A New Etiquette

[Shodan]

So as not to hijack ThelmaLou’s thread about crotch-grabbing, I am starting a new thread.

This is in response to this post

@iiandyiii

@Shodan

I think there has been a breakdown in the consensus of what constitutes proper etiquette in public in the US. Much of the old code was racist and sexist and repressive, but much of it wasn’t. We’ve gained from the receding of the old, iron-clad rules of etiquette, but we have also lost.

I like this point. But to resurrect the “good parts” of traditional etiquette, there needs to be an argument that leaves out any mention of the good ol’ days, or tradition, or the like, since all those things were tied to the very negative aspects you mention. I don’t know how “tradition” can be an argument in favor of something when so many traditions are terrible.

How could a “new etiquette” be introduced? I’d offer that it would need to be entirely functional – for example, mandatory hats aren’t necessary, since they don’t serve the kind of purpose that respectful treatment of women (and everyone else) does, so that would be left out.

Respecting your first point, I don’t think it is all that bad to re-introduce any of the old codes of etiquette, even if some of it was sexist/racist/prudish/whatever. Because, as mentioned, parts of it weren’t. The rules ought to be able to stand on their own - “Treat women with respect” is not necessarily related to “keep the darkies in their place” or even “women need a chaperone in public”.

As to your second, I would say that a code of etiquette cannot be entirely functional. Etiquette rules are symbolic communication, and the signals of that communication are almost random. There is no particular reason, for example, that a necktie should be a social signal. Nevertheless, it is one. When I wear a tie to work (as I do most days) I am signally something very different than when I wear jeans and a T-shirt.

You mentioned wearing a hat in response to my semi-facetious reference as being non-functional. If you mean there is no necessary connection between wearing a hat, and respect for women, you are right. If you mean there is not a whole code of social signals that have sprung up around wearing hats, you are wrong. That’s why I mentioned in the other thread touching your hat to a lady to whom you have not been introduced, but not addressing her. Because both the touching and the not speaking are social signals. You don’t speak because you are respecting her ability to keep a social distance from a stranger, and you touch your hat to show that you acknowledge her presence, and as a signal that you are non-threatening. And socially available to someone who understands the same code by which you are abiding.

The signal could be sent in some other way. The point is that under the old code, it is sent by touching your hat but not speaking.

(And, to get one objection out of the way, yes, some criminal/cad/bounder could employ the social signals to get under the guard of an unsuspecting woman. The point is, usually and with some exceptions, they don’t. Such people lack the empathy or smarts to employ the code deceptively. Not always - Ted Bundy was supposedly someone who did. But the average catcaller on the street isn’t.)

The hat touching is almost arbitrary. I have been told it is a stylized reduction of removing one’s hat, which is a submissive, non-threatening gesture of making yourself look smaller. The point is that while the symbolic communication is arbitrarily chosen, the messages are being sent in an efficient shorthand.

And the messages being sent, to some woman who knows the code, is
[ul][li]I see you[/li][li]I am not a threat[/li][li]I want to be friends[/li][li]Whether or not to proceed to acquaintance, on to friendship, and finally to the point where my grabbing your crotch is welcomed, is up to you. I won’t push it.[/ul][/li]
Thoughts?

Regards,
Shodan

[Nava]

My father explained manners as:

“there are a lot of small decisions which people need to make all the time. Who goes first in a doorway. Whether to shake hands, hug or kiss. Whether to smile at someone. How to address a stranger. Manners are a pre-made set of decisions, and their purpose is to make life easier for everybody involved. If a particular rule doesn’t make people’s life easier, it should be ignored and eventually it will disappear.”

That tie does serve a purpose, one of communicating “today I’m wearing my Big Boy Clothes, because I have Big Boy Duties to fulfill”. Communication is an important purpose, and in fact wearing the wrong clothes can manage to completely kill it; I had a coworker who didn’t understand why his end-users fled from him, when it turns out they were lab techs and he was more dressed-up than the president of the country attending a G8 meeting.

[iiandyiiii]

Okay, I am semi-swayed by your defense of symbolic requirements in etiquette, though not by your first paragraph and reference to tradition. I think a “new etiquette” would necessarily need to be new, or at least packaged as such. References and call-backs to traditional etiquette will invariably be tainted by their association (indirect as it is) with oppression and discrimination (and worse).

