Conference quark::mennotes

    Bubba, I would say you're an unreconstructed gentleman of the old type. 
    As such, you are unquestionably PI in many people's minds.  I do some
    of these things out of ingrained habit.  I also hold doors for men and
    address strangers of both sexes as Mr or Ms until I'm admitted to
    familiarity.  (I don't hand write letters in black or blue-black ink,
    however; my scribble is illegible.)
    
    I've become quite adept at recognizing the signals a woman is sending
    if she doesn't like it, and I think this is important because people
    have a right to be treated socially as they want to be treated.
    
    -dick

>   ... I always invite her to order first (at a restaurant) ... etc ...

	You mean you don't order for her ?

  >>  Which is it?

	Gentleman, since that's obviously how you intend it.  Here's
	hoping that not all men with this amount of charm succumb to the
	will of the so-called politically correct.


	Di

    It's "gentleman". No doubt about it. Ladies will still appreciate a
    gentleman's courtesy. Women who insist it's chauvinism just don't
    value differences.

    		Alfred

	I had a date one time with an exchange student from England.

	She was quite offended (and let me know about it) when I opened
	the restaurant door for her, and a couple other things which I 
	was always taught were gentlemanly.  Overall, it was a pretty 
	horrible date, and the food was bad, too!!  The good part was that
	she paid for her own dinner (I was a poor college student).

	Fortunately, that's the only time I had that type of problem.  For
	the most part, I think women still appreciate gentlemen, but it
	seems that (unfortunately) they are surprised when they meet a man
	like that; at least the women my age.


	Jon

    I always hold the door open for women and occasionally for men.
    I offer to help a woman carry something if I think she may have trouble
    carrying it. I open the car door for her and I hold her by the hand
    when I'm leading her thru a crowded club or theatre.
    
    Of course, I'd do this for my boyfriend too, so I don't consider myself
    a chauvinist.
    
    I just think its a matter of common courtesy and civilty. Of course, I
    agree with the person a few notes back that said everyone has a right
    to be treated the way "they" want to. If I offend someone with my
    courtesy, I apologize and don't make the same mistake with that person.
    
    The one thing that could land me as being a male-chauvinist is the fact
    that I get enraged when I see a man hitting a woman. But that could
    come from me having five sisters and seeing three of my sisters after
    they had the crud knocked out of them by their scumbag ex boyfriends.
    
    
Scott

    
    I think it's your intent that marks the difference.
    
    are you doing these things for her?  or to her?
    
    are you doing them even when you get the impression she is
    uncomfortable with them?  after she's requested you not do so?
    
    are you doing them with the idea that you're treating a woman in an
    honoring, respectful way - or with the impression that she needs you to
    do them and something's wrong if she doesn't let you?
    
    intent is everything, and perception = intent if it's undiscusssed.
    
    -Jody
    

    Bubba,

    It's whatever _she_ decides it is.  If she wants the attention, then 
    you are a gentleman.  If she doesn't, you're a pig.  Whatever you're
    intentions are don't matter.  Good luck on figuring out what she wants
    before you step on a landmine.  Have you been reading OUTLAND the last
    few weeks?

    fred();

    Re .8
    
    Good point, fred().  Jody says it's perception==intent, but the problem
    there is that it's the other person's perception that is projected onto
    your intent.  Miss Manners made an appropriate remark back in 1984,
    quoted here as it appears in the Curmudgeon's Dictionary:
    
        Indeed, it has never been easier to insult people inadvertently.  A
        gentleman opens a door for a lady because his mother taught him
        that ladies appreciate such courtesies, but this one turns around
        and spits in his eye because he has insulted her womanhood.  A
        young lady offers her seat in a crowded bus to an elderly, frail
        gentleman, and he gives her a dirty look because she has insulted
        his manhood.
        
    So it's not as simple as perception==intent.  Too many people are ready
    to take offense.
    
    -dick

.7> I think it's your intent that marks the difference.
.7> are you doing these things for her?  or to her?

I'm doing these things because my (southern) Daddy would rise from his
grave and whop me 'side the head if I didn't do 'em !  :-)

It's the way I was brought up.  I can only imagine what my daddy
would have done had I failed to do any of these things.  It was unthinkable
to any other.

I really don't know what you mean "to her" or "for her".  To me, it is
simply a matter of common courtesy.  In the Deep South those of the female
sex are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy.  Always.

No, I do not do the same for males as I do for females (see list in base
note) - in the Deep South you'd be ... er .. ah .. shall we say seriously
stared at.

Bubba

        
  >>  So it's not as simple as perception==intent.  Too many people are ready
  >>  to take offense.

	The thing is, though - who cares about what people like that
	think?  If they're not willing to give you the benefit of the
	doubt, then they're not worth losing any sleep over anyways.
	Let them get all bent out of shape - it's a sign of small-
	mindedness.


	Diane

    Personally I *try* to be an equal opportunity gentleman and treat
    everyone (male and female) with courtesy, dignity and respect.
    I don't always succeed.   Old habits die hard.
    
    I don't think women are any more deserving of "special" treatment
    than men are.

    /Greg

.11> 	The thing is, though - who cares about what people like that
.11>	think?  If they're not willing to give you the benefit of the
.11> 	doubt, then they're not worth losing any sleep over anyways.

Well, Diane, I do care but only from the perspective of the fact that
I don't want to offend anyone.  Other than that you're absolutely
correct - I don't waste a lot of time thinking about the indivdidual,
and, yes, admitedly, won't spend much time with her.

When I open the door for some female .. she looks me squarely in the eye
and says "I'm *quite* capable of doing that!" .. you can bet that she's
off of my Christmas list and will never see me ... after hours.

Bubba

.12>  Old habits die hard.

I haven't really seen anyone (of the female gender) say that they want
the habits that I mention in the base note to "die".
    
.12> I don't think women are any more deserving of "special" treatment
.12> than men are.

I do.  I enjoy it.  I enjoy treating a lady guest as "special".  Not
because she's weak or incapable of performing any function .. not because
I'm trying to get into her pants .. no ulterior motive other than the
simple fact that I DO enjoy treating females as special.  Why?  Because
they are!

So .. given that you're escorting a female to dinner you would or would
not offer to pull the chair out for her and allow her to be seated first?

And you'd do the same (assuming above answer was "yes", you would be a
gentleman and seat the female first) for a male guest?

Bubba

    It's interesting - I've held doors opened for untold numbers of women
    (and men), and have shown courtesies similar to the ones Jerry
    says he offers, but not once in my life have I ever been rebuked for
    such an act of courtesy.  Yet I hear from Jerry and some other men
    that they (regularly?) get told off by women to whom they have (they
    think) been simply courteous.  What am I doing right that Jerry is
    not?
    
