If women want to be equal, why do they get to get off a sinking ship first?

[Pika...]

This always bugged me, so I'd like to get others' point of views on this.

I am not getting into other issues in this thread which would count as political, which largely have to do with army stuff, just focusing on the tradition of women getting off sinking ships first. (aka don't go there!)

I mean, we all remember what happened to Leonardo Pretty-Boy. :smalleek:

[Haruki-kun]

This always bugged me, so I'd like to get others' point of views on this.

I am not getting into other issues in this thread which would count as political, which largely have to do with army stuff, just focusing on the tradition of women getting off sinking ships first. (aka don't go there!)

I mean, we all remember what happened to Leonardo Pretty-Boy. :smalleek:

I dunno, but women fighting for equality will in no way stop me from trying to be a gentleman.

[Ravens_cry]

If you want to be gentlemanly, but still within the modern morals, let another, any other, go first. Ironically, woman, with their higher amounts of subcutaneous fat, actually do better in cold water then men.

[Pika...]

I dunno, but women fighting for equality will in no way stop me from trying to be a gentleman.

I figure the same, but I also imagine I might look at it differently if I was in a capsizing ship sinking into freezing cold water. :smalleek:

[The Neoclassic]

I don't think that women came up with this idea, which is rather what you seem to be suggesting. It was a more patronizing/paternalistic/male-centered-heroic tradition invented by menfolk rather than a bunch of women saying "Yeah, we totally should have equal rights- but you'd better not leave that dangerous situation before we do!" :smallwink:

[Neko Toast]

This always bugged me, so I'd like to get others' point of views on this.

I am not getting into other issues in this thread which would count as political, which largely have to do with army stuff, just focusing on the tradition of women getting off sinking ships first. (aka don't go there!)

I mean, we all remember what happened to Leonardo Pretty-Boy. :smalleek:

I always thought it was because women bear children. I mean, think about deer hunting, for example. Once you get a license, you can shoot bucks without many restrictions. But does have several restrictions because the population would suffer otherwise. It's all about survival, really.

[Haruki-kun]

If you want to be gentlemanly, but still within the modern morals, let another, any other, go first. Ironically, woman, with their higher amounts of subcutaneous fat, actually do better in cold water then men.

That means they'd last a few seconds more. Humans just can't survive in freezing water.

That aside, it's not like they're really expected to be allowed to live instead of men in the mentioned situation. The Titanic did not have enough lifeboats for every passenger on board and some of them were sent off half-full. In modern times, a ship is not allowed to sail if there are not enough lifeboats for every single human being on board.

[Ichneumon]

That means they'd last a few seconds more. Humans just can't survive in freezing water.

That aside, it's not like they're really expected to be allowed to live instead of men in the mentioned situation. The Titanic did not have enough lifeboats for every passenger on board and some of them were sent off half-full. In modern times, a ship is not allowed to sail if there are not enough lifeboats for every single human being on board.

I never understood the logic of not having enough lifeboats. Is there any?

[Neko Toast]

I never understood the logic of not having enough lifeboats. Is there any?

Aesthetic appeal, if you could call that logic. It's the reason why Titanic didn't have enough.

[Haruki-kun]

I never understood the logic of not having enough lifeboats. Is there any?

Yes: Why waste money on lifeboats for a ship that can't sink?

Fail.

[Tiger Duck]

they were cluttering up the deck(I think it was mentioned in the movie)

[Elder Tsofu]

Wasn't there a ferry which sunk by Tonga a month ago?
If I remember correctly there were 50 survivors in the lifeboats out of 150 passengers. All of the survivors were men.

[Trog]

they were cluttering up the deck(I think it was mentioned in the movie)
Indeed. They are getting in the way of me rearranging the deck chairs. Shoo!

[Ravens_cry]

I never understood the logic of not having enough lifeboats. Is there any?
The Titanic's bulkheads would have saved it if it had hit the iceberg dead on, only flooding the foreword bulkheads. But because it hit to the side, several were flooded.

[Haruki-kun]

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that at the time regulations required ships to have 16 lifeboats, and the titanic had 20. So they did go the extra mile, apparently.

So anyway, back on topic.... <.<

[Ichneumon]

Yes: Why waste money on lifeboats for a ship that can't sink?

Fail.

Using that logic it would seem you wouldn't get ANY lifeboats, instead of just too few.

[Haruki-kun]

Using that logic it would seem you wouldn't get ANY lifeboats, instead of just too few.

Yes. You also wouldn't pay taxes, but let's see how that goes. Regulations required lifeboats.

[Icewalker]

This idea applies to a much wider range of things as well, ie, it is socially expected to some extent for men to hold the door for women more than it is for you to hold the door for the person behind you.

And while these may not have been started as a part of any feminist movement, there are some women who find it sexist if you do not favor them in such a manner.

[Xsesiv]

Gender equality laws do not replace the customary chivalry and respect with which men are generally expected to treat women.

[Ichneumon]

This idea applies to a much wider range of things as well, ie, it is socially expected to some extent for men to hold the door for women more than it is for you to hold the door for the person behind you.

And while these may not have been started as a part of any feminist movement, there are some women who find it sexist if you do not favor them in such a manner.

In fact, there are women who view it as just that they keep all the social privileges while loosing all things that are not to their advantages.

[FirebirdFlying]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.

[Ichneumon]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.

Or women not supporting male emancipation and finding the idea insulting.

[Mystic Muse]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.

my rule is "I won't hit you if you don't hit me." I find no difference between guys and girls.

except. you know. Girls are hotter. :smalltongue:

[FoE]

It just seems logical to me. If your ship is sinking and you only have lifeboats for half of your passengers, who wants to waste time drawing straws to see who lives and who dies? It's probably going to result in a free-for-all anyways.

You might as well say "women and children first" to sort out these things quickly. That way, the rest of us can get on with the business of drowning. :smalltongue:

Incidentally, the Titanic actually had more lifeboats than was required by the regulations of the time.

[Mr. Mud]

I always thought it was because women bear children. I mean, think about deer hunting, for example. Once you get a license, you can shoot bucks without many restrictions. But does have several restrictions because the population would suffer otherwise. It's all about survival, really.

Yes, but only symbolically. I mean seriously, let's say there are 100 people on a ship. 40 Female and 60 Male. They all die. Is that really going to have that big of an adverse effect on population?

