FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Gentlemen
Gentlemen
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"No I'm not calling all gentlemen... I wish to speak about the concept of what gentlemen are. I've noticed that most women I have interacted with along the years had a specific view regarding gentlemen, and strangely enough it always relates back to women... " I would like to meet a gentleman, a man that treats a woman like this, that makes a woman feel like that". My understanding of a gentleman is based on their actions and behaviour in society and the way they treat all people around them...which is with respect. They also have self respect, therefore they are not afraid of confrontations when someone is offensive towards them or treats them with disrespect or does something that goes against their values or morals. Now don't misunderstand what I am trying to say...I'm not saying women shouldn't want a gentleman, a man that treats them with respect, a man that makes them feel appreciated... what I'm saying is that a gentleman's purpose in society is not to make women feel in a specific way, or to validate women's wants and needs. I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. " Deep thinking OP and you raise valid points A gentleman for me epitomises equality, he treats me with respect and as an equal I always think that the attributes and characteristics of a person regardless of gender can be measured against how they treat their children and pets...the vulnerable amongst us. | |||
 | |||
"No I'm not calling all gentlemen... I wish to speak about the concept of what gentlemen are. I've noticed that most women I have interacted with along the years had a specific view regarding gentlemen, and strangely enough it always relates back to women... " I would like to meet a gentleman, a man that treats a woman like this, that makes a woman feel like that". My understanding of a gentleman is based on their actions and behaviour in society and the way they treat all people around them...which is with respect. They also have self respect, therefore they are not afraid of confrontations when someone is offensive towards them or treats them with disrespect or does something that goes against their values or morals. Now don't misunderstand what I am trying to say...I'm not saying women shouldn't want a gentleman, a man that treats them with respect, a man that makes them feel appreciated... what I'm saying is that a gentleman's purpose in society is not to make women feel in a specific way, or to validate women's wants and needs. I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. " Spot on. | |||
| |||
"I think the mark of a true gentleman is respect for all regardless of gender, age, persuasion, political views, ideals, holding a door open does not make me a gentleman it makes me respectful of others, I might not agree with what you say but I will listen and defend your right to have an opinion even if I don't agree with it" Isn't that the mark of a decent human (gender irrelevant)? I tend to think that nowadays, there should be no distinction between the genders in behavioural expectations. We should all behave in the way described above. I'm personally not interested in doors being held open or physical or metaphorical capes being placed over puddles. I just want to be treated in a civilised manner, by civilised people. Today, on the plane home, I was treated in a most uncivilised way by a man in perhaps his 70s. I'm sure he would consider himself a gentleman if asked, probably by virtue of his age, but if he thinks that anyone younger than him should automatically defer to him and his demands, then he is categorically wrong. It did please me somewhat to see his eyes widen when he saw me leave passport control in my wheelchair though. His transgression? To refuse to allow me to hobble past him in the aisle of the plane. I had been ambu-lifted up to the plane and my wheelchair removed. They'd put me on at the front but our designated seats were at the back so I had to drag my arse on crutches past AAAAAAALLLLL the people already on board. Mr In-His-70s had managed to ascend the stairs but had a walking stick. He not only refused to let me hobble past him but expected me to reverse to allow him to his seat first. Unfortunately I am unable to stand and manoeuvre in a confined space due to my nerve injury and so I politely pointed out that I could not stand for much longer and could I please pass? He did move eventually but only after making quite a scene, which other passengers could be heard discussing loudly after I'd sat down (and nearly fallen over twice). Interestingly, it was ME, the wheelchair user, who came off badly in people's estimation, it would seem, because I didn't let an "elderly man with a walking stick" pass me. None of the other passengers could see I'd boarded via an ambu-lift and using a wheelchair so presumably they assumed my crutches were due to some sort of temporary injury or perhaps related to the fact I'm fat? Who knows? Anyway, I pretty well wanted to cry by the time I'd hauled myself to the seat and still feel pretty shitty, to be honest. I have probably digressed but this was an interaction with a man of an age where apparently all men were/are gents, it's the "yoof" who are all ignorant little so-and-so's etc. My experience as a disabled woman is that young people are, for the most part, no problem (no distinction by gender). Older people (especially men) are more likely to cause issues. I have no idea why that is, but that's my experience. Let's all just be nice people, irrespective of gender, age or any other "label", eh?! | |||
