Ladylike & gentlemanly - offensive?

In My Humble Opinion
61

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
Seriously, how do you reconcile equality with chivalry, e.g. men holding doors for women? Women want equal pay for equal work and I understand that completely. But a lot of women expect some deferential treatment based on their gender, don’t they?
[/QUOTE]

And most men expect not to do as much of the housework/child care as their equally employed wives/girlfriends. :wink: And we start that one early: boys are asked to do less housework than their sisters as children.

Yep, we’re conflicted all right. All of us, men and women.

62

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
When I see women demanding they be included in selective service and then someone telling them no, I’ll count it.
[/QUOTE]
I’d be willing to bet that it’d be the womens’ parents who had the heartburn about that one.

I’m in agreement with you on selective service. If we have to have it, we should have it for both genders. I hadn’t thought about it until my younger son had to register - one of the reasons I made sure that he did was the financial aid hook. Then I thought “That’s not fair - he’s got to do this to be considered for aid; his sisters don’t”.

63

[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Or rabbis or ministers. I care because it’s using religion to discriminate against women. It’s saying that GOD says it’s okay to treat women as lesser than men.
[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of female rabbis and ministers. I know a couple of each, myself.

But on topic…I really don’t like the term “ladylike.” I think there is a connotative difference between it and “gentlemanly,” in that usually the former is referring to things ladies ought not do and the latter is referring to proactive things that men should do. In that way, being gentlemanly is just about being polite and helping people, whereas being ladylike is about putting definitions on what is and isn’t “feminine.” People used to say that playing sports wasn’t ladylike…glad the definition has at least been revised somewhat, but generally speaking I think it’s not positive towards female empowerment.

64

[QUOTE=Litoris]
Yes ma’am. Of course, keep in mind, this is according to proper etiquette and you may or may not decide to agree with it, your choice.

When being seated against a wall, women should be seated where they can be seen.
[/QUOTE]

So they can be proper eye candy? I don’t get it.

The only preference I have–whether I’m with a guy or another girl–is that I like being where I can see stuff go by, especially if I’m outside.

65

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
So they can be proper eye candy? I don’t get it.

The only preference I have–whether I’m with a guy or another girl–is that I like being where I can see stuff go by, especially if I’m outside.
[/QUOTE]

The seat with the view of the room is considered the better seat, which is why it is traditionally given to women.

66

[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
Two unrelated observations.

  1. People don’t usually consider manly or womanly, masculine or feminine, to be offensive or even sexist. Is it possible that being ladies and gentlemen nowadays is seen as not sexist, but classist? (Americans don’t like to talk about class. Many will point at race and even religion before admitting to class differences.)

  2. As the culture now largely parses things:
    -a girl simply becomes a woman with maturity, but being a lady is based on her conduct and social approval.
    -a boy does not become a man with maturity, but based on his conduct and social approval. Becoming a gentleman is another step entirely.

If I’m not totally out to lunch on point 2 above, it’s because women are conditioned to look first for a man, and only then for a gentleman. If so, putting out signs of the latter without first establishing that you are the former is probably queering (ahem) your deal.
[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean. I don’t think I come off as “gay” but I’m not seen an alpha male, either.

On the subject of internet dating Chimera posted:

*We don’t know what we want, or we want what we cannot have. Or we want that which will not be good for us.

After all, how many women want the “bad boy”? Almost all of them? Will the bad boy be good for them? Hell no. The bad boy is a self-centered jerk who will treat them like shit, cheat on them, use them, and never really love them.

How many guys want the “hot chick”? Almost all of them? Will the hot chick be good for them? Hell no. She’s a self-centered jerk who will treat them like shit, cheat on them, use them, never put out and never really love them.*

How’s that for a dichotomy? You’re an alpha male or you’re a gentleman.

67

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
You mean the man faces the wall, and the woman faces the room?

Never heard of this one. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

The biggest reason is that the woman presumably has spent time making herself look good – hair, makeup, nails, etc – so she should be seen. Obviously, there are darker reasons, such as it disallows her to act inappropriately, as everyone can see what she’s doing.

Meh. I’ve said before I am very old-fashioned. My husband orders for me when we go out to eat, he usually drives, he always opens doors for me, etc.

I always admit that YMMV, but as for me, I expect a man to be a gentleman if he wants to take me out on a date. In private? Different matter entirely on my ladylike-ness as well as his gentlemanly-ness. :smiley:

68

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
There are plenty of female rabbis and ministers. I know a couple of each, myself.

[/QUOTE]

And there are plenty of religions that don’t allow female leadership based on the “word of God.” And they get pretty vocal defending that offensive tradition.

69

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
How’s that for a dichotomy? You’re an alpha male or you’re a gentleman.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, the age of chivalry is well past. It might be that with all our creature comforts nowadays, there’s pressure on men to revert and be somewhat more primitive to show what they’re really made of. You don’t have to shoot your own food or hew your own timber anymore, so it’s not assumed you have that in you unless you demonstrate it in other ways.

70

[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
And there are plenty of religions that don’t allow female leadership based on the “word of God.” And they get pretty vocal defending that offensive tradition.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, I don’t deny that (though I guess how offensive it is is a matter of opinion :slight_smile: ). My point was just that your post didn’t tell the whole story. Not all denominations/movements allow female clergy, but it’s not true that there are not female ministers and rabbis.

