Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    some interesting thoughts. in fact, miss manners often mentions
    that one problem in the workplace is that we try to take our "friendly"
    behavior into work situations. the people we work with don't have
    to be our friends, and we don't have social obligations with them.
    when i think about things this way, it certainly makes the issues
    a little clearer.
    
    liz

    Except sometimes I think the only people I ever meet are at work
    - so if all those business-like rules were adhered to - I wouldn't
    have any friends and wouldn't have had a date in years!
    
    Lorna
    

<    Except sometimes I think the only people I ever meet are at work
<    - so if all those business-like rules were adhered to - I wouldn't
<    have any friends and wouldn't have had a date in years!
<    
<    Lorna
    

       Ah Lorna, it's catch-22 isn't it? I understand what you are
       saying but there is still the problem that *some* men seem to be
       able to view women as fellow workers OR potential dates. It's
       rather dangerous ground for women trying to get ahead. IMHO, of
       course. liesl

    In social situations, my personal preference is to observe the
    traditional manners.  A VERY strong preference, I might add.
    
    Sure, Liesl, I'm game.  It might be slightly modified so that the
    daytime manners would equate to business situations, while the
    "nighttime" manners would encompass all other situations.  
    
    The trick now, is to get the men to do it.  I'm appalled to say that 
    the men I've dated since my divorce (7 years' worth) who behaved
    in the "traditional" manner were in the vast minority.  One told
    me he no longer opened car doors for women since a date gave him
    a severe tongue-lashing for doing so (let's keep our minds out of
    the gutter, here ;-).  Another one or two had similar experiences
    when opening doors for women.  And these men just weren't retrainable!
    What's wrong with a man who stops being a gentleman, just because
    some rude woman berated him for being courteous?           
                                            
    The man who opens doors, opens my car door, helps me with my coat,
    holds my chair at a restaurant, orders my dinner for me, etc, etc,
    is *definitely* worth holding on to (and you can take that any way
    you like!).  
    
    Paula

While this is a pretty good starting point, I find the traditional business
manners and way of thinking to be unrealistic. Emotions are real, and ignoring
them doesn't make them go away. While 'professional' is definately the key word
for how we all should act with our colleagues, everybody has their own
definition. I tend to think of it as respectful and understanding (along with a
few billion other things, I'm sure). Though I _do_ like the line about the fact
that we don't have social obligations to our coworkers. If I invite folks over
to my house for a party, I'll try to assure a good time. A meeting, however, is
very different [evil grin].
	Mez

    
    re.0
    
    Just curious was the author of the article female or male?
    
    I wasn't aware that manners had time frames associated with
    them.  I guess my mom missed that one.
    
    Michele

    
    Re: .0
    
    Nailing down manners is like trying to tie a rope around a cloud...
    
    While there are definite differences between work manners and
    non-work manners (admissable topics of conversation, level of
    innuendo, acceptable touching), both sets should be based on
    mutual respect and recognition.  If that isn't the starting point,
    then there will be problems.
    
    And there can be differences between acceptable work manners
    between companies - the last place I worked pre-DEC, we had a
    group norm of closeness and verbal teasing that wouldn't be acceptable
    in too many other places...
    
    Ron
    
    

    In regard to a man ordering for a female companion at a restaurant,
    this past year I was somewhat (shall I say) taken aback when a man
    I was with looked up at a waitress, and said, "She'll have...."
    and then ordered for me.  I had already told him what I wanted to
    eat, so he did order what I wanted.  But, still I expected to get
    to tell the waitress what I wanted myself.  I think it's a little
    bit weird to have the the man order for the woman, too.  What's
    the sense of it?  When my daughter was really small I used to order
    for her in restaurants but somewhere along the line she started
    ordering for herself as though it was a normal thing to do.  So,
    the next time I went out to eat with this particular individual
    I made sure to order before he had a chance to do it for me.  (I
    hate public speaking, but ordering my own meal in a restaurant isn't
    too much for even *me*.  There have been times when I wish somebody
    *would* do the talking for me!  But, when it comes to ordering my
    own food I can handle it just fine.)
    
    Some so called "traditional manners" such as ordering food for a
    woman, helping a woman put on her coat, opening a car door, just
    seem kind of ... weird...to me.  (If you want to help me out, put
    a new headlight on my car for me :-) - but don't help with something
    I don't need help with.)  Some of these "traditional manners" just
    seem to emphasize the idea of a woman companion being an ornament
    to be proudly displayed on a man's arm (look! my woman is younger
    and slimmer than *yours* - that's cause I make more money) instead
    of an equal friend.
    
    As far as holding a door, I think that's just common courtesy. 
    It's rude to let a door slam in anybody's face.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Last semester, I took a class called Organizational Behaviour. This
    particular class was taught by a man who is the president of a small
    company by day and a part time instructor in Babson's MBA program
    at night. He is married and has one small child. (His name is Jim
    Sharpe. I highly recommend taking his class. I learned an incredible
    amount from him and thoroughly enjoyed the class...)
    
    One class meeting was spent discussing "feelings". It so happens
    that this man had gone through school and into the business world
    with the "traditional" view of what is "professional" - i.e. strictly
    businesslike, very serious, no emotions allowed! He had discovered
    at some point, due to a lot of personal things going on, that you
    can't just ignore feelings, not even while at work, etc. 
    
    One man in the class kind of summed up my questions - he asked
    (paraphrased...) 'But how do you know how much is too much? How 
    do you draw the line between appropriate and not appropriate? Just
    *what* does it mean to be "professional" now?'
    
    I'm not sure if I am phrasing this very well...but what do you think?
     
    In .6, Mez states that "Emotions are real, and ignoring them doesn't
    make them go away." She then defines what she perceives as
    "professional"... Do you agree? Disagree? 
    
    -Amy.                                               

    
    One woman would loves a man to order for her and help her
    on with her coat,
    another woman finds this seemingly insulting and degrading.
    
    Isn't this the type of thing that leads people to confusion??
    
    Bob states the obvious

I don't like the idea of day manners/night manners.  
I'm not a business-robot (BUSIBOT), I'm a thinking,
feeling human being and I'd like to think that my
coworkers are the same.  The people around me have a
very good idea about the ways I like to work and
play and vice-versa.  We've gained this knowledge
by communicating with each other, verbally and 
nonverbally over the course of our associations.
Everyone is different, and I think I'm careful
to interact with each of my coworkers in a manner
which they agree is appropriate.  I strongly
dislike the concept of a corporate formula for
behavior that assumes that I and my coworkers
can't figure how to act "appropriately" in the
workplace.  

/bruce
    

    re: < Note 369.12 by HOBBIT::DINAN >
    
�   One woman would loves a man to order for her and help her
�   on with her coat,
�   another woman finds this seemingly insulting and degrading.
    
�   Isn't this the type of thing that leads people to confusion??

     
    Is it really so difficult to find out what your companion prefers?
    
    /bruce

    
    re.14
    i can see it, the whole night....
        "would you like me to order for you?"
        "would you like me to help you with your coat?"
        "would you like me to get the door?"
        "would you like me to pull out your chair?"
    i can only see this as annoying someone,
    or did you mean a more general question about their preference,
    "would you like me with or without manners tonight, and exactly
    how do you define manners?"
    
    

    re: < Note 369.15 by HOBBIT::DINAN >

�   or did you mean a more general question about their preference,
�   "would you like me with or without manners tonight, and exactly
�   how do you define manners?"
    
    I don't think there is any one right way to determine the "right"
    behavior for any and every occasion.  Everybody is different.
    Every situation is different.  There are no megarules other
    than to be sensitive to your companion's personality, 
    don't assume that you have (or that you must have) all the
    answers, and try not to make the same mistake twice.  If
    (you or) your companion expects you never to make a mistake,
    there will be a lot of unmet expectations.
    
    /bruce

    re: < Note 369.16 by AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..." >
             -< Don't_Women_PREFER_Stong_Silent_Males_Any_More ? >-

    I have never known a woman who preferred that I be silent.
    
    Also, it is my belief, confirmed (in my mind) by this notefile,
    that women don't expect men to be perfect.  Women do expect
    men to pay attention to what women say.
    
    /bruce

       RE: whoever asked, I deliberately didn't mention the author's
       sex. I didn't want that to color the discussion.

       RE: several,

       The point is that "traditional" manners do foster the idea that
       women are somehow childlike and need to be cared for. I do like
       to feel that way sometimes with a man I'm emotionally involved
       with (ya, I know, not very PC and assertive of me). BUT, I don't
       want to feel that way at work. So the actions of a man and woman
       in a purely social situation should be different from those in
       the work place to define the parameters of the relationship. 

       Lord, no wonder we are all confused. We are part of the
       transition generation. We know the "old rules" are outdated and
       don't get us what we want/need but the "new rules" don't really
       feel comfortable either. The fact that "manners" have been
       adjusted to sexual roles makes this all the more confusing at
       work. The only rule any more seems to be 'there are no rules'.

       I believe that men expect us to 'play' by their rules in the
       workplace. The author of the article called it "guarded
       comraderee" (no idea how to spell that). They share feelings but
       not too deeply, they relate to each other as work partners not
       best friends. And they most deffinately don't flirt with each
       other and treat each other as delicate. Now where do we fit in if
       we are treated as fragile females? liesl

>    I have never known a woman who preferred that I be silent.

Burce, if one did, it wouldn't take her long to figure out she should look
elsewhere!
	Mez

    Rules sure do make things simpler - don't they?  However, they
    don't necessarily make things better. 
    
    It always bothers me to hear people (men) say, "What do women
    want?"  I can't speak for WOMEN and I don't want to.  I believe
    that what is needed is to understand that women are individuals
    and we don't all want the same things.
    