    And further, even if it should happen that Jerry has had the misfortune
    to encounter more than his share of ungracious women (and he may indeed
    have), is this necessarily a condemnation of courtesy in general?  (Or
    of women?)
    
    I get suspicious when I hear someone saying something to the effect of
    "there must be something wrong with every one else."  Perhaps, Jerry,
    some of the machismo which shows up in your notes here is also 
    evident (and distasteful) to some of the women you encounter.  Or
    perhaps not.  All I really know is that courtesy is not dead, and
    that I have not yet encountered a woman who disdained a courtesy I
    showed her.
    
    					Steve

.15> ...but not once in my life have I ever been rebuked for such an
.15> act of courtesy.  What am I doing right that Jerry is not?

The first time it happened to me was in New England ... only once
if my memory serves me correctly.  Here in California it is NOT AT ALL
uncommon to be rebuked for displaying such courtesies.

I'll not say that living in New England is "right" but I DO believe
that it does have a great deal to do with where you live.  I don't
think that this would EVER happen in the deep south.
    
.15> ..some of the machismo which shows up in your notes here is also 
.15> evident (and distasteful) to some of the women you encounter.

Nope.  In person I'm a pussycat and a consummate gentleman.  There are
some ladies reading this conference who may vouch for my manners.

Bubba

    
    
    -1
    
      Yet another true tesimonial in support of the assertion that Eastern
    liberal wymym are no fools when it comes to spotting a bargain..... :-)
    
    David

    It strikes me that treating someone with courtesy includes avoiding
    making them uncomfortable. There's a big difference between holding a
    door open when you naturally arrived at the door first, and dashing
    ahead of someone to grab the door for them. To my mind, the former is
    courtesy, the latter showmanship (and rather patronizing).

    I'd expect someone who makes a production (a la Sir Walter Raleigh) out
    of courtesy could expect a higher ratio of negative reactions than
    someone who acts courteously when the opportunity presents itself
    naturally. (Not saying this applies to the base noter, just an
    observation.) 

.18> There's a big difference between holding a door open when you
.18> naturally arrived at the door first, and dashing ahead of someone
.18> to grab the door for them. To my mind, the former is courtesy, the
.18> latter showmanship (and rather patronizing).

If I find myself and a female approaching a closed door and I'm a step
or two behind her ... I *will* step around and politely open the door
for her.  No "rushing" or "dashing".  Is that showmanship and patronizing?

Quite frankly this is becoming quite depressing.  What was once common
courtesy now has the potential of being called "showmanship" and
"patronizing".

Bubba

    Re .19: Oh, please don't let it get you down. As .18 pointed out,
    making someone uncomfortable (knowingly) never _has_ been common
    courtesy, which means that the people who snap at you for attempting to
    be courteous to them are being very rude indeed. As for "showmanship,"
    yes, it's possible; your "stepping around" may not qualify, but there
    are people who dart in front of others - sometimes causing collisions
    or other awkwardnesses - in order to open a door or get on the
    "correct" side of the sidewalk or whatever, and I can tell you, from
    personal experience, that such behavior does *not* make me feel
    special, or honored, or cared for - it makes me feel awkward,
    embarrassed, and annoyed. [But I've never snapped at anybody for it.
    The worst I did was ask the well-intentioned offender (to whom I was
    married at the time) to please stop doing it.]
    
    Miss Manners, in her excellent and amusing books of etiquette, explains
    the distinction between traditional courtesy and patronization (real or
    perceived), especially in interactions between men and women. While
    she's totally in favor of retaining the traditional gallantries in a
    social setting, she is aware that, in a business setting, they are
    nearly always inappropriate, and have the unfortunate side effect of
    implying that one's female co-workers are somehow "set apart" from the
    males and in need of "special treatment" - not an advantage when it
    comes to proving one's prowess on the job...
    
    So. Do you smile and thank women who hold the door for _you_? ;-)
    
    -b

    Come, ramble with me down memory lane (as the song would say if I were
    to sing it:  "Born in the USA - a looooooooooooooooooooooong time ago")
    
    When I was pregnant with my first child, I lost my [then] husband.  No,
    not to death or divorce; I just couldn't find him.  There I was,
    obviously pregnant (7 1/2 months) wandering around Fort Dix, wondering
    what to do.  Brief background:  He was at Fort Dix on TDY, awaiting
    travel orders to Bad Toelz in [then] West Germany.  His orders were
    delayed and our lease ended.  I couldn't afford to renew the lease *or* 
    to move into a new apartment (what with first/last month's rent, deposit, 
    utilities, etc.)  So I decided to take the last of my money and bus to 
    Fort Dix from North Carolina, tell him the situation, then bus on into
    New York City and stay with a high school friend of mine until I could
    join him at our new assignment.
    
    However, when I arrived at Fort Dix and asked the Base Locator where I
    would find my husband, turned out the US Army had misplaced him.  That
    is, I was sent to a repl depl unit - but the 1st Sgt had never heard of
    E-5 Quayle.  He sent me back to the Base Locator, who was less than
    helpful and, unfortunately, less than courteous.  I've since wondered
    if he thought I was lying to him, maybe that I was actually unmarried
    and trying to put the onus on an "innocent" GI.  Ah well.  I left his
    office, red-faced and considerably upset.  As I walked down the
    sidewalk, I passed a group of young soldiers who were lamenting their
    lot in language that was (it's true!) much less common than it is today. 
    Every other word was pretty foul - such a blond, baby-faced young
    fellow, too.
    
    One of his buddies nudged him, and he turned and saw me, whereupon he
    apologized profusely for his language, calling me "Ma'am" all the
    while.  I accepted his apology, and told him I hadn't really heard that
    much, and knew he wouldn't have used such language had he realized
    there was a lady present (*told* you it was a long time ago), but
    explained that I was not blushing over his language but rather upset
    because I couldn't find my husband (a tear or two rolled down my cheek
    and, no, I was not acting).
    
    He took my arm and led me to a taxi, held open the door and saw to my
    safety and comfort, then leaped into the front seat and directed the
    driver to various units.  Long story, somewhat shortened, we found my
    husband who had not been informed of my arrival.  The young man would
    not accept reimbursement and to this day I'm grateful for his help,
    which I suspect was given because I was a pregnant woman.
    