[Faulty]

Or women not supporting male emancipation and finding the idea insulting.

We're just trying to throw off the yoke of female domination! :smalltongue:

[evnafets]

Wasn't there a ferry which sunk by Tonga a month ago?
If I remember correctly there were 50 survivors in the lifeboats out of 150 passengers. All of the survivors were men.

Yes. Thats because all the women and children were sleeping belowdecks / in cabins, while the men who survived were sleeping on the deck.
Apparently the ship sank so fast that nobody who was inside got out.

[Blaine.Bush]

It annoys me when women get offended because I hold the door open for them. It's only happened a few times, but still... :smallannoyed:

[Nevitan]

Here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OvvgPwGZOU&feature=related
Some Swearing, just so you know.

[Fawkes]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.

I hate that.

Er... the women being allowed to hit men thing, not the men not being allowed to hit women.

My policy is no punching, regardless of gender.

Unless they deserve it.

By which I mean they are threatening someone's safety or well-being.

By not making them a sandwich.

*is promptly arrested*

[RabbitHoleLost]

Pika, I'm starting to find a trend in your posts.

[Mr. Mud]

It annoys me when women get offended because I hold the door open for them. It's only happened a few times, but still... :smallannoyed:

Bleh... Just this morning, at the coffee shop I work at, a woman was carrying a tray of 4 coffee cups (Yes, the stereotypical flimsy cardboard ones you're thinking off) while on crutches on crutches. I jumped over the counter, very awesomely if I do say so myself, and opened the door for her. She gave me the dirtiest look, and..:

Woman: "Just because I'm a woman, doesn't mean I need a man to open the door for me!"
Me: "... But... you're on crutches... :smallconfused::smallannoyed:"

[Eldan]

Leaving ships is nothing. This country? They don't have to pay extra taxes if they skip the military. Which is, I have to add, voluntary for them.

Of course, that's a point they always leave out in equal rights debates.

[evnafets]

Bleh... Just this morning, at the coffee shop I work at, a woman was carrying a tray of 4 coffee cups (Yes, the stereotypical flimsy cardboard ones you're thinking off) while on crutches on crutches. I jumped over the counter, very awesomely if I do say so myself, and opened the door for her. She gave me the dirtiest look, and..:

Woman: "Just because I'm a woman, doesn't mean I need a man to open the door for me!"
Me: "... But... you're on crutches... :smallconfused::smallannoyed:"

Maybe if you hadn't done the jump over the counter bit... smacks a bit of showing off.
Would you have gone to that same amount of effort if it was a guy on crutches? Be honest now...

Having said that, I don't agree with her attitude.

[Jalor]

...why wouldn't an individual do everything in their power to escape a sinking ship, including playing the gender card?

It has nothing to do with special treatment, they just want to get off the effing ship.

[Faulty]

I'm not really bugged by women who get pissy about me holding doors open. I've never had it happen to me, mind you, but the idea doesn't bug me. Our male dominated society is so patronizing to women, I can see how sometimes it would make people lash out. They can't tell what you're actually intentions are, and if they're used to men treating them differently then it makes sense that they would paint that on to men opening doors for them.


Maybe if you hadn't done the jump over the counter bit... smacks a bit of showing off.

This probably has something to do with it too.

"Hello Miss, allow me. *wink*"

[Mr. Mud]

Maybe if you hadn't done the jump over the counter bit... smacks a bit of showing off.
Would you have gone to that same amount of effort if it was a guy on crutches? Be honest now...

Having said that, I don't agree with her attitude.

Well, yeah as the woman was less than attractive if that's what you're hinting at. If a guy was on crutches I'd have done the same. Definitely.

Also, the jumping over the counter bit was a bit over stressed by me, I mean, I just sort of put my left hand down and swung myself over. I didn't do a quadruple handspring into a front slip 360 twist while making a bicycle, to get over it.

[Faulty]

Regardless, that does seem a bit overblown, and a woman could easily take that as a "rawr I'm a man check out how awesome I am", even if it wasn't.

[Mr. Mud]

Regardless, that does seem a bit overblown, and a woman could easily take that as a "rawr I'm a man check out how awesome I am", even if it wasn't.

Agreed... But regardless, I still opened the door which was ethically correct... right... :smallconfused:?

[Faulty]

Agreed... But regardless, I still opened the door which was ethically correct... right... :smallconfused:?

She might have seen it as something chauvanistic even if you didn't mean it that way. So neither of you is really to blame.

[Helanna]

I still have trouble believing that some women get angry at men for holding doors open for them. I mean, I could see getting angry if you had proof that a guy only holds doors open for women, since that would prove that he's not really doing out of kindness but out of a kind of sexist chauvinism. But if a guy holds a door open for you and you don't have proof of that kind? Yeah, he's probably just being a nice person. I mean, in my family, both genders are expected to hold the door open to people of either gender. It's not sexist, it's not being a jerk.

I'm also irritated with women who seem to believe that "gender equality" means that they can do whatever they want and not get in trouble. I don't get the entire "guys can't hit girls" thing either - I mean, sure a 300 lb guy shouldn't punch out a 100 lb girl, but girls certainly aren't completely untouchable if they start a problem.

Not that that should be an issue in any case, really, how often do you really need to punch someone? I mean, I once read a story about a guy who was proud that he didn't hold with that "you can't hit me because I'm female" nonsense, but in his case he punched a girl for calling his friend a slut. That's not being nondiscriminatory, that's assault. If I were the girl I'd have pressed charges.

Aaaand now I think I'm rambling.

Edit:


She might have seen it as something chauvanistic even if you didn't mean it that way. So neither of you is really to blame.

Or maybe trying to navigate on crutches just put her in a really bad mood. You ever tried maneuvering on those things? :smallwink:

[Worira]

Yes, and I certainly appreciated doors being held for me. Because it's a pain to navigate on crutches.

[Erts]

Jalor is right. I think anyone would try to get off the ship.

On the punching a girl thing...

Not trying to sound offensive, but generally, guys are in fact stronger and bigger than girls on average. That is what bugs me, the fact that someone is hitting someone much smaller than them.
If a 180 pound girl hits a 100 pound guy, then that is wrong. Just as wrong as a 180 pound guy hitting a 100 pound girl.

Anyways, Mr. Mud, what you did was nice, regadless of gender.