    And what are "manners" anyway?  To me "manners" is treating people
    with consideration and respect.  
    
    POlly

    re .9  Ordering dinner:
         
    Let me clarify.  He orders dinner for me after I have told him what
    I want to eat and drink.  If he is familiar with the establishment,
    he may offer suggestions.  We discuss it before he actually orders.
    
    As a bit of a tangent - he told me I was the first woman who had
    leaned over to unlock *his* car door, after he let me in my door.
    It appears women are lacking in common courtesy, too.  Also, if
    I'm the one who's driving, I'll often let my passenger in first
    (unlocking and opening their door) regardless of their gender.
    
    You might try using age as a wild-a**-guess about whether one prefers
    traditional manners.  I'm in my mid-thirties, and the men who have
    been the most polite have been close to my age or older.  Or if
    a woman's children are polite, chances are manners are important
    to her.                
    
    Paula

    re:.24
    
    Hmmm... If I'm driving, I always go to the passenger door first
    and unlock it (though I usually don't open it) before going to
    the driver's side -- likewise, regardless of gender. More often
    than not, the passenger will lean over and unlock the driver's
    door for me, and I always do so when I'm the passenger.
    
    --- jerry

    My understanding of manners has been that they are a vehicle to
    facilitate interaction in a timely and efficient way.  That means
    to my way of thinking that manners are what you fall back on when
    you don't know what else to do and don't have time to find out.
    For example, I will open a door for another person if I'm there.
    It seems bizarre to consider discussing whether or not they feel
    politically pro- or anti- door-opening when the issue is getting
    through the door.  Along with using manners as default behavior
    (to be used until better understanding is established) I was taught
    from a "treat thy neighbor as thy self" and "do onto others as you
    would have them do onto you" point of view.  So I have a tendancy
    to think that if it were I on the receiving end then I think I know
    how I'd like to be treated.  So I quess manners are a matter of
    societal formalities designed to grease the wheels of human
    interaction.  That has nothing to do with whether they are sexist.
    It has everything to do with the culture in which you live.  And
    that has to do with sexism.
    
    Dondi
    

    In reply to, I think, Eagle, it didn't ruin our evening when my
    friend ordered my meal for me.  I was just surprised by it and didn't
    see any *reason* for it.  I was married for 12 1/2 yrs. and my ex
    never ordered my meal nor did I expect him to.  I don't think I
    showed that it bothered me (a little) that my friend ordered for
    me.  I didn't want to appear rude or ruin the evening so I kept
    it to myself.  No big deal.  Just weird.
    
    If someone opens a car door for me or holds my coat, I smile and
    graciously say thank you.  I *do* have manners.  It's just that
    those polite little formalities are *not* what makes me enjoy a
    man's company, (and they don't impress me either, I just *accept*
    them for what I think they are - meaningless).
    
    I think that just because someone doesn't open car doors or hold
    coats or order meals for women doesn't mean that they are not polite,
    nice people.  There is more to being polite and treating others
    in a civil manner than that.  A complete a**h*l* could help me on
    with my coat, if it comes to that!  I also just don't understand
    why these things are important to some other women.  Why do you
    like it?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .27
    
    Why do I like it?  It shows concern for my comfort, a certain amount
    of respect, he's willing to go out of his way for me (as I would
    be for a man I like), I like to be taken care of sometimes - I
    certainly like to feel that a man is capable of taking care of me,
    and willing to on occasion.  If a man exhibits these little courtesies,
    he will hopefully be courteous in other, more important ways, as
    well.  It might show that the fellow isn't totally ego-centric.
    He can probably get along in our society fairly comfortably - at
    least he probably isn't a total oddball.  It feels nice!
    
    There's an interesting article in the Sept. '88 Reader's Digest
    on Manners and their origins.  For example, the host tastes the
    wine (from the olden days) to show his guests that it isn't poisoned.
    The place of honor at the host's right (at dinner) may have evolved
    from the fact that it was prudent to put a visiting rival there, as 
    it would make it difficult for a right-handed person to stab his host 
    with a knife, while sitting on his right.  This apparently evolved to   
    being the place for the most honored guest.  It may be proper for older
    folks to go through doors first, because the ruler or person of
    highest rank was expected to go out a door first because presumably
    he was the strongest (would he deny it?), and most capable of fending
    off an attack.  (This doesn't explain "ladies first".)
    
    I believe that the custom of a man dancing with gloves on was to avoid
    soiling his partner's dress.  And a lot of other rules of etiquette
    apparently developed as signals to servants to take some action.
    (When one leaves the dinner table temporarily, place the napkin
    in the chair to indicate that you'll return, and the plates should
    not be removed; when you're finished and ready to leave, place the
    napkin on the table.  Put your knife and fork parallel along the
    edge of your plate when you're ready for it to be removed.  I'm
    sure there are myriads of other little signals, but I remain sadly
    etiquettely ignorant.)           
    
    Aren't there other women who appreciate the attentiveness of a man
    practicing traditional manners?  How do men feel about that?
    
    Paula

    
    
    To answer your question: "Woman appreciating men with traditional
    manners"...I appreciate the fact that my husband puts a new roll
    of toilet paper on the cylinder when he uses up the previous roll.
    And I feel spoiled and pampered when he delivers the newspaper and
    a cup of coffee to me in bed, on weekends.  I would be offended
    if he placed my order for me at a restuarant (unless he was driving
    thru Wendy's).  I am quite capable of telling the serving person
    what I want to eat.  The custom reminds me of the many times I ordered
    meals for my son, when he was too young to articulate his wishes
    to the serving person.
    
    I know my husband values me as a person, because he always introduces
    me promptly to third parties that I don't know.  I also know that
    he does not consider me a helpless individual.  If I had my hands full,
    I would consider it a courtesy to open the door for me, or assist
    me with my coat.  Otherwise, I would feel the implication is that
    I am incapable of doing it for myself.
                
    
    Deborah
    
    

    I've been thinking about starting a note on the topic of
    door-holding/manners in the workplace for quite some time, so this
    reply is a little longer than my usual.
    
    I find that when a man opens a door for me, I think it's polite, and I 
    always walk through and say thank you.  But there is also a part of me 
    that feels uncomfortable with it.  I think what happens is I wonder if 
    this man is opening the door for me as an act of human courtesy; or is 
    there some part of him that reacts to me in a traditional male-to-
    female way, and if so, will it extend to other areas.  Like, will he 
    trust my judgement in a business situation? (I'm focusing on 
    door-holding here because it's a shared experience and pretty easily 
    described, but I would also extend my thoughts on this topic to
    include other kinds of "courtly" behavior, such as apologizing for
    swearing in "a lady's" presence, helping a woman on with her coat,
    ordering meals in a restaurant, etc.)  

    I've thought a lot about this door-holding stuff lately, and I
    realized that there are times when I'm more uncomfortable with it 
    than others.  I thought about this some more, and I've tried to take 
    note of what's different about each situation, and I've tried to 
    understand when I am more or less likely to be uncomfortable.  This is 
    what I've found.  

    There are two types of door-holding that I've observed.  The first
    type I'll call "Human Courtesy" door-holding.  This is when it feels 
    like the person for whom it is most convenient opens the door.
    Usually it involves the person on the right opening the door for the 
    person on the left in such a way that the person opening the door
    doesn't have to change his/her stride or walking pace.  This kind of 
    door-holding can include a woman opening the door for a man or for
    another woman; a man opening the door for another man; or a man
    opening the door for a woman in such a way that it seems natural, that 
    is, (as I described above) he doesn't change his stride or walking
    pace to open the door, and/or he opens the door, walks though it first 
    and then holds it for the woman.  This kind of door holding feels
    quite comfortable for me.

    The second kind of door-holding is what makes me uncomfortable.  I'll call 
    it "Courtly" door-holding.  This is where the man will not walk through a 
    door that a woman is holding even if it means creating physical discomfort 
    or confusion.  (You know that kind of awkward situation where you're both 
    standing there holding one of two double doors waiting for the other to go 
    through, or where you have to move closer to him than you want to in
    order to go through the door.  In fact, I've also observed that this
    kind of door-holding sometimes involves actual touching, such as a
    little pat as the woman goes through the door.  I experience this
    touching as more power oriented than sexual; it's as if he's "helping" 
    me through the door -- anyone else experienced that kind of "power 
    touch"?)  This kind of door-holding may go on between men where this
    is some power or age differential,  but I have only experienced this
    kind of thing as a woman in relation to a man, and it's that dynamic
    that I'd really like to hear more about.  (if there's sufficient
    interest, maybe I'll start an FWO "spin-off" of this note, because
    I've been really eager to talk about this, and I think when men and 
    women talk about this issue together, we get bogged down in the gross 
    issue of should a man open a door for a woman, and if he does, should 
    she walk through it.  I've wanted to talk more about how it feels as 
    a woman when this happens at work.)

    The reason I've taken the time to define two types of door-holding is that 
    I think there is general agreement that when a person holds open a door for 
    someone else, it is polite and proper to walk through it.  And that when 
    looked upon as an act of human courtesy, holding the door open for someone 
    is a nice thing to do.  But something that we haven't talked about very 
    much here (but in which I imagine there is some shared experience) is that
    kind of door-holding that feels weird.  You know: you walk through
    anyway, but you almost feel put down, and you wish that he had just
    walked through the darn door and not gone out of his way to walk
    around you and almost trip just so he'd beat you to the door.   Anyway,
    I thought if we could have some common definitions to start out with,
    we could focus our discussion on how it feels when men engage in that 
    "courtly" kind of behavior which feels more like gender-specific
    behavior than it does like simple human courtesy.  I know that a lot of
    us enjoy "courtly" manners in social settings, but I often find myself 
    uncomfortable with that kind of behavior at work.