    Jump ahead 8 years:  I was again pregnant, with my third child.  I was
    leaving the PX complex with my two other children.  Each child was
    carrying a shopping bag, and I was carrying two full and bulging bags
    in between which I was somewhat bulging myself.  Two young male
    soldiers walked out the door ahead of us, letting it shut in our faces. 
    What a difference 8 years made.
    
    I hold doors for people, male, female, old, young - if it seems
    appropriate, i.e., if I'm there first and the other person is close
    behind, or if her/his arms are full.  I always thank people who hold
    the door for me, even when I'm far enough back that I wish they'd just
    let it go... 
    
    There was a hilarious - to me at least - Dilbert cartoon
    a few years ago:  As Dilbert approaches his work site, he sees a man
    entering and holding the door open behind him for Dilbert.  D thinks, I
    hate this, I'm just far enough back that I have to lunge to get there. 
    He lunges and says, "Thanks."  The co-worker says, "Great.  Now I'm
    late."  "Sorry,"  replies Dilbert, "I lunged as fast as I could."
    
    I enjoy courtesy, giving and receiving.  I like "please" and "thank
    you" too.
    
    aq   

    >I haven't really seen anyone (of the female gender) say that they want
    >the habits that I mention in the base note to "die".

    Then what do you suppose those women, who make it clear the habits
    are not appreciated, are trying to tell you?

    FWIW - I'm not opposed to courtesy and good manners.. On the contrary,
    the lack of manners I've witnessed is depressing.   I just don't think
    it is "good manners" or "courteous" to do something for someone who
    can't/won't appreciate it.

    RE: women being special

    >"Why? Because they are!" 

    Well *that's* a profound and deeply meaningful answer.  Not :-)
    (sorry, ain't good enough).

    >So .. given that you're escorting a female to dinner you would or would
    >not offer to pull the chair out for her and allow her to be seated first?

    I do not usually "escort" females anywhere - I occasionally have the
    pleasure of accompanying one or more of my sisters or my mom to an
    event of some sort, or I will occasionally have lunch with female
    co-workers.  With the exception of my mother who is partially disabled,
    all of these women or more than capable of seating themselves so no,
    I do not offer to pull out a chair for them.  Besides, we usually get
    a booth :-)

    Seriously, it depends on the circumstances.  I've attended semi-formal
    functions with women and under such circumstances I might behave 
    differently.  Invariably I know the women well enough to be sure my
    actions won't be misconstrued (I don't recall the last time I went to
    dinner with a woman who was a stranger to me).

    I do know for a fact that my mom, a few of my aunts, and my grandmother 
    appreciate such attention, and so given the opportunity, I will make such 
    an effort for them.   

    >And you'd do the same (assuming above answer was "yes", you would be a
    >gentleman and seat the female first) for a male guest?

    Haven't attended any formal/semi-formal functions with a male (yet) so
    I don't quite know.  I suspect I would not because I tend to doubt my
    male companion would welcome it.  I might do it as a cute/romantic
    gesture on a special occasion, but I don't feel it would be part of
    my every-day behavior.

    /Greg

    I feel this is probably the most confusing issue of today. For men to
    be politically correct when dealing with women/wymen. 
    
    When moon lighting as a chauffer, once did I run into the wymin set who
    did not want me to extend my hand to help them in or out of a car. It
    is my duty to open the doors for them when entering and departing from
    a limo because of safty reasons. As a client you may not be able to
    judge how far a swing of an open door to another stationary object is
    going to be, for the darkened windows and perception of distance. 
    And the cost of fixing the damn door.:)
    
    Yet, it seems the gontlett to be tossed at our faces as many men have
    been told to do as part of the politically correct thing to do. And
    that is to open or not to open the doors for a woman/wymin. I rather
    determin how many angles on the head of a pin can one get than try to
    answer these issue(s).;)

    Greg, in your note .22
    
    >I just don't think it is "good manners" or "courteous" to do something 
     for someone who can't/won't appreciate it.
    
    Seems to me that one of the problems about deciding whether to open the
    door is that it's often a spur of the moment happening.  Deciding
    whether or not to seat someone at a table - well, you frequently know
    the person and have at least an idea of her/his likes and dislikes, but
    most of the people for whom I've opened doors and those who have opened
    them for me are strangers.  It's unlikely I will encounter them again,
    or recognize them if I do (I never remember a name, but I *always*
    forget a face).
    
    Good manners?  Perhaps true courtesy is based on willingness to
    think well of others and impute better rather than worse motives to 
    them where possible. 
    
    Interesting topic.
    aq
    
    
    
                                                      

><<< Note 14.16 by MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!" >>>
>                      -< Where you live counts ... >-
    
>In person I'm a pussycat and a consummate gentleman.  There are
>some ladies reading this conference who may vouch for my manners.
    
    But Jerry, you have to admit, getting down on one knee
    and kissing my hand, was a bit much :^)
    
    Jodi-(from California)

    RE: .24
     
    > Seems to me that one of the problems about deciding whether to open
    > the door is that it's often a spur of the moment happening.
    
    Good point.   And when I think about that particular act - holding
    open the door for someone - what I usually do is hold it open behind
    me until the person is up to the door.  If their arms are full, I 
    stand back and hold it open and let them thru first.
    
    In any case your point is valid - you can't compare all of these
    "gracious" actions - they aren't identical.
    
    >Good manners?  Perhaps true courtesy is based on willingness to
    >think well of others and impute better rather than worse motives to
    >them where possible.
    
    Sounds reasonable to me...
    
    /Greg

    
    >Good manners?  Perhaps true courtesy is based on willingness to
    >think well of others and impute better rather than worse motives to
    >them where possible.
    
	Yes, this is precisely right.  If you're approaching a door
	with a stranger and they hold the door open for you, unless you've
	just dropped in from Jupiter, you have no excuse for not being
	aware that most Earthlings alive in 1993 were raised to view
	this as a nice gesture (which indeed it is).

	It gets more and more difficult every day to put up with the
	misplaced indignation.

	Di

    
    well there are plenty of wimmin looking for an opportunity 
    to jump some male naive fool for real or imaged PC violations, 
    so beware.
    
    safest course of action here is to pretend they aren't there.
    

    all these problems can by solved if they just make the building have
    revolving doors instead of these regular doors.

    with revolving door there is nothing to reach out and swing open,
    because that is the nature of the door, and this way it is no
    way to insult a woman by opening a door for her, then she is happy
    and the dude is happy because he dont have to scratch his head
    trying to figure if he should open or not open the stupid door.

    so blame this problem on the architects i say.

    hope this helps.