[Berserk Monk]

You know, I could post a bunch of sexist comments about why women have to get off the boat first but I won't because I'll probably get in trouble. As for a real reason, it's the gentleman thing to do. Yeah it sucks for us dudes, but throughout pretty much all of history, the male sex has gotten the better deal.

[Perenelle]

It annoys me when women get offended because I hold the door open for them. It's only happened a few times, but still... :smallannoyed:

I used to be one of those people... >.>
I didnt really get offended, just a little annoyed. My boyfriend opens doors for me a lot and I'm okay with it now but I never used to be. just kind of like "what; I cant open the door myself? do I need help opening that door?" I mean I knew he wasnt implying that, but the way I grew up with my grandparents always getting me to be all concerned about women's rights effected it. so overall It just annoyed me a bit. :smalltongue:

[THAC0]

This always bugged me, so I'd like to get others' point of views on this.

I am not getting into other issues in this thread which would count as political, which largely have to do with army stuff, just focusing on the tradition of women getting off sinking ships first. (aka don't go there!)

I mean, we all remember what happened to Leonardo Pretty-Boy. :smalleek:

How much does this happen nowadays? I mean, back when the Titanic went down, women's rights weren't very far along either...

[Dragonrider]

I'm a girl and I hold doors for people regardless of gender... :smalltongue: Including, regardless of my OWN gender.

On the Titanic: it's not really fair to judge that by a modern feminist standard, given that it happened in 1912 and women couldn't even vote in the United States until 1920. Children into the boats first I can still see in any era. Women first was a product of the Victorian tendency to handle the female of the species as if she was made of glass. :smalltongue:

[Stormthorn]

{Scrubbed}

[SDF]

{scrubbed}

What the women don't know is that we fake boat sinkings to get them off, and then we bust out the Cristal and T-Pain sings a song about being on a boat.

I occasionally hold the door for people, almost always when I'm not in a hurry. Always for my mother, and often for my friends. I've only ever been thanked by strangers, but if I were to be berated for it the person would get a big chewing out by myself.

I never get in fights if I can avoid it. Boy/girl whatever I'm not going to start something unless it is some ridiculous circumstance I can't even think of right now. I've had to get in a fight defending my friend one time (last spat I got in since the fifth grade) Some 220lbs frat boy was drunk and punched my 5'4'' 95lbs best friend for saying something bad about Denver... yeah. Anyway, I saw what he was about to do and had him out before he knew where I was. But, I digress, if it comes to violence you have a responsibility to try and avoid it with words before it comes to blows even if you are bigger/stronger/outnumber the other people. Because unless you are in an area where you are likely to encounter racial/gang violence I can't think of one good reason to get in a fight. Gender issues aside. Most of the, "I'm going to punch you cause I'm a girl and you can't hit back," have been playful jabs. Also, I can't ever think of a time when a girl I didn't know pretty well tried that. So, circumstantially I don't have much of a problem with it. I can still retaliate by tickling them into oblivion. :smallbiggrin:

[Moff Chumley]

Most of my female friends are more violent than the male ones. They don't let us hit back. :smallmad:


{Scrubbed}

Erm, or maybe he hasn't been on his computer in the last few hours.

EDIT: CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP! *calls in Frank Zappa* :smalltongue:

[Fawkes]

On the punching a girl thing...

Not trying to sound offensive, but generally, guys are in fact stronger and bigger than girls on average. That is what bugs me, the fact that someone is hitting someone much smaller than them.
If a 180 pound girl hits a 100 pound guy, then that is wrong. Just as wrong as a 180 pound guy hitting a 100 pound girl.

I don't think anyone's trying to argue otherwise.

It seems odd, though, that the 100 pound girl can punch the guy as much as she wants without fear of judgment.

I've seen it happen.

It's weird.

[Erts]

I don't think anyone's trying to argue otherwise.

It seems odd, though, that the 100 pound girl can punch the guy as much as she wants without fear of judgment.

I've seen it happen.

It's weird.

I think it would be the same for the 100 pound guy and the 180 pound girl.
It is not as bad as the 180 pounder punching the 100 pounder as the reverse, but the reverse is still a bad thing to do.

[Gem Flower]

About the door-opening thing: This is my experience with young teenagers at my school, but we hold doors for each other all the time. Everyone does, because it's just polite in general. Gender has nothing to do with it.

[Alteran]

Incidentally, the Titanic actually had more lifeboats than was required by the regulations of the time.

Yes, but lifeboat regulations were set by tonnage. At the time those laws were created, there were no ships even close to the size of Titanic. The regulations were not designed with such massive ships in mind, and so the lifeboat requirements didn't scale after a certain point. As a result of this, the regulations allowed the largest ships to carry far too few lifeboats for their passengers and still exceed what they were required to do.

[V'icternus]

I hold doors open for everyone, as logn as they'll be at the door within the next ten seconds and I'm not in a rush... I mean, if I have the time, and I already have the door open, why not let them go through a little easier?
...This may be one of the reasons the elderly seem to love me.

Always nice to get a "thank you", of course.
never had anyone get angry at me for it, maybe because I usually let four or five people through at a time. I don't have prefferance as to who I hold doors for.

...Always nice to get a smile, too...

[Dracomorph]

I'm also irritated with women who seem to believe that "gender equality" means that they can do whatever they want and not get in trouble. I don't get the entire "guys can't hit girls" thing either - I mean, sure a 300 lb guy shouldn't punch out a 100 lb girl, but girls certainly aren't completely untouchable if they start a problem.


Actually, my uncle had a run-in about this in Florida. He got in a fight with a woman who was drunk off her head. Despite the fact that she had been tearing up his apartment, and attacked him when he tried to stop her, he was the one who got taken to jail when the cops arrived. Quite literally, because he was a man and she was not. Had they been the same gender, there is absolutely zero doubt that she would have been hauled off. He was convicted of a felony, not because he is somehow abusive, but because he tried to defend his property.

On the topic at hand, I'm with Jalor. Although maybe women don't have a 'right' to leave first, I fully sympathize with taking any excuse to get the fudge out of there.

[Ravens_cry]

Well children should go first, because they are children. It is the duty of the older generation to protect the one that is maturing. And woman, biologically speaking, do have a larger role then men (though not by as much as some think) in the raising of the child. They carry the critter for nine months before they guy can even get a peek. So if one parent survives, it should be the Mum. And having a predefined rule of who should go first, as others have pointed out, so it doesn't devolve into a panic, is a good idea. So all in all, woman and children go first, is a good idea. If there's enough life boats and time, the guys will get their turn.