    Other thoughts?   Have any other women noticed that difference in
    comfort level that I've tried to outline here?  Do you think there 
    really are different kinds of door-holding?
                                    
    Justine

    
    It seems to me that seating a woman, helping her with her coat,
    and holding the door for her used to be the only socially acceptable
    ways for a man to display any nurturing behavior!  As such, it was
    quite refreshing and greatly appreciated!  The "big, strong, man"
    was, in fact, also "gentle!"  (Remember, he wasn't supposed to
    cry or display hurt or other emotions.)
    
    I enjoy and appreciate such behavior -- from men who are not otherwise
    patronizing! -- but do not demand or expect it.  I am not at all
    offended if I don't receive those courtesies, as I do not automatically
    "deserve" them.  I offer the same to others as a means of showing
    respect or as a means of assisting them.
    
    Nancy

    Re:  why manners are appreciated
    
    As I define things, manners are the implementation of courtesy and
    courtesy is consideration for others.  So manners are a way of
    demonstrating that you care about someone else.  A lot of the little
    things, like opening doors, can be interpreted as "I'd like to make
    your day a little easier."  And that's nice.  It doesn't have to
    say anything about whether you *need* to have your day made easier.
    I like lots of things that I don't *need*.
    
    As always, it comes down to intentions.  Is the courteous gesture
    prompted by consideration, habit or condescention?  Hard to tell
    on casual acquaintance.
    
    (I have a hard time seeing how placing someone's order for them
    would make their life much smoother, unless you consider it an effort
    to deal with waitrons.  Ordering for someone without consulting
    them first is not only rude (showing no consideration for their
    tastes or interests) but stupid, since you don't necessarily know
    their allergies or dislikes.  And I've committed the grammatical
    lapse of using third-person plural for a third-person singular
    indefinite pronoun, but I'm in a colloquial mood right now and I
    can't be bothered to change it.)

    re. door-holding
    
    The only times I recall being at all uncomfortable with someone
    holding a door for me was when I wasn't very close to it, and I
    felt I was making him wait, holding it while I approached and went
    through.  But then I've done the same thing, because of a desire
    not to let the door close in someone's face.  I have never felt
    offended when someone held open a door for me, nor have I ever
    felt it was done in a condescending manner.  Businessmen hold doors
    for one another, as well as for women, so I don't see that that
    alone is indicative of a lack of business respect, or failure to
    take a woman's business decisions seriously.
    
    Paula

    At a valuing differences conference that I attended a few months
    ago one of the questions that got discussed was the question of
    men appologizing for swearing in front of women. I asked the question
    of a man who does do that, what do you think if I say, 'that's okay
    I don't mind?' His response was that he wouldn't appologize again.
    So then I asked, well, then would you like me less, or think me
    less of a 'good' woman because I didn't mind. He replied that
    he didn't think he would.
    
    I think that the point that was raised here about sensitivity
    in men and the 'courtly' gestures is a good one. This was, in the
    past, the one way a man could be gentle and nurturing. So now,
    we women are asking our men to be more gentle, more considerate,
    and more nuturing, yet we have a problem with men practicing
    the one way that used to be the only acceptable way to do so.
    I can understand why guys get confused and think that they can't
    win!
    
    What if we all tried to think of courtesies such as door opening
    as a way for men to express their gentler, nurturing nature, (perhaps
    inspite of what ever 'vibs' we pick up) and accept it that light
    rather than looking on it as their feeling we are helpless. i.e.
    no matter what the intent, we can take the gesture as it pleases
    us.
    
    Bonnie

>    Have any other women noticed that difference in
>    comfort level that I've tried to outline here?  Do you think there 
>    really are different kinds of door-holding?

Absolutely. It amazes me that it has to get called out; I assumed it would be a
shared experience. But I do remember all those discussions converging on the
former ('humane') and ignoring the latter ('courtly'), so I'm glad you took the
time to make the distinction.

So, I know it when it happens, and, since I'm out to change the world, I'm
dying to point it out, but _sometimes_ (not always :-) I don't feel like having
him think I'm a 'ranting feminist'. Which is just silly (that I feel that way,
and that he would react that way, which I'm sure he would, given that I haven't
heard a single man say in this conference: "I was very glad the first time a
woman pointed this out to me.")
	Mez

    > What if we all tried to think of courtesies such as door opening as a
    > way for men to express their gentler, nurturing nature, (perhaps 
    > inspite of what ever 'vibs' we pick up) and accept it that light rather
    > than looking on it as their feeling we are helpless. i.e. no matter
    > what the intent, we can take the gesture as it pleases us. 
    
    Because, Bonnie, sometimes these gestures come across as genuine
    courtesies, and sometimes they come across as power plays. Why should
    women continue to accommodate (and try to comfort) men who wish to
    "keep us down"? To do that perpetuates the status quo. 
    
    (As an aside, those who know me know that I tend to be polite unless
    provoked to the extreme. I even let a man order dinner for me a
    few nights ago.)
    
    liz

	I think that instead of encouraging men to be nurturing and
	gentle by letting them hold doors and order food and help with
	putting on coats why don't we encourage them to to be nurturing
	and gentle by allowing women to make 100% what they make each
	year - to be able choice who we want to have sex with or better
	yet to stop destroying the earth so we will all have something
	to leave to our great-great grand children.

	I can open doors, and I can order my own food as for putting
	on a coat I do that quite well but I don't seem to be able to
	earn 100% of my male counterparts.  I also don't seem to be
	able to get the "right" projects to do - they go to the ones
	with "more experience" who have done the "right" projects in 
	the past.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The only door I want held open is the one
			to a future that has room for women.

re .31

>   	I find that when a man opens a door for me, I think it's polite,...
	[but]
>	will he trust my judgement in a business situation? 

	Can you explain this a little? I'm finding it difficult to
	understand how the two are connected. 

	I often hold doors open for colleagues who are women because that
	is one way society accepts for a man to show respect and courtesy 
	to a person who is a woman. 

	Similarly, trust of the business judgement of a colleague is a way
	to show respect and courtesy to that colleague. 

	The difference between the two is the former is unconditional, while 
	the latter must be earned.

						Tom_K

    
      Are we *really* discussing this *again*??  I thought we covered
      every conceivable aspect of opening doors and closing doors and
      leaving doors open but...
    
      As much as I would like to get into it I don't really need to.
      Bruce did a fine job in 369.17 when he said "I don't think there
      is any one right way to determine the "right" behavior for any
      and every occasion.  Everybody is different."  So if you don't
      like someone to hold the door for you *tell them*.  If someone
      tries that little "courtly" nonsense with you play a little head
      game.  Say something like "mumble mumble oh I forgot something"
      and turn around and walk the other way.  Don't have the time?
      Just say "Thanks, I can get it myself."
    
      I think I figured it out about this restaurant stuff.  Are we
      talking 4 star restaraunts?  I think we're dealing with the
      Rothschilds here!  I know at times I have enough trouble deciding
      what kind of dressing *I* want no less putting in an order for
      someone else.  Maybe my next date can order for me!!  Oh BTW
      if my companinion had to go to the women's of men's room I would
      be happy to order for them.
    
      And this confusion issue...  Dondi  said it right in 369.26.
      What the underlying principle here should be is if all else
      fails do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 
      I'm sure that if a woman dropped a folder on the floor she
      could pick it up with no problem.  (nobody's even touched
      on this stuff yet!!)  Maybe!  Does she have an armload other
      material?  In Sexism is alive...  I put in a note regarding
      how disturbed I was when twice at my facility women had not
      come to my aid in opening doors -  after hours when it is 
      neccessary to use a card-key - and I was carrying heavy boxes.
      I didn't receive any comment on it although I do believe I'm
      right to be vexed.   If men use the *excuse* that they are 
      confused my conjecture (MO) is that they are unwilling to make
      an effort to find out which action is appropriate.  After all
      what does it take to open a door anyway?
    
      Enough of that.  One last issue and I'm done. This note about
      the woman in Puerto Rico.  Please keep in mind that what you
      see in other countries and cultures *must be viewed* in *both*
      the context of their culture as *well* as ours.  This is where
      _valuing differences_ comes in.  To you these women may look
      like whores but...
    
    
    Luis 

I think the interesting thing is that we all try to make this issue go away by
talking about politeness, or trying to downplay/devalue/denigrate/trivialize
the 'courtly' power plays. We're uncomfortable just devoting time, space, and a
topic to talking about them. That says something.
	Mez

What nobody seems to have noticed in the restaurant discussion is that
restaurants are theater, in which everyone has a role (or several) to
play.

A waiter who expresses astonishment at *anything* a customer does is
out of place (or thinks he's working in Durgan Park).

Much of the "man orders, woman gets menu without prices" nonsense is
there to puff up the fragile male ego.  The next time it happens to
you, you might enjoy playing along (while smiling inside).

A few years ago, I was with a bunch of linguists at a conference,
eating at a very good restaurant (Hotel d'Angleterre in Utrecht).
The women were given menus w/o prices.  Since we were all paying
our own way, menus were quickly swapped.

One of the women had to go to the bathroom and returned giggling.
It seems that the menu, with prices, was posted in the ladies room.

Click.

M.

PS: Read Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" for
more detail.

re:  369.41 

Mike,

	

>    	Unless you walk to work and don't choose who you have sex with,
>    your one valid point is lost in 2 invalid ones.

	I am not sure what connection you are making about walking to
	work but if it is about global survival - my response is if I
	could afford to live in the town where I work I would walk to
	work - if there was some form of public transportation available
	to me to use to get to where I need to go I would use it.

	The "don't choose who you have sex with" in my note is refering
	to the fact that (I think this is correct) every 60 minutes a
	woman is raped - to me this means that even though I may choose
	who I want to have intimate relations I may have no choose as
	to who may force me to ingage in sexual acts.