"I think the mark of a true gentleman is respect for all regardless of gender, age, persuasion, political views, ideals, holding a door open does not make me a gentleman it makes me respectful of others, I might not agree with what you say but I will listen and defend your right to have an opinion even if I don't agree with it Isn't that the mark of a decent human (gender irrelevant)? I tend to think that nowadays, there should be no distinction between the genders in behavioural expectations. We should all behave in the way described above. I'm personally not interested in doors being held open or physical or metaphorical capes being placed over puddles. I just want to be treated in a civilised manner, by civilised people. Today, on the plane home, I was treated in a most uncivilised way by a man in perhaps his 70s. I'm sure he would consider himself a gentleman if asked, probably by virtue of his age, but if he thinks that anyone younger than him should automatically defer to him and his demands, then he is categorically wrong. It did please me somewhat to see his eyes widen when he saw me leave passport control in my wheelchair though. His transgression? To refuse to allow me to hobble past him in the aisle of the plane. I had been ambu-lifted up to the plane and my wheelchair removed. They'd put me on at the front but our designated seats were at the back so I had to drag my arse on crutches past AAAAAAALLLLL the people already on board. Mr In-His-70s had managed to ascend the stairs but had a walking stick. He not only refused to let me hobble past him but expected me to reverse to allow him to his seat first. Unfortunately I am unable to stand and manoeuvre in a confined space due to my nerve injury and so I politely pointed out that I could not stand for much longer and could I please pass? He did move eventually but only after making quite a scene, which other passengers could be heard discussing loudly after I'd sat down (and nearly fallen over twice). Interestingly, it was ME, the wheelchair user, who came off badly in people's estimation, it would seem, because I didn't let an "elderly man with a walking stick" pass me. None of the other passengers could see I'd boarded via an ambu-lift and using a wheelchair so presumably they assumed my crutches were due to some sort of temporary injury or perhaps related to the fact I'm fat? Who knows? Anyway, I pretty well wanted to cry by the time I'd hauled myself to the seat and still feel pretty shitty, to be honest. I have probably digressed but this was an interaction with a man of an age where apparently all men were/are gents, it's the "yoof" who are all ignorant little so-and-so's etc. My experience as a disabled woman is that young people are, for the most part, no problem (no distinction by gender). Older people (especially men) are more likely to cause issues. I have no idea why that is, but that's my experience. Let's all just be nice people, irrespective of gender, age or any other "label", eh?! " That's bloody awful to read, how upsetting and humiliating for you. Manners, empathy and common bloody decency cost nothing....so sorry that happened to you, people can be so ignorant I have a heart condition and I see the judgemental looks when I visit cardiology, or people wondering about the lethargy...Like christ, I never asked for this  | |||
 | |||
"No I'm not calling all gentlemen... I wish to speak about the concept of what gentlemen are. I've noticed that most women I have interacted with along the years had a specific view regarding gentlemen, and strangely enough it always relates back to women... " I would like to meet a gentleman, a man that treats a woman like this, that makes a woman feel like that". My understanding of a gentleman is based on their actions and behaviour in society and the way they treat all people around them...which is with respect. They also have self respect, therefore they are not afraid of confrontations when someone is offensive towards them or treats them with disrespect or does something that goes against their values or morals. Now don't misunderstand what I am trying to say...I'm not saying women shouldn't want a gentleman, a man that treats them with respect, a man that makes them feel appreciated... what I'm saying is that a gentleman's purpose in society is not to make women feel in a specific way, or to validate women's wants and needs. I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. " If I open a door for a man or a woman does that make me a gentleman ? Boobs  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"So a feminist? "I mean, sure why not , a gentleman can be a feminist as well. They are not the same thing though...feminist is someone who fights for equality on a sociopolitical platform...being a gentleman simply relates to the behaviour of someone who identifies as male, in society. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" I've always had the view it's not opening doors and metaphorical capes over puddles, chivalry n all that stuff. That's trivial. A gentleman does what is right, at the right time- and knows what that is. It is a moral compass, not acts or behaviours. Wise in peace fierce in war, and knows which he is in at any given moment. " Yes this ^^^^^ you have put into words what I was thinking | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Be a gentleman but not a doormat. " Yes this exactly | |||