[Basalock]

I always hold the door open when I can, regardless of gender. However I'll be the first to tell you I'm a sexist bastard... against guys. Not to say I'm not as polite and nice as possible, however if I see a guy hit a girl regardless of circumstances I make it well known that that is not an okay thing to do. If I see a girl hit a guy and he's not in any real pain I laugh. I also let girls hit me whenever they feel like. I'm not sure why I'm sexist, just kinda always have been.

[Alteran]

And woman, biologically speaking, do have a larger role then men (though not by as much as some think) in the raising of the child. They carry the critter for nine months before they guy can even get a peek. So if one parent survives, it should be the Mum.

I don't think this is really accurate, unless the woman is pregnant or a child is breastfeeding. If they're not, then the man and woman both have equal roles (unless they divide them up differently). Technically one woman can make one baby at a time and a man can impregnate multiple women, but in modern times that's rarely the way it works. It's usually one man and one woman, and so once birth and very early childhood are over I don't see the woman necessarily playing a larger role in raising children. It's often true, but that's mainly for social reasons as opposed to biological ones.

[Lord Seth]

I once had a woman tell me I should give up my seat on the bus to her because it would be the "gentlemanly" thing to do.

[Weiser_Cain]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.
Funny, that never happens to me. Then again women won't look me in the eye so I make my own little women (sad I know) and give them their turn at being the jerk. Thus equality is reached on my pages... All this is generalizing anyway.

[The Neoclassic]

I once had a woman tell me I should give up my seat on the bus to her because it would be the "gentlemanly" thing to do.

People of either gender can be asshats and use any excuse on the face of the earth (including their gender) to get what they want. No surprise there.

[Dallas-Dakota]

In fact, there are women who view it as just that they keep all the social privileges while loosing all things that are not to their advantages.
And these people, I think, are just stupid.
No offense ment to anybody, I'm all for equality, but you can't have it all.

Sure, I'l hold the door for anybody, maybe one or two sec longer for a woman.

Screw me for being gentlemanly then.

On the lifeboat thingy:
A woman can only have one child per say 9/10 months, while a man can seed many women in that period, so chances of new kids etc. would be better with many women + few men.

[V'icternus]

Yet try to explain it like that to your significant other, and suddenly you don't have one any more. :smalltongue:

[Dallas-Dakota]

Ofcourse not, being that blunt would be silly >.>

Mind controll all the way:smalltongue:

[Alteran]

On the lifeboat thingy:
A woman can only have one child per say 9/10 months, while a man can seed many women in that period, so chances of new kids etc. would be better with many women + few men.

The issue is that in society, this won't usually happen. These people aren't going to crash on an uninhabited island and make their own society, they're going to be rescued or die at sea. Once they get back into normal society, the fact that one man can have children with many different women won't matter.

[Dallas-Dakota]

True, True.

I'm just looking at it from a purely biological point.

[V'icternus]

"Hey, baby. I'm lookin' at you and those other three girls from a purely biological point." *SLAP!*


Yeah, let's not mention that aspect of the issue to anyone. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

I once had a woman tell me I should give up my seat on the bus to her because it would be the "gentlemanly" thing to do.
It would be, but only if you did it voluntarily.

[Dallas-Dakota]

"Hey, baby. I'm lookin' at you and those other three girls from a purely biological point." *SLAP!*


Yeah, let's not mention that aspect of the issue to anyone. :smalltongue:
Obviously there is a difference between posting something on a forum in a philosophical debate and in RL when you're trying to ''get some''.

[Weiser_Cain]

Obviously there is a difference between posting something on a forum in a philosophical debate and in RL when you're trying to ''get some''.
What if you know it's futile from the start?

[V'icternus]

Then just have fun with it.

"Your eyes glisten like great pools of..." *Checks eye colour* "...mud."

[DrakebloodIV]

From an entirely biological standpoint its actually a very sound argument. If women die, there is guaranteed loss of future population, while if men die it just means some other man has to work slightly harder. Because one man can make children with a lot of women while one woman can only make one child per year (ish) with one man. Women stay out of life or death situations whenever possible cause as a race humanity needs them more. Lets look at some of the things women dont do for the sake of all of our futures.

-Go into the infantry.
-Do serious medicial testing (well, they do less. And pregnant women dont do any)
-Do high risk jobs like alaskan crab fishing.

[Coidzor]

Because they don't wanna get stuck in a situation where there's a bunch of men with an infant and they have to watch the baby starve to death due to the mother/wetnurse/whathaveyou not making it out in time.

Or stuck watching a bunch of children when their natural wranglers would do.

[daggaz]

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:

You bring up women's equality, but you couch it in a rhetorical question that is directly tied into a naval tradition that started hundreds of years ago, in a world of chivalry, where the legal naval industry was 100%men and 0%women and thus 1000 times more sexist than anything else on earth?

Whats the point of this thread again?

[xanaphia]

A semi-relevant joke:

A boy is sitting on a crowded bus next to a fat woman. The fat woman says, "If you were a gentleman, you'd stand up and let someone else sit."

The boy replied, "If you were a gentleman, you'd stand up and let four other people sit down."

[Alteran]

From an entirely biological standpoint its actually a very sound argument. If women die, there is guaranteed loss of future population, while if men die it just means some other man has to work slightly harder. Because one man can make children with a lot of women

An entirely biological standpoint is useless here, because it's ignoring the social situations that are incredibly important with regards to human mating. I'm not arguing that one man can't have children with a lot women, that's true. What I am arguing that it's irrelevant if he won't.


Women stay out of life or death situations whenever possible cause as a race humanity needs them more. Lets look at some of the things women dont do for the sake of all of our futures.

-Go into the infantry.
-Do serious medicial testing (well, they do less. And pregnant women dont do any)
-Do high risk jobs like alaskan crab fishing.

Part of this may be genetic predisposition to treat women more gently, for the biological reasons that you explained earlier. Those were once much more important than they are now. There's also thousands of years of history in which women were treated as "the weaker sex". This is partly deserved, since an average woman will be physically weaker than an average man. The examples you gave are not of things women don't do "For the sake of all of our futures". They don't do those things mainly for social and physical reasons. In modern times, there is no legitimate reproductive reason for a woman not to risk her life in the ways that a man does.

