4 ms·
My interpretation of the GP's comment was that he believes the man in the article was simply treating the author with the same common courtesy he treats all wom
by marrs 11y ago
My interpretation of the GP's comment was that he believes the man in the article was simply treating the author with the same common courtesy he treats all women with. My parents' generation used to call this "being a gentleman".
Speaking of my parents, my mother brought me up to always be a gentleman around ladies, which included things like not using bad language. This was quickly drilled out of me when I entered the real world.
Dave Chappelle has an amusing stand-up routine about this subject called "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it"
- dajohnson89 11y agoGP here. The correct interpretation of my comment is that it was complete bullshit, judging by the downvotes it received. Hope that clears everything up.
- scintill76 11y agoHe treats all women with a common courtesy... and all men with that same courtesy. Did you misread the bit about "holding the door open for a lady"? Hint: the reason he does so is not because of her gender, has nothing to do with "being a gentleman" or anything else your parents taught you that you're dragging into this thread before anyone else did. The reason I know is because he calls it a "common courtesy" in a "similar light" to his position on being respectful with your language regardless of the gender of your listeners, and disavows one sexist justification for holding the door for women specifically. He probably brought up the door thing because some people have the idea that women are offended by having a man hold a door for them, precisely because it used to be chivalrous. And a counter-meme is that few real women are like that, so who knows, but this swearing anecdote seems a point in favor of the first idea. Did you see that he used the word "lady" and your chivalry detectors flared up and refuse to take anything else he says at face value? Was the comment edited after your reply? I was there around that time and it seems unlikely. Since I had to dig a bit to justify it above, I can understand how you've misinterpreted it. The comment may have been sloppily written, or has a certain subtle sense of humor/sarcasm/analogy, or maybe even trolling by appearing sexist but being technically not.. but if you read it carefully and maybe a bit charitably I really believe it means pretty much the opposite of what you thought. You probably still hold back on some "bad language" to men and women you don't know well, or you wouldn't call it "bad language." That was the main point.
- marrs 11y agoI wasn't trying to attack the OP. I was offering my interpretation of his comment along with the opinion that maybe being chivalrous doesn't make him a bad person. It might just be that he was brought up to believe that it's socially unacceptable not to be chivalrous.