	Does this validate my points in your mind?  (Pithy Heart Sarchasim)

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			If the Goddess is in all things
			Then all things are sacred and
			If all things are sacred then
			I do as much as I can to not destroy
				anything

	

    re: .45
    
     I'd like to make a comment or two about rape. Rape is a form of
    violence and should not be confused with sex inasmuch as sex
    (generally) is a voluntary action. Your point about who you have
    sex with (in regards to rape) says no more than you cannot choose
    who you will be attacked by. Since men as well as women may be attacked
    (or raped), your point is somewhat lost in the realm of this discussion.
    I would hope that you do, in fact, choose your sex partner(s). That
    inarguably should be every person's choice, regardless of gender.
    
    -E

>     Rape is a form of violence and should not be confused with sex ...

Funny; the similarity keeps throwing me. I certainly see some important
differences (!), but I still find the similarities intriguing.

So, I'll continue to compare and contrast, and assume the 'should' was indeed
ameliorated by the clause I have removed from the quote.
	Mez

    Re: .43
    
    >politeness, or trying to downplay/devalue/denigrate/trivialize
    >the 'courtly' power plays.
    
    What, specifically, do you mean by "power plays"?
    
    Re: .47
    
    >>Rape is a form of violence and should not be confused with sex ...
    >
    >Funny; the similarity keeps throwing me.
    
    It depends on whether you attach more significance to the form or
    the content.  Identify rape with sex is something I consider dangerous.
    Identifying sex with rape is something I don't agree with, though
    I can see that the experiences of some might lead them to do so.

>    What, specifically, do you mean by "power plays"?

I don't trust my electronic communication skills to try this one on. I'll be
glad to chat if we ever meet.

>    Identify rape with sex is something I consider dangerous.

But rape includes sex as the 'weapon' of choice. Why is it dangerous to notice
the chosen weapon?
	Mez

    	I feel a lot of heat in some of these replies. I've seen no
    convincing argument on either side as to whether or no I should
    hold a door for women. I gather that most of the women in here would
    rather I not. If that be your choice fine, I'll never hold a door
    for another woman as long as I live. I'll not offer to help any
    female carry a heavy load, lend a helping hand on the side of a
    road, help in any situation because she may be a ranting radical
    feminist who'll take exception to the fact that I care for my fellow
    human beings be they female or male.
    	Don't some of you see that the threatening attitude that you
    take toward the men of this world only serves to make them more
    defensive toward you? Would you hire a chauvanist? Of course not!
    If some men recognize that you are a hostile feminist, they will
    not hire you! 
    	As to project assignment: is it possible that you are not ready
    to take on that project? Is it possible that you are perceived as
    a troubled person by you peers and that perception carries to your
    boss? Is it possible that you are not experienced enough to take
    a project away from other more experienced people? As a former 
    supervisor, I often saw things differently than my subordinates.
    They openly voiced their discontent to others, interupted the
    smooth operation of the area, and often didn't do as well as they
    were able because of their attitude. I waited for them to recognize
    their shortcomings and they usually did. 
    	Wages are always a question. I believe in equal pay for equal
    work, but I also recognize that some people negotiate better than
    others for starting salary. There is also seniority and time in
    grade etc. If all things are equal and you are earning substantially
    less than your peers, then you shouldn't complain in here, you should
    be in personnel.
    
    Ken   

Somewhere in the middle of the movie Serial (life in Marin County), the
recently-separated woman (it's serious: she took the Cuisenart this time)
is moving into the commune -- big old house at the top of the hill.

As she staggers up the stairs to the door, one of the men of the commune
says: "I'd help you, but that would be sexist."

M.

    re.51
    
    Ken,
    
    	Hold the door if you wish to.  Simple as that.  Whether you
    are opening a door in the 'appropriate' spirit is something only
    you will know, and ultimately what is 'appropriate' is a matter
    of personal taste.
    
    	That for some your reasons will seem invalid and for you some
    of the responses you get will seem invalid is an unavoidable
    consequence of living.
    
    Hypothetically, if you were to run full tilt to beat me to the door
    when I was not excessively burdened down, I would think you were very
    foolish indeed and would walk through whilst trying to keep a straight
    face and not wound your delicate psyche.  If you were to let a door
    slam in my face, I would think you were rude and boorish.  If you
    were to balk if I held a door for you, I would think you were nuts
    but would relinquish the door and let you get it yourself.  But
    this is just the way _I_ look at the issue.
    
    	There's not a definitive answer as there are nearly as many
    sides to the question as there are permutations of available men,
    women, & doors.
    
    	Ann 

    <--(.49)
    
�     the women who do not allow men to have sex when they choose to. 
�     ...
�     I do not agree that men ...  force sex any more than women deny sex.
�     This is not a rational-ization for rape, btw. 
         
    Mike, this makes it sound as though you believe that men have a
    right to involve women in their sexual activity, and that women are
    unfairly denying men that right.  Is that indeed what you mean, or
    can you clarify please? 
    
    						=maggie

I'm wondering if anyone else sees this but me...

Again someone has glommed together the two different types of door holding and
reacted as if they were one. Why is that? What is so darn threatening about
saying that there are two types? Has _no_one_ in this file ever been called on
door holding, and, on introspection, realized that there might be some
overtones to this learned behavior? 
	Mez

    Re .46, "rape is a form of violence and should not be confused with
    sex...", even though rape may be caused by feelings of violence
    and aggression, rather than sexual desire, it still results in people
    (usually women) being forced to have sex with somebody whom they
    normally would not have chosen to have sex with.  It's still sex,
    even if it isn't caused by sexual desire, and even if it hurts and
    doesn't feel good.  That's what's so sickening about it.  That's
    why it's more disgusting to imagine being beaten up and raped, than
    it is to imagine just being beaten up.  
    
    As far as the other forms of politeness or manners, whatever:
    
    I hold doors for both men and women if it seems to fit with the
    situation, and appreciate both men and women holding doors for me
    (as long as it doesn't involve them almost breaking their neck to
    get to the door first).
    
    I would appreciate anyone, male or female, helping me carry or lift
    something heavy.  I'm not very strong and can appreciate all the
    help I can get with muscle power from either sex!  I will reciprocate
    with little kids under 8 yrs. old, probably the only people weaker
    than me!
    
    I think the custom of men holding coats for women is ridiculous
    and makes me feel uncomfortable.  It makes me feel like, instead
    of being two equal, good friends out together, we're playing phony
    roles.  I'll try to play the attractive lady and he plays the
    gentleman!  Who needs it?  When you let somebody put you up on a
    pedestal because *they* happen to think you're cute, charming,
    attractive, worth their time and money or whatever instead of a
    friend, then you're also putting them in a position to knock you
    right off the pedestal when they feel like it.  Then, you'll have
    to put your coat on by yourself anyway so you may as well be used
    to it.    I feel the same about having a man order food for me.
    
    In other words, I may really need help with a door or carrying
    something heavy, and, if so, I appreciate it when it's forthcoming.
     But, I don't need help ordering my meal or putting on my coat,
    and I don't want somebody to make me feel helpless and pampered
    by doing it, when I've lived long enough to know I really have to
    take care of myself.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: Note 369.57 by ANT::ZARLENGA
    
    Mike,
    
    First, thanks for the rewrite; it's an improvement over the first
    version.
    
    I find your statements so out of tune with my perception of reality
    that I plan not to respond. In my humble estimation, you could use
    vast quantities of sensitivity training, but I'd rather devote my
    energies elsewhere. I am urging others to take the same tack. 
    
    Liz

    My new year's resolution was NOT to get involved in yet another
    door-holding discussion. And here I am. Argh.
    
    Has anyone *else* noticed how quickly we got to the:
    
    Woman/women says/say "We don't need to have doors held for us, if
    in mean spirit, or if we are physically able to open them.
    
    Man  replies" "OK, OK!!! IF that's what you want! Open your own
    G*ddam doors! Carry your *own* luggage! See if I ever help any of
    you radical strident feminists again!!!!"
    
    Is that like "if we can't control it, we want no part of it?"
    
    --DE
    

    
    Re: 54
    I liked your note, Ann.  It brings a refreshing note of common sense
    to the topic.
    
    Re: 51
    Are we really so gunshy of everyday living that we need 3x5 notecards
    with all the appropriate responses written on them?  Are we so out of
    contact with our own feelings and perceptions that we mistrust our
    own common sense?  And are we so afraid of risk that we withdraw,
    paralyzed and inactive?
    
    
    Re: general
    The rule of thumb for me is to do what feels natural and right at
    the time, taking the risk, and trying to be aware of others around
    me.  And if it's done with a smile and an inner sense of respect for
    the other person, it tends not to blow up in my face.
    
    I'm very good at sticking my foot in my mouth and all sorts of
    other embarassing maneuvers.  I could go back with each one of
    my friends and find some incident where I said or did "the wrong
    thing" at the time.  But I'm talking about people who are still
    my friends.  We patched it up at the time, got to know each other
    better, and now laugh about it. If I let the occasional faux pas
    drive me away from people, I wouldn't have *any* friends now.
    
    Opening doors for people is just another form of social interaction.
    If someone is right behind me or has their hands full, I hold the
    door, regardless of gender.  (Just like I put my foot in my mouth,
    regardless of gender.)
    
    Maybe we're trying too hard, either to "be right every time" or to "win."
    Human relations can't be reduced to logic or absolutes.
    
    Ron
    

    re .54 - Right on, Ann!!!
    
>        Hypothetically, if you were to run full tilt to beat me to the door
>    when I was not excessively burdened down, I would think you were very
>    foolish indeed and would walk through whilst trying to keep a straight
>    face and not wound your delicate psyche.  If you were to let a door
>    slam in my face, I would think you were rude and boorish.  If you
>    were to balk if I held a door for you, I would think you were nuts
>    but would relinquish the door and let you get it yourself.  But
>    this is just the way _I_ look at the issue.