"I think it's a bit if an outdated concept really, harking back to days when values and social norms were far more male oriented. We can all be "gentlmen" no matter what sex we are. Gentlefolk, if you like. It's about being a decent, honest, kind, considerate human being, something we should all strive for "This in spades
Doesn’t need a label - just don’t be a dick | |||
"No I'm not calling all gentlemen... I wish to speak about the concept of what gentlemen are. I've noticed that most women I have interacted with along the years had a specific view regarding gentlemen, and strangely enough it always relates back to women... " I would like to meet a gentleman, a man that treats a woman like this, that makes a woman feel like that". My understanding of a gentleman is based on their actions and behaviour in society and the way they treat all people around them...which is with respect. They also have self respect, therefore they are not afraid of confrontations when someone is offensive towards them or treats them with disrespect or does something that goes against their values or morals. Now don't misunderstand what I am trying to say...I'm not saying women shouldn't want a gentleman, a man that treats them with respect, a man that makes them feel appreciated... what I'm saying is that a gentleman's purpose in society is not to make women feel in a specific way, or to validate women's wants and needs. I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. " I believe in being a gentleman to all people, not just women | |||
"I think it's a bit if an outdated concept really, harking back to days when values and social norms were far more male oriented. We can all be "gentlmen" no matter what sex we are. Gentlefolk, if you like. It's about being a decent, honest, kind, considerate human being, something we should all strive for "^^^This, all day long | |||
"I think it's a bit if an outdated concept really, harking back to days when values and social norms were far more male oriented. We can all be "gentlmen" no matter what sex we are. Gentlefolk, if you like. It's about being a decent, honest, kind, considerate human being, something we should all strive for "Ah you’re such a lovely human this in a nutshell!! | |||
"I think it's a bit if an outdated concept really, harking back to days when values and social norms were far more male oriented. We can all be "gentlmen" no matter what sex we are. Gentlefolk, if you like. It's about being a decent, honest, kind, considerate human being, something we should all strive for "Nailed it..
| |||
"IMHO the hardest thing to be in 2022 is a straight cisgender white male. You boys just can't do anything right it seems - you're the last "acceptable" target for pointless outrage. So asking guys to be something exemplary seems a big ask on top. I've always had the view it's not opening doors and metaphorical capes over puddles, chivalry n all that stuff. That's trivial. A gentleman does what is right, at the right time- and knows what that is. It is a moral compass, not acts or behaviours. Wise in peace fierce in war, and knows which he is in at any given moment. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. " No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. | |||
"How does a man behave? What sets him apart as a man? Does OP view men and gentlemen differently? Is the latter still something from a former era, including some privilege, not available to all? " All gentlemen are men, not all men are gentlemen. | |||
"How does a man behave? What sets him apart as a man? Does OP view men and gentlemen differently? Is the latter still something from a former era, including some privilege, not available to all? All gentlemen are men, not all men are gentlemen." Precisely...I believe my entry makes that clear | |||
"How does a man behave? What sets him apart as a man? Does OP view men and gentlemen differently? Is the latter still something from a former era, including some privilege, not available to all? All gentlemen are men, not all men are gentlemen. Precisely...I believe my entry makes that clear " It does indeed. | |||
| |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. " OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to... | |||
| |||
| |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman." That is controversial for sure - for me nobody has the right to hit anybody, regardless of their gender, age, status etc. Anybody who considers hitting another person could not be amongst my friends. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. That is controversial for sure - for me nobody has the right to hit anybody, regardless of their gender, age, status etc. Anybody who considers hitting another person could not be amongst my friends." Absolutely never. No justification whatsoever | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. That is controversial for sure - for me nobody has the right to hit anybody, regardless of their gender, age, status etc. Anybody who considers hitting another person could not be amongst my friends. Absolutely never. No justification whatsoever "A woman is holding a knife to your child’s throat. One punch from you saves your child. No justification? | |||