[Coidzor]

What I am arguing that it's irrelevant if he won't.

More like irrelevant if the woman won't truck with that. :smalltongue:


... Then again women won't look me in the eye...

Mmm. Is it the beard? I'm thinking of shaving mine just to save the hassle... I think it gets me flak from racists too. Which is just weird.

[Weiser_Cain]

Mmm. Is it the beard? I'm thinking of shaving mine just to save the hassle... I think it gets me flak from racists too. Which is just weird.

Maybe the rage and frustration in my eyes? Because I'm ugly? I can't really shave without wrecking my skin. I doubt it'll make a difference for me but you try it, the hair will grow back.

[THAC0]

-Go into the infantry.
-Do serious medicial testing (well, they do less. And pregnant women dont do any)
-Do high risk jobs like alaskan crab fishing.

Uh, women do crab fish in Alaska. Not as many as men, sure, but that's pure physics. It's a job that requires physical strength.

But yeah, women do that.

And your first point is a whole 'nother can of worms.

[_Zoot_]

I thought that it was something to do with naval tradition in that ships (epically war ships) used just to be crewed by men and thus, if it got into trouble it was only far to let any passages off (as they did not know how to work the ship). And, as women were only every passengers back in those days, they were to be let off first....


But, then again i might be completely wrong.

[Khanderas]

I always thought it was because women bear children. I mean, think about deer hunting, for example. Once you get a license, you can shoot bucks without many restrictions. But does have several restrictions because the population would suffer otherwise. It's all about survival, really.
Pretty much this I belive.

[The Neoclassic]

Lets look at some of the things women dont do for the sake of all of our futures.

-Go into the infantry.
-Do serious medicial testing (well, they do less. And pregnant women dont do any)
-Do high risk jobs like alaskan crab fishing.

What do you mean "women" don't do? I have no doubt that there are some women who would do one or all of those things. I also know that many, even most, men would not willingly pick such activities. Your statement is written in a way which suggests that women as a gender are somehow cheating humanity out of something by refusing to do something which most men are expected to do. :smallconfused:

Finally, Alaskan crab fishing isn't something done "for the sake of all our futures." It's a job with some risk that people do to make money. So that we can have crab to eat. :smallannoyed:

I personally have no interest in doing any of the above things. It has nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with my physical aptitude and my personality. And guess what? The vast majority of my male friends are on the same page as I am.

[Serpentine]

In fact, there are women who view it as just that they keep all the social privileges while loosing all things that are not to their advantages.Not to their advantage? You mean things like being able to vote, have your own job and get paid for it, have an opinion that differs from one's menfolk, or act in an "unladylike" manner without being declared insane and locked up? Are these the "advantages" you're talking about? Frankly, I think keeping a few tidbits like being the first off a sinking ship which should have enough lifeboats for everyone anyway is pretty minor in the scheme of things.

I would like to point something out, here: It seems as though the same people who are complaining about women "getting" to get off a ship first (notice that it's not actually the women who have decided that?) are also the ones complaining about women not liking having the door held open for them. So if we like one "social privilege", we're being hypocritical, but if we protest another "social privilege", we're taking gender equality to an unreasonable extreme.

People complaining about women complaining about having the door held open for them, I have a question for you: Are you holding the door open because they have their arms full or you happen to be in front of them or similar, or are you doing it because they're female, and you might not bother if it was a man? If the former, fair enough, that's good manners. If the latter, whether it is reasonable for them to know that or not, the fact of the matter is they were right, and you were perpetuating the vestiges of a prejudiced time. I do expect that for most people here the former was the case, though.

The army does bug me, particularly the different requirements. Presumably the army (etc) has certain basic practical requirements of its troops. Presumably, these basic practical requirements are the same for all soldiers, regardless of bits. So why are they different? Why is it okay for a woman to be 5 foot whatever, but a man has to be taller?
I think I can understand why perhaps it could be better for women to be kept off the front line, for all I don't particularly agree with it. Think back to the second world war, to how many of that generation of young men died. It was enough to contribute to the development of feminism, among other things. Now imagine if half that number were women. Women who couldn't breed because they were in the army. Now imagine how much longer it would've taken for human populations to recover.

[Eldan]

On the army issue: I'm not even complaining about different requirements. I know that it's different in most countries, but here in Switzerland it's like this:

If male, as soon as you turn 18, you get a letter, telling you where to go for your recruitment. you then have the following choices:

A) Serve in the military for a few months, and take repetition courses every few years until you turn 45 (I believe). This includes being forced to have your uniform and assault rifle with you at home. (It's strange: we have very strict gun control laws and it's near impossible to get your hands on a weapon, but every ex-soldier has to have a gun with him.)

B) As A, but complete your service in one year straight, no repetition courses.

c) Civil Service: takes 1.5 years, you do basically the same, but are allowed to serve unarmed and, basically, not in uniform.

D) If your health (mental or physical, many people fake mental illnesses to get away) does not allow it, Civil Protection. This includes pretty high taxes, and repeatedly having to help in hospitals, disaster areas and so on. It's what I do.


Now what annoys me about the system: not only do women not have to serve or pay taxes, after there was some protest regarding the constitution article for equalty of the sexes, women are now allowed to serve in the military voluntarily.


As for holding doors up: I don't know how it is for others, but I rarely see people who don't hold doors open for others, regardless of sex. It's just something you do. I don't really think anything while doing it, and I've never seen anyone protest against it.

[Khanderas]

Now what annoys me about the system: not only do women not have to serve or pay taxes, after there was some protest regarding the constitution article for equalty of the sexes, women are now allowed to serve in the military voluntarily.


That is an extra tax for being a man. Completly crazy IMO. I can somewhat undertand the need for males in the army over females (repopulationwise, bodystrength and morale), although I think that if equal means equal then it should be volontary for both sexes. I find no proper excuse whatsoever for an extra tax due to gender.

[Serpentine]

...women don't pay taxes in Switzerland? o.O

If it makes you feel any better, I hear your military is hardcore.

[Eldan]

No idea how hardcore our military is. At least they pretend they are.

It's not that women don't pay taxes. But I pay a monthly tax for not being in the military, women don't. They pay all other taxes normally, though.

[V'icternus]

Awesome knives, at any rate.