    I agree 100% - do what you feel is right in a given situation. I have
    held doors for men and women, and have had them held for me (my wife
    even helps me on with my coat sometimes!).  The only odd thing is
    generally when entering a mall with a double set of doors (northern
    climates only?), and I have held the outer door for a woman, they
    rarely hold the inner door for me!  And if they do, it's after they've
    gone through, which is o.k. with me (still rates a thank-you), but it
    seems awkward! (to picture this, all doors say 'PULL', not 'PUSH') I
    get the feeling it would have made them uncomfortable to hold it from
    the outside - or I may be nuts!  Has anyone here experienced this, and
    care to comment on this phenomenon? 
    
    Otto.

    <--(.57)
    
    Mike, I'm still puzzled.  Are you arguing that a woman who chooses
    not to be sexual is committing an assault of some kind?  I really
    can't understand how you see rape and abstention as being in any way
    similar, since the victim of the abstention can always (at least)
    choose to masturbate, whereas the victim of a rape has no choice
    left at all.  Can you explain further?
    
    						=maggie
    

    Re: the whole rape string
    
     Rape is to sex as getting stabbed with a knitting needle is to
    knitting.
    
     I'm sorry, but comparing rape to sex does not jive with door holding.
    Men (however infrequently) can also get raped. Thus, women do not
    have a monopoly on fearing and hating rapists. Some rapists choose
    their victims indiscriminately. Others seek out only women. _No
    one_ has a choice about rape so you can't say that women don't have
    the choice about being raped but men do. Perhaps more men can fend
    off single attackers than can women but in a multiple attacker
    scenario, men and women are equally vulnerable.
    
     We have a right to be outraged with unequal pay. We can choose
    who we wish to have sex (voluntarily) with. We can choose to eschew
    door holders. We can't rightly say that we are denied the right
    to say no to rape. Nobody is.
    
    -E

    <--(.64)
    
    Mike, don't take this as a personal shot, but I think that has the
    distinction of being simultaneously the least-valid and scariest
    comparison I've heard drawn in a very, very long time. 
    
    Consider, if you will, this analogous comparison:  The burglar who
    shoots the householder and the pacifist who refuses to live in the
    same household with a gun are both manipulating their victims with
    guns.
    
    						=maggie

re: .62

I'm a pretty lousy door holder. I find I get it wrong a lot. I tend to put it
down to bad training. 

Maybe that's why I get so excited about doors. I need more practice, and people
keep taking it away. :-)
	Mez

<re .66
<    
<    	I see the "using sex to manipulate" analogy as valid, and the
<    one in .66 re: guns as almost valid, but not quite there.
<    
<<    -mike z


       Mike, I have to agree with maggie on this one. The denying sex
       MAY be manipulation or it may mean the woman does not wish to
       have sex at that time with that person. If I meet you at a party
       and you indicate you want to sleep with me and I say no, am I
       then manipulating you? Don't I get to say no because it's my body
       and not yours? If you are my husband do I lose the right to say
       no? That means that your body is MORE important than mine, that
       your needs take prescedence. Is it being manipulative if you've
       just done something to hurt me emotionally and I don't want to
       have sex with you because of that? 

       A woman saying no to sex is a passive action that causes no pain.
       A man forcing a woman to have sex causes her pain and
       humiliation, not to mention fear. liesl

	RE:  .57, .68  Mike Zarlenga

    	.57> Sex is used as a weapon by both men and women.  Men will
    	.57> typically force it, women will typically deny it, when using
    	.57> it to manipulate another.
    
    	.57> Denial of sex does not justify rape.  What I was attempting
    	.57> to demonstrate was that both genders have a history of using
    	.57> sex to get what they want, and neither has anything resembling
    	.57> a monopoly.
    
    	.68> I see the "using sex to manipulate" analogy as valid, and
    	.68> the one in .66 re: guns as almost valid, but not quite
    	.68> there.... can we agree to disagree?
    
    	Mike, I agree with Maggie that your comparison of rape and
    	abstention as being similar (in that they both "use sex to
    	manipulate") is very disturbing.
    
    	Maybe you can explain to me how it can be called mere "manipulation"
	to attack and violate the person of another human being in a way
    	that is severely physically and emotionally abusive (implying
    	that the kind of damage that one suffers through rape can be
    	compared to how that person might have felt to be told "No" to sex.)

    	If what you are trying to say is that the horror of rape is
    	somehow "balanced" by the fact that some/many women say "No" to
    	sex, then I find your sense of "fair exchange" between the sexes 
    	(or between humans in general) to be very disturbing indeed.

       I got started and now I can't stop. Mike has (probably
       unintentionaly) brought out what this whole thing is really
       about. CONTROL. Who controls who in the man/woman situation.

       (let me add a caveat here - I open doors for men and go through
       doors that have been opened by men, and I always say thank you -
       I don't hate men though they sometimes frustrate me to tears - I
       find that I personally wouldn't want a world without them - that
       being said ----

       FLAME ON -

       WHY MUST MEN ALWAYS NEED TO BE IN CONTROL, WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID
       OF US THAT TO GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO BE EQUAL SCARES YOU SILLY?
       We ask for x and men say OK you can have x but I'll never treat
       you nicely again. Is that what being equal means to men? Do you
       see each other that way? The busines world is often equated to a
       battleground, is everyone the enemy? Does not being treated "like
       a woman" mean being treated like the enemy? What do you think we
       are going to do? Are we castrating bitches because we don't want
       to bow to your superiority? Can't we love each other in spite of
       our flaws and differences?

       FLAME OFF -

       Sometimes I just don't understand you (the generic,universal you
       meaning men in this context) liesl

    
    re -2.>
         
       Liesl,
    
             It's like this...  The only way that men can maintain
             the social structure -the wonderful thing that it is -
             is through domination of those who have little or no
             say in that structure.  Men do this with no guilt because
             for centuries they have *manipulated* women (and of course
             everyone else with no claim to the structure).  If men
             give up control of a situation whether it's in the street,
             the boardroom or the bedroom it at once makes everyone
             equal.  That would A) increase competition  and B) jeopardize
             a work force that had supplied labor (inside or outside
             the house) at whatever price or gratuity was dictated)
    
    
    Luis 

    
    Liz, I know you suggested a few notes back that we not go down a
    rathole on Mike Z.'s perception of rape, but I have to express my
    amazement that anyone can compare the ordeal of being raped
    to the "ordeal" of being denied sex. 
    
    
    Roberta

	I find it very interesting that when ever a group of women
	get together on an idea (that is; agree with the concept 
	and what that concept is based on with or without extensive
	discussion) all it takes on one MALE with eye teeth hung to 
	his knees to take and disrupt, invalidate the views of x 
	number of women, remove large percents of the male population 
	from having a voice and then to finally set everyone onto
	each other's cases by picking, picking, picking at people's
	statements.

	Back to the issues of having different behavior during the
	day vs at night.  Since I am by nature not a morning person
	my behavior is not detemined by time of day or even place
	but by situation, mood and people that are with me.  I believe
	that the use of separate behavior at work and at home (personal
	life) causes one to not be honest at either time.  I perfer
	to know someone is the same person at home and at work, then I
	can trust their judgements and actions as being sound - they
	truly believe/know what they are doing is best for the situation.

	_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				A rock is always a rock whether
				it is precious or not
				A good person is a good person
				at home and at work.

        IMHO, any form of coercion is abbhorent, rape especially so and
        the attempt to  link  witholding  sex and rape fails completely
        for me.
        
        Doors;  I've found  it easiest to move into the doorway, having
        opened the door from either  side  and  hold  it  such that the
        person  following me or approaching the  doorway  finds  it  at
        least partially open.  The only time  I  will  stand  back  and
        allow the person to precede me is if  the person has both hands
        occupied, as with packages, a baby or whatever.   These actions
        are non gender specific, BTW.
        
        Andy
        

    I kind of like the d/n manners idea, tho maybe I'll like it less
    if I really think through all the implications.  Right now, tho,
    I can see it working *IFF*
                          
    	1. It's understood by both participants that what's going on
           "at night" is by way of being a sort of "fantasy role-playing
           game that's fun and worthwhile internally but has nothing
           to do with what's real.
    
    	2. The m/f couples who interact "at night" don't also interact
           "during the day" because of the, to my mind, almost overwhelming
           risk of contamination across roles.  (I specify m/f couples
           because I don't think that dynamic would apply to f/f or
           m/m couples since they're both on the same side of the "daytime"
           power structure)
    
    						=maggie

    re: "rape" rathole....
    
    I just have to say that the equivalent behavior to a woman denying
     sex for a manipulative reason is a man denying sex for a manipulative
    reason.  Saying that denial is a female's way of manipulating and
    forcing is a male's reinforces very old ideas about sexual relations.
     Women can be "hurt" by a man's denial the same way that a man can
    be "hurt" by a woman's.
    
    Susan
    

    Re .75, I agree with Peggy.  I think different day and night behavior
    is phony.  
    
    Why can't people just be equally polite and friendly
    to both men and women all the time?  I don't see why distinctions
    need to be made on the basis of sex.  If a person is having trouble
    carrying something, and you are strong, then help them if you have
    time.  If a person is having trouble changing a tire, and you could
    easily do it and have time, help them.  If a person has their hands
    full, and can't get the door, then hold it for them.  If they can't
    seem to manage to get their own coat on, then give them a hand.
     It shouldn't matter which sex either of you are.
    