| |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman." Interested in when it would be justified? | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman." It's never justified and no decent human being would ever think that physical abuse could ever be | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Interested in when it would be justified? " I think he answered you above with a wild fantasy scenario. I am out! These sort of weird discussion not for me. | |||
"Manners and respect. Simple." So agree. And manners can be seen as sexiest sometimes. I'll always open a door for anyone, help people move things. Isn't it just being nice? | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. It's never justified and no decent human being would ever think that physical abuse could ever be" You were all for a female child killer getting battered senseless in prison | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Interested in when it would be justified? " Exactly in the situation that pondjamespond says in a couple of posts above, or very similar. A true gentleman will always protect the vulnerable, no matter how distasteful it may be to them. There are, fortunately, very few occasions when it may be necessary to strike another person, but the defence of those who can't defend themselves, such as a child, is one of them. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman." Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? | |||
"Manners and respect. Simple. So agree. And manners can be seen as sexiest sometimes. I'll always open a door for anyone, help people move things. Isn't it just being nice? " As Steve Marriot said, "its nice to be nice" | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Interested in when it would be justified? Exactly in the situation that pondjamespond says in a couple of posts above, or very similar. A true gentleman will always protect the vulnerable, no matter how distasteful it may be to them. There are, fortunately, very few occasions when it may be necessary to strike another person, but the defence of those who can't defend themselves, such as a child, is one of them." Thankyou for clarifying your answer | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. It's never justified and no decent human being would ever think that physical abuse could ever be You were all for a female child killer getting battered senseless in prison " That makes me a terrible human then doesn't it, though I feel kind of flattered you take so much notice of what I post
| |||
| |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ?" No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? " 2 wrongs do not make a right mate. She's in prison where she belongs and hopefully lessons will be learned to stop this happening to other children. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. It's never justified and no decent human being would ever think that physical abuse could ever be You were all for a female child killer getting battered senseless in prison " And I never said I would be the one to dish out the battering, what happens between the reprobates inside the 4 walls of that facility then crack ok... That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what it means to be a gentleman in a civilised society. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? 2 wrongs do not make a right mate. She's in prison where she belongs and hopefully lessons will be learned to stop this happening to other children." Do you consider striking a woman to prevent her from killing a child "a wrong"? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. " A decent human being then, I agree with you
Serious question, what is the equivalent word for the female version of someone like this? | |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. " Being nice is gender neutral, being a gentleman is male, which this thread is about. Your post about an elderly man who would not let you pass on the plane is a male who didn't show gentlemanly traits, had he done so you would have had a much more pleasant experience. We should celebrate and encourage what is good in our society and being a gentleman is in my eyes a strength and gentlemen are role models for males to aspire to. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? 2 wrongs do not make a right mate. She's in prison where she belongs and hopefully lessons will be learned to stop this happening to other children. Do you consider striking a woman to prevent her from killing a child "a wrong"?" Yes if she was anything to do with me straight down the police station and out of my life. I've never hit a woman and I never would mate. | |||
| |||
"I think as men we should strive to be gentlemen, but we also need to understand what it means to be one... a gentlemen will open the door for a woman, but if a man opens the door only for women, he is not really a gentleman. A decent human being then, I agree with you