But I digress... (How is it that I can effortlessly put words longer than a short story into English essays and yet I don't know if I spelt that right?)

The core behind this thread seems to be, as mentioned, a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of line of thought. (Lousy analogy. Who came up with that one? I mean, what else would I do with cake?
Oh, and if anyone says that it's a lie, I'll invent something to do with a cake that you'll find rather unpleasant.)

But that seems to be a lot like grouping "women" together as a mass singularity, when, if you'll remember, every single one is different. Some don't actually want equality. Not actively, anyway. Some like to be the pampered lady of yesteryear. Others, well... others don't. Some women would want to get off the boat first on principle of being female, but I'm betting most would rather get off first so that they don't die. And I'm also fairly sure most men and women would willingly accept that children go first, as children are generally cute and without them, there's nobody to boss arounf any more.

[Tiger Duck]

I see this tread is quickly turning into the new "Gender and how society treats you"-tread shouldn't we just resurrect that tread. It has an less silly name for topic as serious as this one.
for easy access. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118344&page=6)

[V'icternus]

Well, while that's true, I at least was trying to stick to the core issue, not the whole gender issue...

Although, that thread does need to be brought back to the top.

[Trog]

On the subject of men holding open doors for women:

Holding open the door for anyone is a nice gesture. The real question is: What motivates this action? Motives vary widely and any particular door opening event can be motivated by any of a number of things. But there are a few broad categories that these can be lumped into. Not all motivations will fit neatly into these categories but most probably will.

REASON 1: You hold the door because you are trying to help the other person.
This is the handful of grocery bags option. You might also do this for an person who obviously has more difficulty getting around than you do such as an injured person, possibly a person with a handicap. possibly an elderly person, or because the door is really, really heavy for whatever reason and you, yourself, had difficulty opening it. Generally speaking this is usually appreciated by the person having the door held for them.

REASON 2: You hold the door because you are trying to be polite.
You were taught this by your family that this was a polite and/or respectful gesture and so you do it whenever possible. You might also be doing it so you can give yourself a pat on the back for being so nice (Internal Seinfeldian Dialogue: "My mom was right, I am a nice person."). Knee-jerk and self-serving reasons go here. This reason is a mixed bag or good intentions and self serving ones though largely the reasons for holding the door open has nothing much to do with the other person.

REASON 3: You hold the door because you want the other person to like you.
For whatever reason you want to impress upon the person that you are holding the door because you are a polite person. This differs from the above reason in that you are specifically looking for a positive reaction from the other person, not just doing so to make yourself feel good or because that's what you were taught. You just want the other person to look upon you favorably. Possibly, if the person is also someone you are attracted to you are trying to, ever so subtly, hit on the other person or at least catch their attention.

REASON 4: You have a job as a doorman.
... ... *ahem* Moving on.

Now, for those ladies that get upset because a man is holding the door for them I offer the lifelong observation that I have never EVER seen a man hold open a door for a woman because he thought she was "too weak to open the door" or because they felt she was somehow inferior to them by virtue of her femininity. I've met guys like that. Guys who think that way usually couldn't give a rat's ass about you and your possible door opening problems.

Given that, you ladies may want to take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to chew out some guy for what is, possibly, your own insecurities on the matter. Not that I begrudge you not liking some toad who is obviously trying hit on you by opening the door. But ignoring the guy will send the appropriate "do not want" signals likely as not. And will do so without sending the wrong signal to other guys around whom you may have actually liked to have open the door for you in an effort to catch your attention. :smallwink:

EDIT: Or they really are stupid in this respect and think that women can't open their own doors. I neglected this as a possibility because, well, generally speaking, I give all people the benefit of the doubt that they are intelligent. Still, I suppose it is a possibility. Though I think that it occurs much less often than the other reasons.

[Castaras]

Leads to annoying things like women punching men and claiming the men can't hit back…

Of course, they do anyway.

Hey, I hit a dude, and I was quite sad at the time that he didn't try to hit me back, hehe.

[V'icternus]

Aww, don't worry, if you ever punch me, I'll knock you out cold, just to make you feel better. ^^

...Wait, that's not right, either...

...

Everyone's the best at everything and everyone is differently the same!

[Mauve Shirt]

I have been going to UMW for 3 years and only a few times have I not had the door held open for me if someone was in front of me. I also hold the door open for those behind me. I theorize this politeness is to make up for the fact that eye contact is forbidden.

[paddyfool]

Heh. Yeah, I've a vague belief that there's an inverse correlation between politeness and friendliness in different societies. In the streets of central London, for instance, eye contact is pretty much out, never mind striking up a conversation with anyone but a lost tourist (whom it's polite to direct on their way so they stop blocking up the pavement ;) ), and a lot of people are pretty cold when you first meet them. On the other hand, everyone's very polite to each other, minds their own business, and stays out of other people's space (insofar as crowding allows). In northern England, or the countryside, however, generally people are warmer and ruder. (Awaits flames).

Back to the main issue:
- The whole "I can hit you because you're a guy" thing: whenever that's happened to me, it's never been any kind of serious hit, just a playful nudge. I can't take it too seriously.
- Hitting girls in general: out of order. Primarily because hitting people in general is out of order, except in self-defence, and then only so far as is absolutely necessary. Secondarily to that, however, there are also additional risks. For instance, the "girl" may be pregnant, and there'd be a risk of miscarriage from what would be a relatively safe body-hit on a guy. Then, as stated before, there's the general size difference to consider.
- Opening doors: of no real importance.
- Going to the boats: I'm pretty sure they don't do "women first" any more, since that just tends to hold everybody up.
- Bias in the polices' interpretation of a violent situation: They'll tend to pick the woman's side if there's been a fight. So will pretty much anyone else, because statistically, men do tend to be more prone to violence.

[Yora]

If I had to manage an emergency evacuation, I would first evacuate the people who are the least able to help. If you put all the strong men into the boats first, who will help the others to get out?
In past generations, it was almost universally correct, that almost all women would require more assistance than they could provide, so it made perfect sense to save them first.
But today we know this is true only often, but not always. So we should still see who needs the most help and who can help the most, regardless of gender.
Easy. ^^

But it is a real problem that men are just a lot less likely to be believed when they get attacked by violent women. But I think that is mostly a transitory problem, as we are all learning that the traditional assumptions about relations between people of same or different gender apply less much often than they did in past generations.