    As far as the day/night behavior goes, I can't turn into a robot
    when I enter the door of Digital and then turn into a human as I
    leave at 5 p.m.  I'm me all the time.  Sometimes people, situations,
    or my mood, may make me act more serious, more shy, or more silly,
    but I'm basically still me all the time.  I can't switch on business
    robot for 8 hrs., and then switch it off and become loving mother,
    party animal, or whatever when I walk out the door.  
    
    We spend too much of our lives at work, interacting with the people
    we work with to forget we're humans, who might want to become friends
    with each other, or might be attracted to each other.  
    
    Lorna
    

    After reading all these notes, I fully intend *never* *never*
    to walk, crawl or run through another door ever again.  And I
    *never* *ever* intend to hold open a door for anyone else, either!
    
    In fact, I am sewing up my Superwoman cape and going through windows
    from now on.  
    
    I am sorry, but this issue just seemed so hilarious to this new-noter,
    and yet I realize that it is obviously one of seriousness to many,
    but I just can't seem to understand why.  
    
    One noter said something to the effect that s/he did what seemed
    the right/polite thing to do at the moment without political, economic
    or sexist considerations.  *Right on!*
    
    Marilyn  who will introduce herself immediately after this
    
    

    More and more I see people bring their technical expertise into
    social discussions.  A reflection of training in engineering and/or
    computer science teaches a person to be successful one has but to
    find the 'bug' or 'error'.  To present the solution one must first
    state the error (wrongness) and then enumerate the reasoning with
    footnotes and quotations when necessary.  This strategy proves to
    be such a success 40 hours a week that they must expect it to work
    in all phases of life.
    
    In this notesfile I once read "...just don't forget for every 'right'
    there is an opposing 'right'..." this seems, to me, to be a more
    workable(strike that), doable(strike that) --- it has more pluses
    for both perspectives.
      

	One more thing -

	The offer of a courtesy, such as to hold a door open or to 
	help one with a coat is just that, an offer, to be accepted 
	or refused. I categorize the wide range of possible replies
	as following:

	1) Gracious acceptance: The person walks through the door, says
	   "Thank you", and maybe smiles.

	2) Rude acceptance: The person hurries through the door wordlessly
	   and continues on thier way, without acknowledging the courtesy 
	   given.

	3) Gracious declination: The person says, "Thanks but I can get it 
	   myself", and maybe smiles.

	4) Rude declination: The person says "Don't you think I'm capable 
	   of getting it myself?" hurries through the door, and slams it
	   in my face.

	Now I think that one of the problems is that many men *perceive*
	an attempt at a gracious declination as a rude one, despite the
	intent (why this should be so is basis for another discussion),
	and develop a backlash at what they *perceive* as an unprovoked 
	insult.

							Tom_K

    RE: .83
    
    I agree! It seems somehow that declining help is *percieved* as
    a rude rebuff, when it wasn't!
    
    I've been thinking about the severe anger response some men seem
    to experience when a woman says, "Thanks anyway - I can handle it."
    Suppose a woman is struggling up a staircase with a load of heavy
    luggage, and a man asks if she wants help. She says, politely, "No
    thanks. I've got it." And he gets p*ssed. 
    
    Now, what she's *really* done is made his life easier. He doesn't
    have to drag those heavy suticases up those stairs. He's off the
    hook! He's free to go on with his life, hernia-free, back muscles
    intact. And you would think (Well, at least *I* would think) he'd
    feel happy, if not downright *grateful*!
    
    So what provokes this anger? Is there a Quid Pro Quo hidden somewhere?
    If he carries her bags he gets to Feel Good About Himself? He gets
    to Feel Superior? He gets to say "Whaddaya *mean* you won't go out
    with me?! I carried your damn luggage up all those stairs!" Or some
    other, somewhere in his mind? 
    
    I can't imagine where all that anger comes from.
    
    --DE
    

        Re .84, 

>    So what provokes this anger? Is there a Quid Pro Quo hidden somewhere?
>    If he carries her bags he gets to Feel Good About Himself? He gets
>    to Feel Superior? He gets to say "Whaddaya *mean* you won't go out
>    with me?! I carried your damn luggage up all those stairs!" Or some
>    other, somewhere in his mind? 
        
        It feels  good  to me when I've been able to help someone else;
        no anger upon  rejection  or  ulterior  motives  or feelings of
        'superiority' here...

    Re: .50, .58
    
    >But rape includes sex as the 'weapon' of choice.
    
    Actually, rape includes penetration as the weapon of choice.
    Penetration is but one aspect of sex.  Certainly I've noticed the
    significance of the form rape takes; it's a little difficult to
    miss.  I want the two concepts separated.  Sex is something that
    happens between consenting adults.  Rape involves the involuntary
    or coerced participation of at least one person.  As long as sex
    and rape are closely associated, sexual mores and practices can
    be used to cloud the issue of voluntary or involuntary participation.
    (_Time_ magazine's recommendation of _The Accused_ said that the
    film raised the question, "Can a slut be raped?"  I was angered
    by it because the answer to me was *obviously* "yes."  No question
    in my mind and I resent the fact that it could be a question in
    anyone's mind.)
    
    Re: force and denial as forms of manipulation
    
    Once again we hit the "order of magnitude" argument against an analogy.
    If the desire to manipulate is a common element, then the situations
    are analogous at some level.  Analogies are not equivalences (which
    is why they're not called equivalences).  They are limited analyses
    of similarities for the purpose of illustrating concepts.  Saying
    two things are analogous is not saying that they are the same.
    
    Re: .56
    
    No.  There are those who have noticed that 'courtly' gestures might
    have overtones, as could be demonstrated by various quotes that
    I'm not in the mood to retrieve but can be found in earlier replies
    (10s-30s or so).  We're not completely dense, after all.
    
    Why is it important to you for people to notice it?  Is there some
    next step that you felt should be taken or is it sufficient merely
    to have noticed?

    Re: .75
    
    >I find it very interesting that when ever a group of women get
    >together on an idea (that is; agree with the concept and what that
    >concept is based on with or without extensive discussion) all it
    >takes on one MALE with eye teeth hung to his knees to take and
    >disrupt, invalidate the views of x number of women, remove large
    >percents of the male population from having a voice and then to
    >finally set everyone onto each other's cases by picking, picking,
    >picking at people's statements.
    
    I find it interesting that women assert so little control that their
    reactions and responses are the responsibility of the male and not
    the women.

Hi Chelsea,

I had to check back and see if you were talking to me.

1st - we use the same word differently. I think of Sex = penetration, oral
stuff, and so on (I think rape doesn't have to equal penetration, but I really
don't know). I think of the nifty euphamisms as including mutual consent. 

I think I understand your desire to use an even less loaded word.

>    Why is it important to you for people to notice it?  Is there some
>    next step that you felt should be taken or is it sufficient merely
>    to have noticed?

I was doing a reality check. That's why I'm here. I can talk to myself without
the net :-).
	Mez

    re .62  Double sets of doors at the Mall.
    
    I admit to going through the first set of doors when held by a man,
    and then holding the second set for the man, as I go through,
    rather than waiting for him to go through first.  The reason is
    that the complete role reversal if I held the door and waited for
    him to go through first seems very awkward.  I will hold the door
    for groups of people, someone with packages, etc., regardless of
    gender, but will usually preceed a man who doesn't appear to need
    assistance.                              
    
    Another note mentioned making clear that nighttime manners were
    like fantasy role playing, and unrelated to reality.  I think it's
    sad to say that courtesy, traditional manners, etc. are part of
    a fantasy unrelated to reality.  There is a *most definite* need
    for courtesy in life, any time of day or night.
    
    I don't understand why women take offence at door-holding, etc,
    etc.  I have *never* experienced it done in any sort of degrading
    or negative manner.  I have *never* experienced it as a power-
    play.  Women who react in such a violent manner make men swear
    to *never* hold open another door for women.  I *like* having men
    hold doors for me!  Are you women so insecure that you can't give
    in the least?  Do you have to show your own power at every single
    encounter with a man?  If you were truly strong within yourself,
    you probably wouldn't be so concerned about what hidden motives
    a man has for holding a door for you.  If you truly have inner
    strength, sometimes the best way to show it is by exercising
    control, silence, and accepting courtesy.  
    
    By the way, Mike, I do understand what you meant by women withholding
    sex to manipulate and control.  I think anyone who pretends not
    to understand is either incredibly naive, or doesn't want to admit
    that it's done.  I suspect, though, that many women may be accused
    of doing so (withholding sex to punish their mate), when they are
    in reality so insensed, upset, angry, whatever, that they really
    just don't *feel* like it.  It may not be a conscious effort to
    punish, but a by-product of having been disappointed or hurt.  Do
    *you* feel like making love with a woman who has hurt you or made
    you very angry?
    
    Paula

    
    It seems to me that self assured men and women can offer or
    accept or decline courtesies without any "courtly games" spin.
    
    Ascribing the motive for courtesy to dark hidden agendas strikes 
    me as a refuge for those who have abdicated power over their
    lives. 
    
    

	RE:  .90
    
    	> I don't understand why women take offence at door-holding, etc,
    	> etc.  I have *never* experienced it done in any sort of degrading
    	> or negative manner.  I have *never* experienced it as a power-
    	> play. 
    
    	In my entire life, I have never witnessed a woman so much as
    	look 'unhappy' while walking through a door that has been held
    	by a man.  However, when people are putting feminists down,
    	it is nearly always the very first thing mentioned (as if every
    	woman on this earth who ever had a thought about women's rights
    	is rabid on the subject of who opens doors.)
    
    	Of all the notes written by women in this conference, I've never
    	seen women voice anything more than an "explanation" of why
    	some kinds of door-opening *COULD* be seen in a negative way.
    	
    	This whole thing about how many/most feminists take serious
    	offense at door opening is a stereotype, plain and simple.
    	Every time the subject comes up, the vast majority of the women
    	in this conference say (and HAVE said MANY TIMES now) that they
    	are not bothered by men opening doors.  Not that you noticed,
    	I guess.
    