71

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
But on topic…I really don’t like the term “ladylike.” I think there is a connotative difference between it and “gentlemanly,” in that usually the former is referring to things ladies ought not do and the latter is referring to proactive things that men should do.
[/QUOTE]
While in past days this ‘ladylike-ness’ may have been limiting, I personally don’t see it in today’s use of the term. Taken in context with a modern girl’s upbringing, it doesn’t mean the same thing. For example, I would have appeared insane to encourage my daughters in so many non-traditional ways on the one hand and then admonish them to behave in an opposite manner on the other hand. Because of context, they know that my use of the term is about manners, not sexism. YMMV.

72

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
I think I’d feel weird using those terms because I’m not all that ladylike myself…
[/QUOTE]

Really?? with a user name like Freudian Slit? I would not have guessed… :rolleyes:

73

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
While in past days this ‘ladylike-ness’ may have been limiting, I personally don’t see it in today’s use of the term. Taken in context with a modern girl’s upbringing, it doesn’t mean the same thing. For example, I would have appeared insane to encourage my daughters in so many non-traditional ways on the one hand and then admonish them to behave in an opposite manner on the other hand. Because of context, they know that my use of the term is about manners, not sexism. YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the term has evolved, and you’re right that kids will understand the context. I guess I just think that the term carries a lot of baggage, and not all of it good, you know?

74

[QUOTE=PharmBoy]
Really?? with a user name like Freudian Slit? I would not have guessed… :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

And I bet you don’t really live on a farm, now do you? :slight_smile:

75

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
And I bet you don’t really live on a farm, now do you? :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Funny, but I would have thought he works at a PHARMacy, not that he lives on a FARM. :wink:

76

[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
Yep, the age of chivalry is well past. It might be that with all our creature comforts nowadays, there’s pressure on men to revert and be somewhat more primitive to show what they’re really made of. You don’t have to shoot your own food or hew your own timber anymore, so it’s not assumed you have that in you unless you demonstrate it in other ways.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Litoris]
When I was still single (and trust me, if I am ever single again) men lose dateability points for things like not opening the door for me, not holding my chair, sitting against the wall, etc. I admit freely that I am old-fashioned, but my daughter is 15 and has the same expectations. My 8 yo son is learning to be a gentleman and has been told that any woman that does not appreciate his manners is not worth his time. Just sayin’…
[/QUOTE]

So is it possible that there are women who still expect it, men who are still willing to provide it, and the two ought to meet?

I would draw an analogy to car keys. Yours will start your car; mine will start mine. But we can’t interchange them.

Having been single again some 12 years now, I’ve had time to think about what I believe, what kind of person I want, yadda. If I thought that changing some aspect of myself would make me more attractive to the opposite sex, I’d seriously consider it…and in some ways, I have.

But I wonder: if I stray too far from my nature, am I not changing myself into a slightly different key, the car to which isn’t the one I wanted to start in the first place?

I’m not looking for someone who’s perfect…just someone who’s perfect for me. One key, one car. Maybe I’m deluding myself, like in “This is Spinal Tap,” where the film maker is talking to the band’s mgr.

di Bergi: “Your albums sales are down. Do you think the band is finished?”
Manager: “No, our appeal is just becoming more selective.”

77

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
So is it possible that there are women who still expect it, men who are still willing to provide it, and the two ought to meet?

[/QUOTE]

Absolutely! You know, I have to admit that I have always been more than a little old-fashioned. Even when I looked like this back in high school, I expected the same from men/boys that I do now. In the South, there is really no dearth of gentlemen, so that was never really an issue.

Y’know, I have mentioned this before, but we also “train” my daughter’s beaus to do these things. When we take her current Not-Boyfriend™ out with us, we wait til he figures out to open the door, etc. He usually remembers, and it’s cute when my 8 yo pipes up “open the door and be a gentleman, That Boy!” Chivalry is dying, but not dead yet. It will not die in my family for at least another generation, either.

78

I don’t think ladylike or gentlemanly will give kids a complex, but they’re still gendered terms that have perfectly reasonable alternatives that aren’t gendered and don’t sound forced, like you’re the PC police. Have some decorum, show some manners, act civilized, etc etc. It’s not the same as insisting on chairperson when chairwoman will do. Like I said, it won’t be the deciding factor on how a kid turns out, but we’re all assaulted on all sides by gender stereotypes everyday. What’s wrong with eliminating a couple reasonable ones here and there? The evolution of language and society is a process. Might as well make the changes we can.

79

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I agree that the term has evolved, and you’re right that kids will understand the context. I guess I just think that the term carries a lot of baggage, and not all of it good, you know?
[/QUOTE]

I understand. A lot of how one feels about it surely goes back to the intent of the people who said it to you as a child. As Jaade mentioned previously, there are regional differences too. That’s like the recent discussion about calling a stranger “sweetie” - here one wouldn’t notice it amongst the other "hon"s, "baby"s, or "darlin"s. I bet in NYC you would get the stinkeye though!! :stuck_out_tongue:

That leads into BRBS-CS’s mention that it sounds forced. I expect that in some regional areas “gentlemanly” and “ladylike” do indeed sound forced; and it may come to pass that these terms will also fade out here.

80

I think a lot of gentlemanlike and ladylike behaviours are also methods of streamlining interactions - when we get to a door, my husband opens it instead of me; when the cheque comes, he pays it instead of me; when there are familial social arrangements to be made, I make them with his input. It’s not that either one of us can’t do these things, it’s just that we have tacitly split up the duties so no one does everything.

As for the gentleman sitting with his back to the room, that’s also a function of getting clouted on the head with a tray or having people hit the back of your chair - if given a chance, I want the wall seat, too. Is that fair? Not really, if you take only this one instance, but in the grand scheme of our relationship, I’d say it mostly ends up as fair.