    \nasser

    Did you ever notice that at a lot of restaurants, the host will stand
    behind the ladies chair until you're seated?  Then you can't help her
    to her seat without knocking the host out of the way!!
    
    Of course, on that nervous first date, I'm always worried I might knock
    the chair over, and spill my unsuspecting date to the floor!  ;-)
    
    Thank goodness for booths!
    
    Jon

    >Did you ever notice that at a lot of restaurants, the host will stand
    >behind the ladies chair until you're seated?  
    
    you actually go to these resturnants where a "host" pulls your chairs
    for you !
    
    i only thought this happens in the movies !
    
    when i go to the gyro sandwishes place here in lovely nashua, no one 
    pulls my chair for me ;-(
    
    \nasser

    
     Thets 'cause out here in the wild, wild, west, we have business' that
    have not forgotten what customer satisfaction is and how to increase
    it. I have never found poorer service in everything from restaurants to
    clothiers than I saw in Mass. Oh, and one more thing, those revolving
    doors suck too. We don't have many of them either.
    
    TC
    

    Speaking of restaurants ....

    I've been very conscious of where the check is placed.  If I'm with a
    female and the server (see, ain't I PC?) is *male* or *female* the check
    is invariably placed next to *me*, the male - under the assumption (I
    can only guess) that I'm supposed to pay.

    About 99% of the time I'm with a female, but, in the 1% that I am
    with a male the check tends to be placed in the middle of the table,
    again, irrespective of the fact that the server may be male or female.

    Bubba

    Bubba, that is because the dude is the one who should pay.

    i never , i say ever , when i go on the date let the woman pay for 
    anything, even when i know there is no chemistry and we both know
    we will not be seeing each other after the dinner is over for the rest
    of our days of our lives, i just cant let the woman pay. the last blind 
    date i went to, it was so obvious from first few seconds we sat down that
    there was no chemistry, she went ahead ordered the most expensive order 
    with wine and all (i dont drink), then she asked for a doggy bag and took 
    most of my dinner and here dinner home ( i did not each much, i lost
    my appetite), yet still i insisted i must pay the whole thing with the
    tip offcourse (not that she offered to share it). and she just got up
    and left with her doggy bag.

    \nasser

    Er .. ah .. \Nasser ... do me a favor and don't try to fix me up with
    any dates ... 
    
    'preciate it.
    
    Bubba

    Hi Bubba,

    i get all my blind dates from the personal sections in the paper,
    for me to fix you with one date, i'll i have to do i just give
    you the "code" number of one i think sounds interesting, it is
    realy no problem buddy.

    try this one

      765x676459

    in the December edition.

    this one sounds really interesting woman.

    good luck and do tells us who it goes. may be you be more lucky
    meeting some nice ones that i seem to have. (hint: i find ones that 
    end with a prime odd number more interesting than the ones who
    end up with even numbers).

    \bye
    \nasser

    Again .. thanks but no thanks.  Your record for success does not appear
    to be exactly ... exemplary.

    Bubba

    Oh, Nasser, you've done it again. The problems with the check scenario
    are many, including "How does the server know whether the people are
    dating, having a business lunch, siblings, just friends, or plotting to
    take over the world?" and "Even if it is a date, how does the server
    know who asked who out in the first place?" [Those who invite, unless
    they specify otherwise at the time, are traditionally presumed to be
    offering to pay as well; mores and customs may vary, of course, and
    among Impoverished College Students (a group I was a member of for some
    time) the default is to split all tabs unless otherwise specified.]
    
    In any case, the person who hands out the check at the restaurant can't
    possibly know which is which, and unless somebody has clearly been
    acting as host/hostess, or asks for the check outright, *I* think
    wait-persons ought to either ask who wants it or just set it in the
    middle of the table. [But, as trials and tribulations go, having the
    check given to the wrong person is pretty low priority; if it was
    supposed to come to me and doesn't, I just grab it. With, sometimes, a
    sidelong look at the server, just to let 'em know...]
    
    Heck, if Bubba ever wants to visit scenic Nashua, I'll buy him lunch.
    [And let him open doors for me if he wants to. ;-)]
    
    -b

In England, the protocol is still if a guy asks a gall out, he pays. Galls don't
often ask guys out.

In Germany, the first time I went out with friends to dinner, everyone paid their
own way. Including my date. The extreme case was that a couple actually paid s
eparately !! 

Usually the protocol is that if you're invited the other person pays. Applies 
to both sexes. Nobody gets upset where the waitress or waiter puts the cheque 
on the table.

- paul

    	After being being told by a DEC female that she didn't need a man
    to open the door for her, I now let the door slam in all female faces.
    Sorry, but that's the way it is. There were 8-12 people when this
    female embarassed me . . . I know, not all women are the same, but I
    refuse to be gallant again. I only open the door for elderly folks who
    I know appreciate the gesture. I help them across the street, through
    the parking lot etc. I've been known to walk an elderly woman or man to
    their car in a parking lot, assist them getting in, lock heir door and
    see them off safely in a driving rain.......after watching kids follow
    them around or seeing someone suspicious.
    
    	I find that the check is more often being placed in the center of
    the table when I dine out. My wife and I eat at resturants at least
    once a week and and the waiter(ess) will either place it in the middle
    of the table or say "Check?" and look at both of us waiting for one of
    us to say yes. Whom ever says it first generally gets the check. 
    
    Ken

    re .40, just because *one* woman was rude to you, you now let the door
    slam in all female faces??????   I think that's pretty rude of you. 
    It's not my fault if some other woman was rude to you, nor is the fault
    of any of the other women in the world.  Sometimes I think people just
    enjoy having a reason to be as rude as always wanted to be!!
    
    Personally, I think common sense dictates civility in most cases.  I
    don't let the door slam in anybody's face.  Even yours.  After all, you
    are another human being, and I since I don't even know you, I shouldn't
    blame you for all the wrongs of the world, should I?
    
    Lorna
    

.14>So .. given that you're escorting a female to dinner you would or would
>not offer to pull the chair out for her and allow her to be seated first?

This is a question I can answer from experience, although I'll have to 
interpret that word 'escort'.

In the twenty years since my marriage, the only woman I really escort to dinner 
is my wife.  When we go out for dinner, I hold the chair for her.  When we 
stop off for fast food, I don't, partly because it feels wrong and partly
because McD's bolts its chairs to the tables.