[pendell]

If you want to be gentlemanly, but still within the modern morals, let another, any other, go first. Ironically, woman, with their higher amounts of subcutaneous fat, actually do better in cold water then men.

My understanding is that the mean survival time in the North Atlantic (for example) once in the water is approximately four minutes. At least in some months at some latitudes. Ability to float or swim is irrelevant. If you go into water unprotected, you will die.

Heh ... how about this. Anyone ever seen how they deal with male animals on farms? Males are surplus. You don't actually need all that many. I suspect that fundamental bedrock fact is why we encourage males to take so many risky activities to get them killed. The survivors will produce good genes. Those who didn't survive ... well, as I said, you don't really need all that many.

Cynically,

Brian P.

[Pika...]

Heh ... how about this. Anyone ever seen how they deal with male animals on farms? Males are surplus. You don't actually need all that many. I suspect that fundamental bedrock fact is why we encourage males to take so many risky activities to get them killed. The survivors will produce good genes. Those who didn't survive ... well, as I said, you don't really need all that many.

Cynically,

Brian P.

I always wondered about that.

But isn't their meat just as good?

[Catch]

I always wondered about that.

But isn't their meat just as good?

Yes.

Veal, for example, comes exclusively from male calves. So does lamb and often beef. The reason is basic mammal biology in that a large population of females can be fertilized by proportionally small population of males. This is especially true among dairy cattle, as one steer can impregnate a dozen or more heifers, so having ten is redundant and costly, as the steers still have to be fed, yet don't produce anything valuable. In nature, females generally outnumber males simply because it's a biologically superior proportion.

Socially, this manifests in human nature as a strong pressure to protect women, which is present in essentially every law code created by man. Unfortunately, dominion is often seen as a way to ensure the safety and continued reproduction of women, which is where sexism originates and the distinction between preservation and domination is the discrepancy.

[Coidzor]

^: Yup, it's the whole idea that something is easier to protect if you're reasonably sure it'll stay where it's put.

Typically male (once adulthood is reached anyway, or possibly it was after living for a bit) meat is a bit tougher due to the greater mass and use of certain ones what with the competition and greater physical strength, if I recall.

The whole deer thing is a bit silly, since they need to be culled anyway..

[averagejoe]

I open doors for people.

This is largely motivated by me wanting to meet a girl who gets angry at men for holding doors open for ladies.

This has so far been a failure. Though I have been complimented on my behavior on several occasions. :smallmad: :smallsigh:

It's only because of threads like this that I maintain my faith that such girls exist, and that I hold out hope of meeting one.

[Knaight]

As for a real reason, it's the gentleman thing to do. Yeah it sucks for us dudes, but throughout pretty much all of history, the male sex has gotten the better deal.

Funny thing is, none of us were actually there through pretty much all of history. Why should people today have to pay for people a long time ago who happen to bear certain similarities. Which may be trivial. You can extend this logic to race, religion, any number of things. Or we can acknowledge that we are living in the present and are different people than lived in the past, and that there is a moral issue with punishing someone for something someone else did.

[THAC0]

I really suggest that some people in this thread read that other thread.

Some of the things I'm seeing here are just incredible. And not in a good way. :smallconfused:

[Weiser_Cain]

I really suggest that some people in this thread read that other thread.

Some of the things I'm seeing here are just incredible. And not in a good way. :smallconfused:
what other thread?

[THAC0]

what other thread?

Because I don't feel like linking it again, check out the last post on page three of this thread.

[Tiger Duck]

I see this tread is quickly turning into the new "Gender and how society treats you"-tread shouldn't we just resurrect that tread. It has an less silly name for topic as serious as this one.
for easy access. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118344&page=6)

this link:smallwink:

[THAC0]

this link:smallwink:

Well done, sir!

[Grey Paladin]

How chauvinistic! just because she's a woman doesn't means she can't post that link by herself! shame on you!

[Tiger Duck]

Sure she can, but she clearly said she didn't want to. And I toughed it would be handy for the most lazy under us.

[Setra]

I actually have been chewed out for holding a door open for a women, exactly once.

After being chewed out the only response I could think of was "You're a woman?"... I think she was about to slap me before walking off..

[The Extinguisher]

Funny thing is, none of us were actually there through pretty much all of history. Why should people today have to pay for people a long time ago who happen to bear certain similarities. Which may be trivial. You can extend this logic to race, religion, any number of things. Or we can acknowledge that we are living in the present and are different people than lived in the past, and that there is a moral issue with punishing someone for something someone else did.

Sir, you have won yourself one internet. Redeemable at participating fora.

[Trog]

Yes.

Veal, for example, comes exclusively from male calves. So does lamb and often beef. The reason is basic mammal biology in that a large population of females can be fertilized by proportionally small population of males. This is especially true among dairy cattle, as one steer can impregnate a dozen or more heifers, so having ten is redundant and costly, as the steers still have to be fed, yet don't produce anything valuable. In nature, females generally outnumber males simply because it's a biologically superior proportion.

Socially, this manifests in human nature as a strong pressure to protect women, which is present in essentially every law code created by man. Unfortunately, dominion is often seen as a way to ensure the safety and continued reproduction of women, which is where sexism originates and the distinction between preservation and domination is the discrepancy.
For whatever reason this post fascinates me. Especially since it really begins to explain so much human behavior on a very root level. :smalleek:

I actually have been chewed out for holding a door open for a women, exactly once.

After being chewed out the only response I could think of was "You're a woman?"... I think she was about to slap me before walking off..
Best. Response. EVER. :smallbiggrin:

[Catch]

For whatever reason this post fascinates me. Especially since it really begins to explain so much human behavior on a very root level. :smalleek:

We're just apes that learned to talk and use tools. Animals have emotions and societies too, they're just far simpler.

[snoopy13a]

Yes.

This is especially true among dairy cattle, as one steer can impregnate a dozen or more heifers, so having ten is redundant and costly, as the steers still have to be fed, yet don't produce anything valuable. In nature, females generally outnumber males simply because it's a biologically superior proportion.



Steers don't impregnate anything. They are geldings and are found among beef cattle as they are much safer to raise for beef than bulls. Dairy farmers rarely keep bulls anymore. Instead they order semen from a company that keeps high quality bulls and the cows are artificially insemenated.