For example – “sex isn’t discussed in polite company” is at least tangentially related to “don’t speak to strange women unless spoken to”, which is more directly related to “women must be protected/championed/revered” as opposed to treated and respected as individuals who do not/should not need protection/reverence from anyone unless they so choose. And these kind of things mean that women were, per the rules of etiquette, restrained from telling the truth about mistreatment, especially if by a close friend or family member.

My point is that even if the “new etiquette” were to heavily borrow from the old with respect to things like general decency (and stop with the loud music on the trains, you damn kids!), it should be “marketed” separately so as to avoid any association whatsoever with those negative aspects (many of which were absolutely horrible!).

[iiandyiiii]

What would a good new etiquette include? I’ll propose some basics (not all inclusive).

Rules MUST:
Be equally applied to everyone based on gender/gender ID/sexual orientation/race/religion/ethnicity/national origin (and maybe other categories). Age is probably okay to differentiate – I think it might be okay to require children to behave in certain ways, and to give extra respect to elders, depending on the details. Further, disability is a special case – etiquette rules shouldn’t place any additional burden on disabled people, but mobility-impaired people should get priority for seats, right of way, and the like.

Rules MUST NOT:
Restrain anyone, in any way, from reporting bad behavior.

Just two requirements to start with come to mind.

[Shodan]

My objection to saying that the old etiquette is hopelessly tainted is, in part, that it is not really possible to develop a new set of signals from scratch. Nobody picked out the old signals and assigned them meaning - they just sort of happened. Sure, there were books of etiquette, but those were explanations of what the code was already.

“women must be protected/championed/revered” as opposed to treated and respected as individuals who do not/should not need protection/reverence from anyone unless they so choose.

I think a good deal of the crotch-grabbing thread was to show that women need to be protected because some men don’t treat them with respect. So, in some sense, they did choose to be protected, but nobody protected them.

And these kind of things mean that women were, per the rules of etiquette, restrained from telling the truth about mistreatment, especially if by a close friend or family member.

This I reject absolutely. It was never part of the chivalrous code that women needed to submit to abuse. Just the opposite - I was told early on “you can’t hit girls”, and I can remember my father saying quite explicitly “you never raise your hand against a woman”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Nava]

Yeah, the laws of silence were never part of manners. They have their roots in attempting to protect the group (“do not shame the group in front of strangers”, “do not bring the police into family business”, etc.), and in having in-groups within the bigger group which are benefitted by the silence (the bigger group is harmed by it, but the predators are often in positions of power).

[monstro]

I’m curious how a “new etiquette” squares with the desire of so many to do away with “political correctness”.

If a guy approaches a woman and doesn’t touch his real or imagined hat first, would it be okay for a woman to feel offended? I say no. But you better believe that’s what the interpretation would eventually be. “This guy isn’t following social norms. Ergo, he’s a deviant, and I feel unsafe.”

The more importance we give to arbitrary rules of etiquette, the easier it is for people to find reasons to be offended. And it’s not like we feign offense when eitiquette is breached. The feelings are always real. Most folks are understandably bothered when someone fails to say “excuse me” or “thank you”. Do we really need to make social interactions more stilted and awkward? I say no. We already walk on too many eggshells as it is. We don’t need any more.

I think emboldening people to break from decorum is the best way to stop creeps in their tracks. Maybe jerks wouldn’t be so brazen if women weren’t expected to be so “nice” and “friendly” all the time. Instead of encouraging more congeniality, maybe we need to encourage a bit more bitchiness in everyone. More evil happens under the nose of those with agreeable personalities than those wiith disagreeable dispositions.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

My objection to saying that the old etiquette is hopelessly tainted is, in part, that it is not really possible to develop a new set of signals from scratch. Nobody picked out the old signals and assigned them meaning - they just sort of happened. Sure, there were books of etiquette, but those were explanations of what the code was already.
I think a good deal of the crotch-grabbing thread was to show that women need to be protected because some men don’t treat them with respect. So, in some sense, they did choose to be protected, but nobody protected them.

Okay. Individuals should have protected them, as should have society – Trump should have been utterly terrified to even talk openly about sexually assaulting women, much less actually do it.

This I reject absolutely. It was never part of the chivalrous code that women needed to submit to abuse. Just the opposite - I was told early on “you can’t hit girls”, and I can remember my father saying quite explicitly “you never raise your hand against a woman”.

Regards,
Shodan

You mistake my meaning – I know that old etiquette said to treat women well (and not hit them), but when a man violated that, what was a woman’s recourse? Would she be believed or taken seriously, or would she be told that she shouldn’t bring things like that up, or accuse such a decent man, or told that she brought the behavior on by what she wore or how she acted?