I did recently ask a friend who happens to be a woman out for dinner, to 
discuss a topic of mutual interest.  If that counts as escorting, my answer 
is no.  I did not hold her chair or even offer to pay for her dinner.  Why not?
Partly because she is a good friend and I knew what she wanted and expected.
Also because courtesy can always carry a message.  When I don't hold the 
chair for her the message is that I see her as a friend who happens to be a 
woman.  If I did hold the chair for her the message would be that I see her 
as a woman who is, at the moment, a friend.  I would not be comfortable with
the implications.  Neither would she.  To say nothing of my wife.

.19>Quite frankly this is becoming quite depressing.

Try not to let it get you too depressed, Bubba.  Manners change all the time.
Your father probably did not play by the same rules as his grandfather,
regardless of what he thought and told you.

.23>    I feel this is probably the most confusing issue of today. For men to
>    be politically correct when dealing with women/wymen. 

I'll offer my rules, in hopes of making it less confusing for you.

1. You can't pleased everybody, so just try to avoid what reasonable people
would consider serious lapses.

2. When you know the people or the situation, use that knowledge.  If my 
friend wants to be treated as a friend, then that's how I'll treat her.  When
I am at work I treat everybody as a co-worker.

3. When you don't know the people or the situation, go for the safe middle 
ground between pre-war courtesy and modern equality.  

    Hey \nasser, next time you go to dinner and you realize that you and your
    date have no chemistry, do this! 

    Put only $10 in your wallet, but keep enough money in your pocket to cover
    the whole meal (in case it turns out to be a good date after all.)

    Then, when you get the check, just say, "Oops! Darn! I forgot to go to the
    ATM today! Can you help me with the bill?"

    8^)

    - Jim

    Re .43
    
    If \nasser is "taking a woman out," then he should pay.  If they have
    just agreed to "go out together," then the bill should be split without
    any games; a simple "Let's see here, half of mmm is mmm, and oh, yes, a
    tip of mmm..."  If in this circumstance \nasser chooses to pre-empt the
    woman's right to pay, that is his choice.  It would be the right of the
    woman to protest this presumptively chauvinist treatment, and I hope at
    least some of the women who are thus stepped on have enough strength to
    protest.
    
    -dick

.12> I don't think women are any more deserving of "special" treatment
.12> than men are.

Greg, I was listening to a talk radio show about violent women and the
callers (a male) referenced striking a woman .. said he couldn't do it.

This is ANOTHER area where I most assuredly treat women different!

If Greg Schuler takes a swing at me I'll go my best to see that he is
spitting concrete for a few days.  If a female takes a swing at me I'll
deflect it - again and again and again.  I simply won't try to take her
out the same way that I would a male under similar circumstances.

Chauvinist or Gentleman?  Should I deck a woman the same way that I
would a man?

Bubba

PS - yes - I have had occasion for a female_lady_wimmins to take a
good healthy swing at me - and it twern't no love tap she was after.
Under certain circumstances wimmins can get turribly violent.

    Last week there was an add in the local paper from a woman thanking
    the "rude person" who had pushed in front of her at the check-out
    counter.  The "quick-pick" lottery ticket she purchased won the 
    lottery ;^).

    fred();

    RE: .44

    Oops! I didn't mean to sound like a cad, I was just giving a tongue-in-cheek
    response. Sorry!

    - Jim

| <<< Note 14.45 by MORO::BEELER_JE "America is being held hostage!" >>>




| If Greg Schuler takes a swing at me I'll go my best to see that he is
| spitting concrete for a few days.  If a female takes a swing at me I'll
| deflect it - again and again and again.  I simply won't try to take her
| out the same way that I would a male under similar circumstances.

	I understand what you are saying Bubba to a point. I too wouldn't
strike a woman. But when it came to a man I may not strike him either. My
reasons for both are different. For women I would say my reasons are more in
line with yours. It just wouldn't be right. But for a man I think it has more
to it than that. If I thought I didn't really have to worry about it I may
deflect a couple and just put the person into a bear hug until he calmed down.
If it looked like I couldn't go about it that way it would depend on the
situation at hand as to what I might or might not do next.



Glen

    	My great aunt, who had an English, Victorian (she was born about
    1880) and somewhat upper class upbringing always maintained that the
    core of good manners was making the other person feel comfortable. My
    mother remembers her eating apple pie with her fingers, a thing against
    which all her instincts must have cried out, because the person she was
    with had started eating with their fingers first and she didn't want to
    make them feel uncomfortable by seeming to reprove their manners.
    
    	If you accidentally make someone feel uncomfortable that is
    ignorance, and is excusable. If you deliberately make someone feel
    uncomfortable that is bad manners and is not excusable. I am sure this
    has some application to door opening.

    .-1

    oh ya? and what if the dude you are making uncomfortable has a ship
    on the their shoulder and get annoyed on every thing not proper
    and to the tee and they are a big PC and are flabbergasted when
    they see something they are not used to and close their eyes in
    shock and all that? why should i change what i do so that dude
    dont get not comfortable? i say if they dont like it they can go
    bang their head.

    that what i do.

    hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser

    re:.50
    
    I tend to agree with that.

    If he has a ship on his shoulder he's one big dude...
    
    ed

    I know I'm jumping into this late, but I haven't been in this notesfile
    for a while.......
    
    Anyhoo... Bubba, I know where you're coming from, sort-of... I was
    also brought up to do all the courtesies to "the fairer sex".  My
    dad wouldn't have whupped me for forgetting (whupping *usually*
    wasn't his style), but he did have some choice words for when I
    didn't open Mom's car door for her, f'rinstance.
    
    To make a long story short and gloss over tons of details, I grew
    tired of this whole charade.  I grew tired of the fact that I had
    to memorize two sets of rules: one for boys and one for girls.  I
    also grew tired of the fact that I, as a man, was expected to take
    all the $#!+ that the world cared to dish out to me, while women got
    to be protected from an awful lot of it (at least that's how it looked
    from where *I* was sitting... grass is always greener and all that...).
    
    Unlike some others, I didn't decide that because I was tired of it
    I'd henceforth let doors slam in *everybody's* face!  I recognized that
    courtesy is both the glue that holds society together and the grease
    that lessens the friction of human interaction.  So, instead, I decided
    to figure out how I could act the same way towards men *and* women.
    Things like getting the door if the person in front of me gets it,
    but letting him/her get it if s/he's first... things like figuring
    out someone's comfort level (male OR female) before using my
    Anglo-Saxon vocabulary... things like giving up my seat on the subway
    to someone who has trouble standing, but not if they're obviously
    strong and healthy (male OR female, again).
    
    In short, whenever I found myself doing something for someone else
    based primarily on their gender, I began to ask myself, "Is there
    really any GOOD reason why I'm doing it this way?", and "If this
    person were the opposite sex, would I still be treating him/her the
    same way?"
    