Serious question, what is the equivalent word for the female version of someone like this?"Lovely | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Interested in when it would be justified? Exactly in the situation that pondjamespond says in a couple of posts above, or very similar. A true gentleman will always protect the vulnerable, no matter how distasteful it may be to them. There are, fortunately, very few occasions when it may be necessary to strike another person, but the defence of those who can't defend themselves, such as a child, is one of them." As lamp post pissing goes, this is possibly in the top three.. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? 2 wrongs do not make a right mate. She's in prison where she belongs and hopefully lessons will be learned to stop this happening to other children. Do you consider striking a woman to prevent her from killing a child "a wrong"? Yes if she was anything to do with me straight down the police station and out of my life. I've never hit a woman and I never would mate." I don't understand your reasoning. What difference does it make if she was "anything to do with you"? Would you ask her politely to stop killing the child or would you use physical force if she didn't comply with your request to stop? At what stage would you step in to defend a child from harm? Sometimes in life, instant, difficult decisions need to be made and carried out immediately. | |||
"Serious question, what is the equivalent word for the female version of someone like this? Lovely "Thank you | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? " To prevent a henious crime such as that it can be justified. Your original post, to me, suggested otherwise. | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Interested in when it would be justified? Exactly in the situation that pondjamespond says in a couple of posts above, or very similar. A true gentleman will always protect the vulnerable, no matter how distasteful it may be to them. There are, fortunately, very few occasions when it may be necessary to strike another person, but the defence of those who can't defend themselves, such as a child, is one of them. As lamp post pissing goes, this is possibly in the top three.. " Please explain. | |||
| |||
"Serious question, what is the equivalent word for the female version of someone like this? Lovely
Thank you "Can I have 1 of your coffee/tea cups for Christmas next year please? | |||
"At risk of being controversial, I would say that one of the defining qualities of being a gentleman is knowing when it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman. Really ? Im at a loss. Are you from 1866 ? No, but I live in the 21st century where some horrendous child cruelty has been inflicted on children by their mothers. Have you read about the recent killing of poor little Arthur Labinjo-Hughes? Are you honestly saying that you would not consider immediate physical action against his step-mother as she was stomping on her child's head? To prevent a henious crime such as that it can be justified. Your original post, to me, suggested otherwise. " Which is precisely why I phrased it like that, to draw out the "I'd never hit a woman" crowd who falsely profess that a gentleman would never hit a woman. What I am saying. essentially, is that I would use physical force to deter a potential murderer to prevent a murder, no matter what sex they are. To do otherwise would be cowardice and most definitely "ungentlemanly". | |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to..." The origin of the word "gentleman" is to describe a man of certain social standing, owning land but not being part of the nobility. Sort of middle levels of landed gentry, entitled to use a coat of arms but not a full noble. Men of that sort of social standing were expected to behave and conduct themselves in a way befitting the status they held. Similarly, women of an equivalent social level were subject to certain behavioural and societal expectations (gentlewomen) and of course, gentleman married gentlewomen. To me, all that sort of thing is horribly outdated. I certainly do not behave in the manner expected of a gentlewoman and my husband does not behave in the way expected of a traditional gentleman - for a start, he doesn't expect me to be seen and not heard, nor does he expect to provide financially for me while I pop out an heir (male) and a spare. All the connotations of "gentleman" relates in significant parts to behaviour towards women, which I personally find to be extremely old fashioned. Referring back to the scenario I experienced yesterday on the plane with the older chap, I'd have had the same behavioural expectation of a female or person whose gender I could not identify, as I did of the man. My expectations of behaviour are the same among all people - I don't hold men, women etc to different behavioural expectations. | |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to... The origin of the word "gentleman" is to describe a man of certain social standing, owning land but not being part of the nobility. Sort of middle levels of landed gentry, entitled to use a coat of arms but not a full noble. Men of that