@Nava

Yeah, the laws of silence were never part of manners. They have their roots in attempting to protect the group (“do not shame the group in front of strangers”, “do not bring the police into family business”, etc.), and in having in-groups within the bigger group which are benefitted by the silence (the bigger group is harmed by it, but the predators are often in positions of power).

I think there was also some misogyny – some level of abuse was considered appropriate… for example, it would have been expected and tolerated that a girl who dresses revealingly be catcalled or even groped – that could have been considered a just punishment for the “crime” of dressing in revealing clothing.

[iiandyiiii]

But more importantly, how do I get those damn kids to turn down their damn music on the damn train?

[Nava]

@iiandyiiii

I think there was also some misogyny – some level of abuse was considered appropriate… for example, it would have been expected and tolerated that a girl who dresses revealingly be catcalled or even groped – that could have been considered a just punishment for the “crime” of dressing in revealing clothing.

Nah, the basic crime is having tits, you don’t need to push 'em up. But the laws of silence apply to many other situations: sexual abuse of males, beatings, bullying, cons within the group… They’ve never been limited to sexual assaults on women.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

Okay. Individuals should have protected them, as should have society – Trump should have been utterly terrified to even talk openly about sexually assaulting women, much less actually do it.

You mistake my meaning – I know that old etiquette said to treat women well (and not hit them), but when a man violated that, what was a woman’s recourse?

As mentioned, nothing in the old code of etiquette said that it was polite, for anyone, to submit to violations of the code. Someone with the right/obligation to do so - the man’s parents, the host of the party, other gentlemen who observed the breach, my mother - speak to him to correct his behavior. If he fails to listen, you cut him dead. He is no longer part of polite society. As you correctly state, Trump should have been terrified to say such un-gentlemanly things about decent women.

I am not talking about criminal behavior; I am talking about violations of the code. Such violations are dealt with by social disapproval - especially statements that begin “A gentleman does not…” or the fact that no decent woman will speak to him. Or, if you are my mother, by use of the Stern Look and “I raised you better than this.”

Would she be believed or taken seriously, or would she be told that she shouldn’t bring things like that up, or accuse such a decent man, or told that she brought the behavior on by what she wore or how she acted?

It is not a lady’s fault when a man behaves rudely.

That’s one of the beauties of the old etiquette. You don’t have to wait until instances of criminal assault - apparently minor actions can produce a reaction of shocked whispers long before it gets to that point. “He spoke to her without being introduced?” :eek: Because the cad showed that he does not value The Code.

But more importantly, how do I get those damn kids to turn down their damn music on the damn train?

You ask politely. If that doesn’t work, you shame them with “you will break your mother’s heart if you go on like this.” Then you complain to the conductor. Ideally, every other gentleman on the train will join you as you reach out, turn down the volume, and then stare them down.

You know, just like you do when someone wears plaids and stripes together.

Regards,
Shodan

[Cartoonacy]

@monstro

I’m curious how a “new etiquette” squares with the desire of so many to do away with “political correctness”.

If a guy approaches a woman and doesn’t touch his real or imagined hat first, would it be okay for a woman to feel offended? I say no. But you better believe that’s what the interpretation would eventually be. “This guy isn’t following social norms. Ergo, he’s a deviant, and I feel unsafe.”

The more importance we give to arbitrary rules of etiquette, the easier it is for people to find reasons to be offended. And it’s not like we feign offense when eitiquette is breached. The feelings are always real. Most folks are understandably bothered when someone fails to say “excuse me” or “thank you”. Do we really need to make social interactions more stilted and awkward? I say no. We already walk on too many eggshells as it is. We don’t need any more.

I think emboldening people to break from decorum is the best way to stop creeps in their tracks. Maybe jerks wouldn’t be so brazen if women weren’t expected to be so “nice” and “friendly” all the time. Instead of encouraging more congeniality, maybe we need to encourage a bit more bitchiness in everyone. More evil happens under the nose of those with agreeable personalities than those wiith disagreeable dispositions.

This makes me recall a passage from the notebooks of Lazarus Long in Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love:

Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as “empty,” “meaningless,” or “dishonest,” and scorn to use them. No matter how “pure” their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.

[Trinopus]

The Golden Rule is still a pretty decent guideline, and is both ancient and highly traditional.

Be the sort of person you want to have other people be.