    Think about it, Bubba... s'pose I happened to be traveling in
    Beelersfield, and decided to pop in and meet Notes' Most Famous Marine
    for lunch... how'd YOU feel if I constantly dashed ahead of you to get
    the door, opened the car door for you, held out your chair for you at
    the restaurant, insisted on getting the check, and all that?  [and lest
    you're wondering... I'm 100% straight, so there's no funny business
    going on...].  Wouldn't you wonder why the h*ll I'm treating you so
    strange?
    
    Equality won't be achieved until women have the opportunity to open
    their own doors, pay their own bills, and do some heavy lifting. 
    And yes, they *even* oughta have the chance to "spit concrete" if they
    step too far outta line!
    
    Conversely, it won't kill anyone to show the same level of courtesy to
    the menfolk as to the womenfolk...
    
    The Golden Rule has no exceptions or provisos for gender.
    
    Is this *REALLY* such a difficult idea to understand?
    
    --jim

    RE: .53
    
    Hice note Jim.
    
    Marc H.

    Yup, nice note Jim. You summed up for me alot of what I have been
    struggling to say when I refer back to the way it was in the 1950's
    when I was a boy.  Back then it seemed to me as if the men and boys
    took most of the sxxx and the women had it realitively easy:
    
    Back then (1950's) women had:
    
    No REQUIREMENT to risk your life in combat. 
    
    Males were expected to take care of you.
    
    Usually unnecessary to go to work formally in an outside the home job.
    
    Doors held open for you, seats given up for you etc.
    
    Expected to let males do your fighting for you.
    
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    
    In return a woman was expected to:
    
    Take care of the kids.
    
    Stay home and do housework.
    
    Have babies.
    
    Be subservient to the man of the house.
    
    To me, then AND now it didn't seem like such a bad deal for women.
    
    As a 'modern' man of the 1990's I do housework, my wife works full
    time, I was present at my sons' birth, I do laundry, cook, wash,
    work full time, and spend as much time caring for my son when my
    wife works 2nd shift as she cares for him.  So I do have a taste
    for what its like to do the housework, and care for the kids.
    At least with the homemaker role, you are essentially your own boss,
    can pretty much determine when you do the laundry, shop etc. which
    is unlike a full time job working for a boss.  To me thats a better
    deal.  I would stay at home as the homemaker IF I could still pull in
    my paycheck.
    
    Woman wanted equal rights, and RISKS.  Woman managed to get things
    more equal....
    
    So how is it for you women now?  Was it worth it?  This is not a flip
    question, I really want to know... how is it working out?
    
    Jeff

    Re .55 and "how is it for women now": Well, _I_ appreciate the changes
    - but I'm aware that some/many women don't. Some would prefer to have
    fewer choices in exchange for more protection - though, in fact, the
    "protected" status of women was never all that high, being pretty much
    at the whim of whichever male was the current "protector"... And some
    feel that the roles of women as mothers and homemakers have been
    devalued because other women don't _want_ to be mothers and homemakers.
    [Personally, I thought those roles were devalued by being considered 
    mandatory and/or ubiquitous; I mean, how wonderful could
    "wife-and-motherhood" be if *all* women were expected to do it - even
    to be _born_ knowing how to do it - and considered incapable of doing
    anything else? (I know that's overstating the case, but that's
    certainly the impression I had of society's views on the matter.)]
    
    The fact is that many people do not enjoy making choices. (In some
    cases, I'm one of them.) It involves taking risks, taking
    responsibility, perhaps doing a lot of work to evaluate the options...
    so much easier to allow one's role to be defined for one.
    
    A perception that traditional roles meant that women had it easy and
    men had it rough is just as lopsided as a perception that women had it
    rough (i.e., could own no property, were almost property themselves,
    required the protection of some man to be able to do anything) and men
    had it easy (no restrictions on what they could do, what they could
    own, where they could go, and no requirement to have a woman in their
    lives if they didn't want one - or to stick to just one, if they wanted
    many). People whose wants and needs fit well into the traditional roles
    they were given would tend to be happy, whether male or female; people
    whose roles didn't fit would tend to be dissatisfied.
    
    I'd like to see things balance out such that everybody was prepared to
    make some attempt at choosing the paths they wanted to follow in life,
    or at least to acknowledge that "accepting a default" was a choice in
    itself; and that everybody would be prepared to honor everyone else's
    choice of role, be it "Americo-Victorian traditional" or not. 
    
    -b

    re .55, how many men do you know that *you'd* want to be subservient
    to?
    
    Lorna
    

    ........what man would I want to be subservient to.
    
    Well, considering that I am a man I am not sure what role you are
    asking.  That is, subsurvient to a boss, which I am now, or 
    subsurvient to a husband (hypothetically assuming that I was a woman).
    
    Well.... it would depend on MY personality and his.  But assuming
    that I loved him, and he was a kind person its quite possible I would
    be willing to be subsurvient.
    
    Its not a blanket type of deal where there is no way I would EVER 
    consider being subsurvient to another man.  
    
    Lorna, I get the impression that YOU are saying that there is no way you
    would allow yourself to be subsurvient to a man, is that right?
    
    If you have had some rough relationships with men I can understand why
    you would feel that way.
    
    Jeff

    
    Well, having been born in the '60s, there are a lot of lifestyle things
    that I only know about through hearsay. And I have to admit, I am often
    bombarded with a feeling that things were better for women. But
    sometimes I interpret that as nostalgia. When I probe, I get some funny
    answers. 
    
    Let me add, I am a low risk, binary person. I don't like making choices
    beyond yes or no, and I don't like risk in my finances, work situation
    or means of fun. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs partially from those
    beliefs that such actions carry a risk that something negative will
    happen. Its just not worth it to me.
    
    So: right now, I'm single. No men "take care of me" 24-7. But there are
    a couple who do a lot of nice things for me when I'm in a jam. I
    usually return the favor in kind, but no, I can't fix my brakes, so
    some things I let a guy do if he actually knows how and offers. (I did
    fix a guy's thermostat once. He was an engineer and I was totally blown
    away that he couldn't figure out the problem.) 
    
    I'm used to having the "door" thing work both ways. Its taken me a few
    years to figure out HOW to open a door for someone!!! Honest. Its a
    matter of positioning, and for a while, I'd go through, and then try to
    hold the door open, instead of standing behind it and holding it then
    following the person in. But now that I understand how it works, I do
    it whenever I'm inclined. And it feels good because its a nice thing to
    do for someone.
    