    	> Women who react in such a violent manner make men swear
    	> to *never* hold open another door for women.  
    
    	Show me where anyone here has advocated violence towards men
    	who open doors!!!  Your use of the word 'violent' is totally
    	unfounded.
    
    	As for men who are inclined to threaten to stop opening doors
    	for women merely because they hear some women calmly explaining 
    	why such acts can be negative under certain situations...  
    	What is the point of MAKING such threats?  That sounds awfully
    	manipulative to me.  If they want to stop holding doors for
    	people, they are certainly free to do so.  Why make it sound
    	like they are trying to punish someone?
    
    	> I *like* having men hold doors for me!  
    
    	Good for you.  I like having *people* hold doors for me, too,
   	sometimes (and I like holding doors for other people.)   No
    	big deal. 
    
    	> Are you women so insecure that you can't give in the least?  
    	> Do you have to show your own power at every single
    	> encounter with a man?  If you were truly strong within yourself,
    	> you probably wouldn't be so concerned about what hidden motives
    	> a man has for holding a door for you.  If you truly have inner
    	> strength, sometimes the best way to show it is by exercising
    	> control, silence, and accepting courtesy.  
    
    	I find it quite ironic that you use such rude and insulting
    	language towards women as a way to get them to be more polite
    	to men.  Are you trying to tell us that it is OK to say degrading
    	things to women, but that we should be controlled and SILENT
    	when we object to the way we are treated by men?
    
    	> By the way, Mike, I do understand what you meant by women 
    	> withholding sex to manipulate and control.  
    
    	That sort of behavior (i.e., the Silent Treatment) can be seen
    	in people of both sexes.
    
    	I don't consider such behavior to be anything CLOSE to the
    	dynamics involved in rape.  It would be like saying that
    	refusing to share a ride in a car with someone is the same thing 
    	as running the person OVER with the car instead.
    
    	> I think anyone who pretends not to understand is either 
    	> incredibly naive, or doesn't want to admit that it's done.  
    
    	Some of us objected to having the behavior described as if
    	it bore similarities to rape.  Try reading what we said.
    
    	> I suspect, though, that many women may be accused
    	> of doing so (withholding sex to punish their mate), when they are
    	> in reality so insensed, upset, angry, whatever, that they really
    	> just don't *feel* like it.  It may not be a conscious effort to
    	> punish, but a by-product of having been disappointed or hurt.  Do
    	> *you* feel like making love with a woman who has hurt you or made
    	> you very angry?
    
    	People (men and women) do a lot of strange things when they
    	are mad at their spouses/SO's/whatever.  I've seen men slam
    	doors, yell, stomp out of the house and drive off in a huff
    	(staying away for hours), as well as slam phones down, stand
    	women up for dates, and a lot of other pretty manipulative
    	sorts of things.  I've seen women do some of those things,
    	too.
    
    	Behaviors such as those can put a relationship in jeopardy
    	if done on a regular basis, but I don't see how any of those
    	acts can compare with rape (nor do I think that women are
    	more manipulative or controlling in romantic relationships
    	than men are.)

    Last night I had an interesting experience. I am taking classes
    two hours away from my home and am staying with friends and
    visiting with notes friends both as a way not to drive home, but
    more important to interact with people I have gotten to like
    on the net. Last night I ended up taking a man who is a good friend
    to dinner, he drove, and I paid the check and the waitress brought
    me the bill. We talked about this note over dinner and afterwards
    he asked if I would like him to hold my coat...and I did..that to
    me is part of the interplay between people who like each other
    and like to make the other person feel comfortable and liked.
    When people are friends we can share these 'courtly gestures'
    and I think the best time to do so, is when we wish to please
    a person who is a friend.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .92
    
    > Are you women so insecure that you can't give in the least?
    > Do you have to show your own power at every single
    > encounter with a man?  If you were truly strong within yourself,
    > you probably wouldn't be so concerned about what hidden motives
    > a man has for holding a door for you.  If you truly have inner
    > strength, sometimes the best way to show it is by exercising
    > control, silence, and accepting courtesy.
    
    >> I find it quite ironic that you use such rude and insulting
    >> language towards women as a way to get them to be more polite
    >> to men.  Are you trying to tell us that it is OK to say degrading
    >> things to women, but that we should be controlled and SILENT
    >> when we object to the way we are treated by men?
    
    I don't see that she (Paula) was rude and insulting, or that she
    used rude and insulting language.  I do see a suggestion that
    some women might not really understand their own motives in
    regard to this issue.
    
    >> Are you trying to tell us that it is OK to say degrading things
    >> to women, but that we should be controlled and SILENT when we
    >> object to the way we are treated by men?
    
    Could you possibly help me to see where Paula suggested this?  As
    I read her original reply as well as your quotation of it, I can't
    see any mention of remaining silent if a man should "say degrading
    things to women".  I can only see where she suggested that perhaps
    some women are looking for "hidden motives a man has for holding
    a door for you.", when perhaps there isn't any hidden motive, and
    a person might just accept an act of courtesy, AS an act of courtesy,
    nothing more, nothing less.
                               
    Thank you
    
    SandieD

re: .90
    
>    I don't understand why women take offence at door-holding, etc,
>    etc.  I have *never* experienced it done in any sort of degrading
>    or negative manner.  I have *never* experienced it as a power-
>    play.  
    
    I am glad you have never experienced it that way, and I'm sorry
    you don't understand, but please remember that the feelings of the 
    women who think it seems degrading are as valid as your own.  It
    sounds vaguely in your note as if you are invalidating their feelings
    because they don't jibe with your own point of view. 
    
>    Women who react in such a violent manner make men swear
>    to *never* hold open another door for women.  
    
    Okay.  I can live with that, if that's what they truly feel they
    want to do.  I'm sure I'll manage.  I've tied my shoes for most of my
    life, brushed my hair, pedaled my own bicycle, I'm sure I can open
    my own doors (I even open them for other people!).  I'm not sure
    how I feel about having doors opened for me - I'm questioning it
    now.  I still accept it gracefully, it just makes me think...
     
>    I *like* having men hold doors for me!
    
    Good!  Continue to feel that way!  But please don't expect those
    who feel uncomfortable having doors opened for them in certain ways
    by certain people to change their minds.
    
>    Are you women so insecure that you can't give
>    in the least?  Do you have to show your own power at every single
>    encounter with a man?  If you were truly strong within yourself,
>    you probably wouldn't be so concerned about what hidden motives
>    a man has for holding a door for you.  

    You imply in your first sentence that to reveal our feelings by a show
    of power is an insecure thing to do (although I really don't think that
    asking a man not to hold the door for you is much of a "show of
    power").  I would suggest it shows some women are secure enough to risk
    challenging others' actions, hopefully in a polite way (i.e. "no thank
    you").  You seem to imply it is a weakness for women to speak their
    peace when they feel uncomfortable about something rather than
    suffering in silence (and yes, discomfort is suffering if it goes
    unalleviated). 

>    If you truly have inner strength, sometimes the best way to show
>    it is by exercising control, silence, and accepting courtesy. 

    If people have inner strength, they stand up for what they believe
    in.  To challenge another's behavior when you don't feel comfortable
    with it IS exercising control.  Courtesy is defined as courteous
    behavior, where courteous is defined in Webster's 9th as:
    
    "marked by polished manners, gallantry, or ceremonial usage of a
     court.  marked by respect for and consideration of others."
    
    Doing something for someone that they don't appreciate, or even
    feel negative about, can hardly be construed as respectful and
    considerate. 

    -Jody
        
    -Jody 
    
    

A little observation from .90 (admittedly not of the most urgent nature):

    > Are you women so insecure that you can't give
    >in the least?  

I think this is an interesting choice of words.  To describe
letting a man open a door as "giving in" would seem to indicate that 
there is indeed some kind of statement of power being made here.

    >   If you truly have inner
    > strength, sometimes the best way to show it is by exercising
    > control, silence, and accepting courtesy.  

Another interesting choice of words.  It wouldn't seem that one would 
have to "control" oneself, exercise "silence" and be "accepting" if in 
fact something weren't being done to one that isn't entirely desirable.

It is worth noting that this is the kind of advice that is usually
offered to women.  Few men are told to demonstrate their inner strength
through "silence" and "accepting".   Perhaps we should suggest that men 
demonstrate equal inner strength by "giving in", being silent, and
"accepting" it when women open doors for them, or for themselves. 

    <--(.94)
    
    Sandie, I think this is an emotional issue for both Paula and
    Suzanne, and they both reacted more harshly than they would normally
    have done.
    
    						=maggie

re .84

>	So what provokes this anger? Is there a Quid Pro Quo hidden somewhere?
>	If he carries her bags he gets to Feel Good About Himself? He gets
>	to Feel Superior? He gets to say "Whaddaya *mean* you won't go out
>	with me?! I carried your damn luggage up all those stairs!" Or some
>	other, somewhere in his mind? 
>    
>	I can't imagine where all that anger comes from.


	I think that it is often difficult for people to distinguish between
	having thier *behavior* rejected, and being rejected as a person.

	I think most men were brought up to believe that the behaviors 
	described in this topic were supposed to be pretty innocuous and
	universally acceptable(1). When the behavior is rejected, it's 
	unexpected, and often taken for a rejection of them as a person,
	if for no other reason that it happens so fast that one doesn't
	take the time to think it through properly. People don't like 
	to be rejected. They also don't like to have thier behavior
	rejected, especially if they believe that the behavior was
	inoffensive. So when the behavior is rejected, not only does it
	make the person feel bad, the person may feel "ambushed" or
	surprised, and that causes a backlash, confusion, and anger.