[Aotrs Commander]

As far as the sinking ship protocol goes, you're all wrong. The correct prescident is "Liches first." And last, actually, on account of everyone else having to stay on the ship. Also, because the Lich is liable to be the root cause of the ship sinking in the first place...

I always say I am all for equality. That means I treat everyone equally. Whether you like it or not. And also, "equal" is not synonymous with "nice." If I choose to hit someone (and by "hit" I mean "apply excessively lethal force via magic, explosives or the heavy end of my rocket launcher"), I will do so regardless of gender, species, age or any other concerns. (Unless it's Vampires or Shi'Ar, of course, in which case I will hit them so very much harder.)

As far as door-opening goes, it is generally polite practise in the UK that if another unspecified entity is closely approaching a portal for entry or egress that you yourself are utilising, it is good form to hold said portal for said entity, regardless of age, physical status or whether it is a man, a woman or a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

(With the exception of myself, of course, who will likely repeatedly slam the door into your face until your skull cracks, because I'm Evil.)



All this discrimanatory nonsense humans come up with based on genetics, personal preferences, geographic regions...It all seems so laughably pathetic to me, trying desparately to define a difference when there is none. All this fuss about nothing of consequence. As I so often like to quote Tolkien in these cases: "sheep, perhaps, do not look alike to other sheep..."

[Alteran]

I actually have been chewed out for holding a door open for a women, exactly once.

After being chewed out the only response I could think of was "You're a woman?"... I think she was about to slap me before walking off..

I almost choked on my drink when I read that. That is possibly the best (if also most inflammatory) response you could give. If given a chance I might like to use it, but I honestly don't think I could I could keep a straight face.

[Syka]

I have one friend I always used to go off on for holding the door for me. I have also scowled at a stranger for holding the door for me.

It wasn't the door holding. When my friend did it, he would run, as in RUN, to get the door, which is frankly embarassing and insulting. With the stranger, I had reached the door first and was holding it for him (which is what I always do if someone is entering soon after me), but he REFUSED to go in until he took the door for me and I went in first. Also embarassing and insulting. Basically, both were doing it purely because I was a woman and not out of the kindness of their hearts.

Everything else I agree on- force used needs to be proportional to the one doing the force and the one recieving the force and the amount of force necessary to end the undesirable behavior (in regards to sexist punching), and ships? Every human for him/herself.

[Aotrs Commander]

Every human for him/herself.

I'd like to say I'm surprised at this typically human xenocentric statement, but I'd be lying if I did. Tsk.

Though, to be honest, so long as the free-for-all comes after the Lich (i.e. ME) has already left, I don't really care too much.

[Dracomorph]

Funny thing is, none of us were actually there through pretty much all of history. Why should people today have to pay for people a long time ago who happen to bear certain similarities. Which may be trivial. You can extend this logic to race, religion, any number of things. Or we can acknowledge that we are living in the present and are different people than lived in the past, and that there is a moral issue with punishing someone for something someone else did.

...Yeah, okay. You're right. I shouldn't be judged by what happened in my grandparent's day.

And I'm not. But being male, I still, right now, have some concrete advantages over a woman in my own situation. And I am sometimes judged on that basis, which I consider fairly reasonable.

It is not fair to say that I do anything in my life for the purpose of keeping anyone down. It is fair to say that such is sometimes a side effect of the way the world around me works.

EDIT^: Is the Army of the Red Spear still recruiting? I'm sure I've got that spellbook on lichdom rituals around here somewhere...

[Aotrs Commander]

EDIT^: Is the Army of the Red Spear still recruiting? I'm sure I've got that spellbook on lichdom rituals around here somewhere...

Well, we are part of that growth industry...

[PhallicWarrior]

I have one friend I always used to go off on for holding the door for me. I have also scowled at a stranger for holding the door for me.

It wasn't the door holding. When my friend did it, he would run, as in RUN, to get the door, which is frankly embarassing and insulting. With the stranger, I had reached the door first and was holding it for him (which is what I always do if someone is entering soon after me), but he REFUSED to go in until he took the door for me and I went in first. Also embarassing and insulting. Basically, both were doing it purely because I was a woman and not out of the kindness of their hearts.

Everything else I agree on- force used needs to be proportional to the one doing the force and the one recieving the force and the amount of force necessary to end the undesirable behavior (in regards to sexist punching), and ships? Every human for him/herself.

Oops. That might have been me. Or at least, someone very like me. (What can I say? My dad was very "traditional" when it came to teaching me about gender roles. If you attacked me, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do anything more violent than try to not get punched in the face. Even if you pulled a weapon on me, I'd probably just try to disarm you. I can't help it. It's been seared into my neurons so hard it just won't come out.)

[Knaight]

...Yeah, okay. You're right. I shouldn't be judged by what happened in my grandparent's day.

And I'm not. But being male, I still, right now, have some concrete advantages over a woman in my own situation. And I am sometimes judged on that basis, which I consider fairly reasonable.

That is fully reasonable. For instance, I am white. I shouldn't have to pay up for that whole slavery thing. However there still are financial differences today, which is relevant in some legislation, which is perfectly fair. Of course there are a lot of arguments in that, so I'm just going to duck out now.

To use a hypothetical. Lets say country A takes part of country B and creates country C. Enough generations pass so that pretty much everybody in countries B and C were born there, and the people from A and C who took over B in the first place are pretty much all dead. Its a little late for country B to ask country C to leave.

This has happened hundreds of times through history, more or less sums up large amounts of European history (the rest being country A took country B, generations passed, country B is looking for revenge on country A, despite the people involved being completely different.), and sadly continues to this day.

[Vmag]

See, the problem with that is that it's... how to put it... It's not that the door openers are being chauvinistic or patronizing, but rather respectful. Why? Cause of womanhood?

You might call it sexist, but showing a bit of respect to a gal cause she's a woman isn't exactly the worst thing you can do to a gal. It's kind of like opening the door for an older gent - are you saying he's crippled in his old age and can't open the door without breaking his wrist? Of course not, it's cause you're showing your respects.

I'd hate to not seem politically correct, and I'm sure that tolerance elsewhere would surely make up for it, but getting upset at a sign of respect like this is just a sign of being a little rebel against social norms.

There really isn't no other reason to not enjoy a little respect now and then.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Slavery, legislation, government, politics, etc. Real world politics are not permitted on this forum.