    As for men doing the fighting for me: in war, I'm inclined to let
    someone else fight unless its on US soil. It hasn't happened in this
    century (not counting pearl harbor or US territories - I mean the
    continental US), so I have NO CLUE how I'd feel if the US was attacked.
    I might actually feel a civic duty to train, arm and fight. So, I guess
    the best way to put it is, I choose my battles. If *I* don't consider
    it worth fighting, I don't ask anyone to fight for me.
    
    Now, as to "my" responsibilities as a woman... 
    
    My mother, whom I love dearly, and who loved us dearly, admits that
    being home with kids can drive a bright intellectual woman crazy.
    Because there is NO source of intelligent conversation. Believing this,
    I would not make myself stay home 24-7 with children. Its not in the
    children's best interests that I go bonkers.
    
    I also don't see myself as a baby machine. Years ago, I strongly felt
    that it was WRONG to bring more children into the world, and that if I
    felt I needed a family, there are PLENTY of young black kids who need
    homes. The selfish part of me is beginning to want to see what my gene
    pool would produce. But I can't see myself birthing more than 2. But, I
    can't see my HUSBAND birthing any. So, I'd say the birthing part is
    still heavily the woman's responsibility!!! :-) 
    
    Housework isn't what it once was. Most of us try to avoid having silver
    and too many knick-knacks that need dusting. Washers, dryers,
    dishwashers and microwaves have reduced the time spent on some
    household chores. I admit freely that my clothes do NOT get put away.
    There's a clean pile, and a dirty pile. As long as *I* know the
    difference, it works... :-) My dishes get clean... at least once a
    year! So, I guess I'm not big on house work!
    
    But I DO bring home the bacon!!!! And frankly, I cannot see myself NOT
    bringing in a salary. 
    
    And maybe this is the thing about "subservience". I, as an adult wage
    earner, cannot IMAGINE what it would be like to depend on my husband to
    provide financially for me. And worse still, to have NO way to affect
    the income. The best I could do would be to manage it and stretch it.
    How would I buy him presents? How would I justify MY presents to ME?
    Its just unfathomable.
    
    I also can understand that if I'm not earning a salary, then he gets a
    LOT of say in financial decisions. The guy I love, bless his buns, does
    not think the way I do about money. I can't see letting him have final
    say without eventually blowing my brains out from frustration. 
    
    So: the fact that no one (yet) seems to expect me to do the "stay home
    and have babies" thing, is a blessing. The fact that I can work as an
    engineer and bring home the bacon is also a blessing. There are HOLES
    in my "home training" such that I know I may not know all the in's and
    out's of the world as some sons are taught, but I don't think I'm
    completely deficient! 
    
    So, I guess its working out for me. And I think it comes from the
    training I *did* receive that I must be responsible for myself, and any
    off-spring I choose to have. I was also taught, somewhat painfully,
    that sometimes men aren't that reliable. Its better to rely on self.
    I think that women who grow up knowing that they must depend on
    themselves do the best in today's world... although some depend on their
    ingenuity to get men to do things for them.
    
    I also think that its safe to say that we all do some things better
    than others. So, however you mix it, if you get your needs met without
    subjugating or harming others, I say go for it. 

    Jerry-
    
    Next time you come to New England, you can escort me anywhere,
    open my doors, the whole bit.  I personally enjoy that treatment
    and would like to see more of it.
    
    Christine

About 15 years ago, I was at a party in Concord Mass.  It was
actually at the home of a woman who used to work for Digital.  It was the night
of some huge happening in Concord (hmmm, maybe it was 1976, the bicen
tennial, now that I recall).

I was sitting in a chair in a crowded livingroom.  The woman that lived there
came into the room.  I offered her my seat and sat on the floor.

In annoyance and disgust, she refused the offer, and sat on the floor too.

She was *insulted* that I had offered her a seat.  (I think I reclaimed the seat).

I really don't remember what I felt at the time.

But I do remember other people who had observed this interaction reminding
me afterwards "not to worry", because this particular woman was known to be
a "feminist".

For several years after that, when I thought back to it, it seemed to me like
she had been childish to refuse the seat, and it seemed to me that it wasn't
helping the women's movement by refusing to take an offered chair.

But now, many years later, I actually feel some embarrassment at *my* behavior
when I think back to it.  I can almost imagine that it *is* a bit patronizing
and condescending to offer someone a seat *because* they are a woman.

I realize as I write this though, that it doesn't work to turn it around in my
head.  Suppose *I* walk into a crowded party, where half the people are sitting
on the floor, and half are in chairs.  How would *I* feel if someone (perhaps
a woman) offered me their chair.  I think I'd take it graciously !

What does "graciously" mean to me ?  It means I don't have quite as much
codependency today, and therefore I wouldn't worry about "why" they are offering
me their chair, and I wouldn't worry about whether they are "putting themselves
to inconvenience" on my behalf, and I wouldn't "feel bad about it".  Instead, I'd
just accept the seat, and trust that they did what feels good to them.  It's
that *trust* that I think is important.

I offer all this mostly to acknowledge that feelings and views can change.  My
views in 1976 were that it's "cool" to offer a woman your seat.  I got "points"
for doing it.  But today I think sometimes I can "lose points" for offering
a woman a seat.  But I'd still offer a subway seat to any person that looked
like they'd really like it, such as an old or disabled person...

/Eric

    traditionally , a man offers the seat to a woman because women are 
    physically weaker than men (well 99.999% are) and you say she will get 
    tired standing up and you can handle it better standing up, so you 
    offer the seat. this practice then extending to opening doors and
    offering to carry something from a woman if it seemed heavy and
    stuff like that.

    it is that simple. nothing magic about it.

    the fact that a woman is physicals weaker than a man, makes some women
    think they are being told that they are weaker than men. and they
    dont know the difference and they get annoyed.

    a woman who get insulted when you open the door for her or offer her the
    seat, is a very silly woman and she probably spend her time alone
    reading books about why women can find the love they want.

    i still think physics is easier than women.
    	
    hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser

    re. .59  A well thought out reply.  I am impressed by the depth and
    thoughtfullness of the note.
    
    You have helped me understand where women are coming from. Thank you.
    
    Jeff

    
    
    nasser,
    
    
    sshhhhhhh your not supposed to say that ....
    
    
    
    dd

.60> Next time you come to New England, you can escort me anywhere,
.60> open my doors, the whole bit.  I personally enjoy that treatment
.60> and would like to see more of it.

That's a deal!   I will consider it an  honor to escort you - anywhere -
any time.  You will be treated with  all of the  dignity and respect that
is due any belle of the  South.  I will enjoy every minute of it - as I'm
sure you will.