	Change is also a cause for trauma. Attitudes about acceptable
	behavior are changing. People are bound to get bruised a bit.
	A positive aspect of this discussion is that it serves notice 
	on some folks that 1) things are indeed changing, 2) why they
	are changing, and 3) what to expect in the future. That way,
	fewer people will feel surprised, and less trauma will result.


							Tom_K


	(1) I acknowledge that abuses exist, but hold that they are a small 
	minority.

    RE: .98
    
    Oh no. Oh dear. It can't be. I have now agreed with Tom_K *twice*.
    This can't be happening. [:-)]
    
    Certainly, then, what's needed is the understanding by SOME men (the
    ones who get angry when  women politely refuse their help) is that
    rejection of help is not rejection of person. Not a bad lesson for
    all of us, really.
    
    The funny thing is, with all of this discussion, that bubbles up
    like lava and then goes away for a while - I personally (and I'd
    wager 99% of most of the people in this file) have never seen nor
    been involved in a "door-holding incident" in which anyone was rude
    or treated rudely. 
    
    Very few times, I've held a door for a man who looked kind of
    uncomfortable about it, but he walked through it and presumably
    survived the day. I don't care about "Thanks." "Thanks." "No
    problem" etc. very much, but every time I've held the door for someone
    who had a burden of some kind, I was thanked. 
    
    And like Ann, hey, if you want to fall all over yourself trying
    to get to the door before I do - go ahead, but it *does* look a
    little silly. 
    
    The thing with manners is (and I think Miss Manners would agree)
    is that whatever polite act you're performing, be it opening a 
    door, walking on the outside, helping with a coat....should be
    *smooth* and *unnoticeable* - it should go like clockwork and not
    hold anyone up, nor call attention to them as the "helpee" or you
    as the "helper". Especially you as the "helper".
    
    If you simply do NOT know how to hold a coat for someone to put
    on easily, DON'T DO IT! You are more hindrance than help, and the
    idea of good manners is to make someone else's life easier - not
    to embarrass them or make it MORE difficult for them to, say, put
    their coat on. Nor is the idea of good manners to call attention
    to yourself as a "good-do-bee".
    
    If it doesn't make someone's life smoother and easier, it isn't
    polite. Don't do it. Simple, eh?
    
    --DE
    

       Re: DE - electric cucumbers??? (snicker,nudge,nudge)


       When I started this note door holding was not even on my mind. I
       thinking more along the lines of how we interact in meetings, or
       whether we shake hands etc. Just like bra burning at the start of
       the feminist movement (now how many of us ever burned a bra?) I
       think door holding has become a symbol. It is the discussion
       point but not the point of the discussion.

       I first started reading SOAPBOX a few weeks ago just after there
       had been a party/get together for the boxers. I think I can
       safely say that battles there can get heated. The most common
       comment made in the after the party note was how nice everyone
       had actually been. It would seem that most of us (noters) are
       fairly calm and polite when we meet face to face. (of course, I
       wasn't there so they all could have been lying :))

       Now what was my point? It's that manners do affect us. They are
       not useless left overs, they kept a group of boxer's polite and
       they grease our relationships with each other. I was asking
       whether there should be different manners for men and women and
       for social or work situations. Should men help other men with
       their coats? Should they order dinner for each other? If the
       answers were yes then women would probably not feel uncomfortable
       when men did these things for them. Sorry, I'm rambling, guess
       it's time to sign off. liesl

Note 377.21
COGMK::CHELSEA


                                                        In the original
>>  topic, one man said, "I'm not going to risk getting my head lopped
>>  off for opening doors -- I just won't open any more doors for women."
>>  And one response was "Oh, so if you can't control the situation,
>>  you'll just get out of it?  Can't stand being out of control?" 


Note 377.26
COGMK::CHELSEA

>   Re: .24
    
>   I have no idea who I was referencing.  I don't consider that as
>   important as the ideas expressed, so I'm not interested in tracking
>   down the exact notes and quotes.
   
>   So, just to make things clear, both the male and female voices were
>   paraphrased and were not quotes.


The quote marks *make* them quotes. Quote marks are only appropriate
when you're quoting someone. That means directly and accurately.

When you are paraphrasing someone, it is incumbent upon you to be 
accurate, and true to the *spirit* of the original remark, even if the
*words* differ.  It is also incumbent upon you to make it clear that
    you *are* indeed paraphrasing, which is much clearer if done in
    the original reply.
    

--DE

    RE:.100
     
    Liesl, you asked an interesting question, which made me wonder...
    Do men get as angry at other men who refuse their help, as they
    seem to at women who refuse their help?
    
    --DE
    

>    Do men get as angry at other men who refuse their help, as they
>    seem to at women who refuse their help?

Never happened to me (in either direction) -- I find it hard to believe
that a man would hold a door open for me (or v.v.) as a power play.
(I.e., if it has actually happened, it didn't work as a power play!)

Perhaps the men who are angered at women who refuse assistance

-- intend it as a courtesy or, at worst, a demonstration that they
   are "gentlemen."

-- see the rejection of a courtesy (overt reaction to overt behavior)
   as a direct insult.

-- do not understand the basis for that insult (i.e., do not connect
   the meaning they place on their action with the meaning the recipient
   placed on it).

-- react to the expressed insult with anger.

He:  "I just held the door open for her and she yelled at me."
She: "I'm sick and tired of being treated like a weak child."

From each individual's perspective, both are equally valid complaints.

Martin.

    for what its worth...a couple of comments in this widely
    wandering discussion:

    I disagree with 'day versus night' manners.  I like the way
    most people treat eachother at work, and I prefer to extend that
    to 'home' and elsewhere (night).  When i'm introduced to people
    at home or work, I hold out my hand for a handshake...and most
    woman today don't even flinch.  I like that.  That's about the
    extent of 'touching' that I think is appropriate, except with VERY
    special people.  Just as I wouldn't 'hold the chair' or 'hold a coat'
    for someone at work, I would not wish to elsewhere...except maybe
    my mom.  When dating, I sometimes went out with women who would
    expect me to open the car door for them or hold their coat.  Generally
    this was accompanied by a bunch of other behaviours, all of which I
    did not like.    I much perefered a woman who would just jump out
    of the car herself or would just put her own coat on...in all situations,
    both in 'work' situations or on an elegant date.

    I see these all as little games for 'showing respect', but a fake form
    of respect.  If I respect someone, I would hope they know it and I don't
    need to hold their coat to show it.

    A last thought:  it must be terribly confusing to have to live in
    two different cultures.  These day versus might manners reminds me of what
    it must be like to be a minority in Digital...to leave one culture,
    whatever it is, and enter the white male dominated culture of 'business'.
    bob

    I think most of us women feel like we _do_ live in two different
    cultures!

    
    I was dating a gentleman who really went overboard, he would almost
    physicaly hurt me trying to "snatch" packages and bundles from me
    when I wasn't expecting him to. He insisted on carrying everything
    when ever we went shopping, which was ridiculous, especially if
    there were many packages, I would be walking around with none and
    he would have 8 or 10. 
    
    One day this same man was at my house when my daughter arrived home
    from the feed store with 100 lb bags of horse, cow, and dog food.
    He ran out to the truck and insisted in unloading it. Well he couldn't
    even budge the bags, My daughter proceeded in hoisting the bags
    upon her sholders and putting it into the barn. He came into the
    house real dejected, and insisted that my daughter wasn't normal.
    
    Needless to say I don't see this man any more.

    Here is one example of a type of door holding that I have found
    annoying and silly.  I have been involved with *2* men who had a
    habit of doing this, too.  We would be approaching a door into
    a mall, store, restaurant or theater, and there would be several
    people (strangers) walking in back of us towards the same entrance.
     My boyfriend would step forward and open the door and hold it open.
     I would walk through.  My boyfriend would then stand there and
    proceed to hold the door for approximately the next 8 to 20 people
    who happened to be walking in back of us, both men and women.  It
    would be as though he suddenly turned into a part-time doorman.
     Many of the people would thank him and make choking comments about
    him holding the door for so many people.  What happened to me, though,
    is that I would walk through the door into the building, turn around
    expecting to see my date, but instead I would turn around to be
    facing about 20 strangers walking into the door after me.  My date
    would be nowhere in sight.  He was back holding the door for every
    tom, dick and harry who wanted to enter the building in the next
    half hour.  I would stand there looking back expectantly, and finally
    my date would come running up, looking as though he had just done
    something wonderful such as saving someone's life or something.
     I think this sort of gesture is overdoing everyday politeness and
    not necessary.  I think people should just walk through the door
    and hold it open for the next person in back of them.  I see no
    need to stand back, holding the door open for 20 men and women,
    and then acting as though you've done something wonderful to save
    a dying planet.
    
    Lorna
    

    In .108, I meant to say "joking comments".  (Sorry Ann)  "Choking"
    is probably more like what I subconsiously felt like doing to my
    date. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

I was in a bookstore in Cambridge last weekend and as I was leaving,
the woman ahead of me held the door for me.  I said thanks and
appreciated the gesture.  I then held it for the man in back of me and
he said thanks and this went on for quite a few folks behind him.  It
seems to me like this was a non-power motivated polite interaction
that this world could use more of...


john

re .108

>	My boyfriend would then stand there and proceed to hold the door 
>	for approximately the next 8 to 20 people who happened to be 
>	walking in back of us, both men and women. 

	Some people closely tie their self-worth to doing things
	for others. They are compelled to "help out" as a way of
	making themselves feel worthwhile.

	Some people are sensitive to what they might perceive as
	an offense to another person. For example, a person might
	think that releasing the door when someone is about to
	enter might offend then person about to enter.

	Take someone who has both of the above, and you end up
	up with the behaviour you describe.

					Tom_K