buy it sounds feasable.

 

Angel1.

 

Tripe - Obviously this theory dosent stand up as the direction of travel would vary and the sword arm stays the same.

 

I was told it was so the man could protect the fair lady from furious and reckless carriage drivers and their horses.

[Mister Gee]

Another minor point, I was always told by Ma and Pa to walk on the road side of the footpath with my lady friends on the inside. I believe this stems from when the Gentleman had a sword, lady on the left so the man could use his right arm and sword to defend her. Might be tripe buy it sounds feasable.

 

Angel1.

 

What if you're dolly-handed?

[altus]

Elderly persons, disabled persons, pregnancy, people with children etc all of course have exceptions which quite rightly should be adhered to. But lets focus back on a key point which seemingly is overlooked.

Age shouldn't come into it - some elderly people run marathons. Giving up your seat to someone who's infirm (for whatever reason) I'd agree with.

[Cyclone]

Two different issues here, I'd give up my seat without a second thought to someone disabled or injured who needed it.

I wouldn't give it up to someone just because they have different reproductive organs to me.

[Becky B]

Totally agree with all of that.

 

However, the issue purported in the original post appears to be whether someone should change their actions JUST because someone happens to be female.

 

Elderly persons, disabled persons, pregnancy, people with children etc all of course have exceptions which quite rightly should be adhered to. But lets focus back on a key point which seemingly is overlooked.

 

If a perfectly healthy younger man is seated on a train before a perfectly healthy younger female boards, why is there some unwritten social code that they should give up their seat JUST because the other passenger is a woman?

 

Why should that male be seemingly criticised for not doing so?

 

Why, if everyone is now supposed to be treated equally, does such a social behaviour still exisit on the single ground of being female?

 

Does that not portray a vision that women have to be treated differently to men and thus undermine the whole principle of equality that is being fought?

 

Doesn't that portray an image that a woman is somehow weaker and needs special treatment over and above that of a man?

 

I am not being a jerk here but this is an interesting point which shows to me a massive contradition in a societies' behaviour and dilemma that we are seemingly facing.

 

Courtesy, politeness and respect should be to everyone - regardless of gender surely.

 

This. I absolutely don't understand why being of the female gender makes me more entitled to a seat on public transport? What qualities do I have (or lack) that means I need to sit down more than someone of the male gender?

Totally agree with your last sentence!

 

Two different issues here, I'd give up my seat without a second thought to someone disabled or injured who needed it.

I wouldn't give it up to someone just because they have different reproductive organs to me.

 

And why should you?! As you say, seating should be down to need, not gender...