I remain your humble and obedient servant,

Bubba Beauregard

    Why thank you, Dearest Bubba!  Make sure you drop me a line before
    you board that plane!
    
    Christine

    Why should opening a door for a woman be interpreted as a put down?
   It shouldn't unless it was accompanied by in appropriate comments,
   ie. 'Hey babe, what's happenin?'.

    I should be able to polite and expect the same in return. 

    Anyone who reacts negatively to a kindness is guilty of *bad manners*.


     - Bob
     

    Heard an interesting tidbit on CNN (I think) recently:
    
    In the past is was considered polite for a man to walk between his
    female companion and the street, assumably to shield her from getting
    splashed by street traffic or somethin' like that.
    
    Nowadays, he "should" walk between her and the nearby buildings to
    shield her from potential purse snatchers lurking in shady doorways.
    
    Times change. . .
    
    Jon

    OH?  Shield her from potential purse snatchers but don't open the door
    for her?
    
    Bubba

RE:  Note 14.67   ROYALT::TASSINARI 

>    Why should opening a door for a woman be interpreted as a put down?
>   It shouldn't unless it was accompanied by in appropriate comments,
>   ie. 'Hey babe, what's happenin?'.

And what's wrong with, "Hey babe, what's happenin?"

What I mean is, you can't please everybody.
     

    Bubba,
    
    What men should demand is that all buildings be forced to install
    automatic sliding doors, so we don't have to worry about it any more!!
    
    Also on taxicabs!  ;-)

    
    what if a man and a woman walk together and he doesn't have to shield
    her from anything?  if roadspatter or pursesnatchers arise they can
    face the onslaught together?
    
    -Jody
    

Prince Phillip walks three steps behind his wife.

    
  >>  what if a man and a woman walk together and he doesn't have to shield
  >>  her from anything?  if roadspatter or pursesnatchers arise they can
  >>  face the onslaught together?

    There you are, walking along, chatting, and some bozo comes whizzing
    by from behind, through a huge puddle that happens to be next to
    you.  How do you "face the onslaught" of roadspatter together in
    this case?    

    I think that it is only a small percentage of women who object to
    having doors opened for them, and yet many men are responding to this
    as though they knew for a fact that every single woman in the world is
    pissed off when a man opens a door for them.  I firmly believe that
    most women still like having men hold the door for them.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I enjoy the courtesies, but would rather do without if they cannot be
    performed with grace and unobtrusiveness.  
    
    It is _most_ annoying to be seated too far from the table, to be
    manhandled into the correct walking formation on the streets, and to be
    dashed around as I'm approaching a door.
    
    If a gentleman offers assistance, I'm pleased.  If he _insists_, I am
    not.
    
    In restaurants, I prefer that the staff seat us [I expect to be seated
    first when with a gentleman] as that is a part of their function.  I
    would deem it very rude indeed if a man insisted upon seating me
    himself under these circumstances.
    
      Annie
    

.73> Prince Phillip walks three steps behind his wife.
    
    Probably so he doesn't have to listen to her incessant yakking.
    
    Ever notice how, when you see an old couple together, it's always the
    guy who has the hearing aid?  ;')

>    Probably so he doesn't have to listen to her incessant yakking.
 


I read somewhere about the phenomenon of women discussing their relationships
with their husbands when they get together with their woman friends, and men
less often doing so and instead joking around or talking about sports and stuff
when they get together with their men friends.

The article or book went on to say that women learn to deal with issues
by *talking* them out with other people, whereas men learn to deal with
issues by *thinking* them out privately.

When I read that, it occurred to me that the times I've felt "hassled" or
"badgered" or "annoyed" by a woman partner trying to "talk about our issues",
perhaps it was because I grew up learning to "think things out" and she
grew up learning to "talk things out".

So, perhaps when a man thinks a woman is "incessant yakking", it's because
he and the woman have been brought up to handle things differently.

Personally, I think I'm learning more about how to talk things out, and how
to listen.

/Eric

    re .78, I think you're right.
    
    Lorna
    

    >.78
    Sounds like you are developing man's best defense - selective hearing.
    There are just certain people who would complain if you hanged them
    with a NEW rope. If you are right half the time in your responses you
    are doing extremely good.

    
re: .74

>    There you are, walking along, chatting, and some bozo comes whizzing
>    by from behind, through a huge puddle that happens to be next to
>    you.  How do you "face the onslaught" of roadspatter together in
>    this case?    
    
    one presses the buttons on the washing machine.
    the other dries and folds.
    
    -Jody

Re: .81

But Jody, who looks through the pockets for used tissues? :-)

			Steve

    
   >> one presses the buttons on the washing machine.
   >> the other dries and folds.

	It's simply a matter of practicality, which I realize is a foreign
	concept in such discussions, at times.  It's one thing if you're
	both wearing overalls and old shirts, and you happen to be on your
	way to the laundromat.  Then your button pressing and folding
	duet works well.  It's another if the woman is wearing a
	dry-clean-only silk dress and nylons, and the man a dark suit,
	and you're on your way to dinner.  Then all the romanticizing
	in the world won't help you.

  

    
    Ah, but that also depends on how frequently one dresses to the nines! 
    perhaps the solution is to take a cab and avoid the possibility of such
    an unsightly occurrance?
    
    Or perhaps to dress drably or in khaki at all times serves equally
    well?  oooo, there you are, a line of fashionable dinner wear that
    hides not only puddle splash but also gravy or sauce bearnaise!
    
    -Jody
    

    
   >> Ah, but that also depends on how frequently one dresses to the nines! 
   >> perhaps the solution is to take a cab and avoid the possibility of such
   >> an unsightly occurrance?
    
	Yeah, well that begs the question, doesn't it.
    

    Basically, be practical when it's appropriate, and show a little
    ceremony when that's appropriate.
    
    When stepping out (or in similar social circumstances) with my wife, as
    opposed to the times when we're being ordinary people, I tend to open
    doors with minimum but not invisible ostentation.  She likes it.  I
    tend to move so as walk on the street side.  She likes it.  When we're
    being ordinary people, I do what's practical.  If she gets to the door
    with her hands empty or half full and I have my hands full, she opens
    the door.  When we're on an escalator, I *always* tend to be a little
    solicitous (as invisibly as possible) to see that she gets on okay,
    because I know that her vision and spatial judgment hamper her ease of
    mounting the thing.
    
    -dick

    I prefer normal doors to the revolving type, as I always get stuck in a
    revolving door.....