sort of social standing were expected to behave and conduct themselves in a way befitting the status they held. Similarly, women of an equivalent social level were subject to certain behavioural and societal expectations (gentlewomen) and of course, gentleman married gentlewomen. To me, all that sort of thing is horribly outdated. I certainly do not behave in the manner expected of a gentlewoman and my husband does not behave in the way expected of a traditional gentleman - for a start, he doesn't expect me to be seen and not heard, nor does he expect to provide financially for me while I pop out an heir (male) and a spare. All the connotations of "gentleman" relates in significant parts to behaviour towards women, which I personally find to be extremely old fashioned. Referring back to the scenario I experienced yesterday on the plane with the older chap, I'd have had the same behavioural expectation of a female or person whose gender I could not identify, as I did of the man. My expectations of behaviour are the same among all people - I don't hold men, women etc to different behavioural expectations." I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. | |||
"Thank you
Can I have 1 of your coffee/tea cups for Christmas next year please? "You can have one if you make it the next STP | |||
| |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to... The origin of the word "gentleman" is to describe a man of certain social standing, owning land but not being part of the nobility. Sort of middle levels of landed gentry, entitled to use a coat of arms but not a full noble. Men of that sort of social standing were expected to behave and conduct themselves in a way befitting the status they held. Similarly, women of an equivalent social level were subject to certain behavioural and societal expectations (gentlewomen) and of course, gentleman married gentlewomen. To me, all that sort of thing is horribly outdated. I certainly do not behave in the manner expected of a gentlewoman and my husband does not behave in the way expected of a traditional gentleman - for a start, he doesn't expect me to be seen and not heard, nor does he expect to provide financially for me while I pop out an heir (male) and a spare. All the connotations of "gentleman" relates in significant parts to behaviour towards women, which I personally find to be extremely old fashioned. Referring back to the scenario I experienced yesterday on the plane with the older chap, I'd have had the same behavioural expectation of a female or person whose gender I could not identify, as I did of the man. My expectations of behaviour are the same among all people - I don't hold men, women etc to different behavioural expectations." With all due respect, that's not what the definition of the word "gentleman " is...you are just cherry picking things that happened in the past, and because respectfully all men were addressed as gentlemen during those times, you can now associate everything that men were expected to be back then with the word "gentleman"... however the definition itself is " a chivalrous, respectful, educated or honourable man". If you think the word shouldn't bare any meaning or exist, don't use it...ignore it. Also I don't know why you keep associating what happened to you with the old man, with the discussion about gentlemen, I am sorry that happened to you...but clearly he didn't show respect or manners and no one today or in the past would have considered him a gentleman. | |||
| |||
"I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. " I hold doors open and I'm sat in a wheelchair. I get very funny looks
A curious thing for me personally and others trying to help by opening doors - often, people do not realise it can actually be easier for me to do it myself. The reason for this is that people under estimate the space required to manoeuvre the chair and they often make the space smaller by standing in the doorway or the space just beyond the door. Also, people often expect me to duck under their arm pits or get very close to their body in narrower doorways. I don't want to roll under armpits or brush against the groin of the person standing in the doorway (because I'm at groin height). I also don't want people to feel like pushing me through the door, so prefer strangers to go through first. I've had very bad experiences of people thinking they're helping by trying to push me, including nearly tipping me out or shoving me in areas of my back and causing significant pain.
So, I would very much prefer to open the door myself, which I am perfectly capable of doing from the chair. I have good reasons but cannot convey these reasons with a simple "no, thanks" or "please go ahead of me." I am never rude, perhaps save to the man who came up behind me, where I couldn't see and who essentially punched me in the spine by trying to push a chair by shoving in the soft upholstery bit. I screamed  | |||
| |||
"There isn't one definition. Be a pointless debate if there was." OK...nothing has a clear definition nowadays  ...let's burn all dictionaries  | |||
| |||
"With all due respect, that's not what the definition of the word "gentleman " is...you are just cherry picking things that happened in the past, and because respectfully all men were addressed as gentlemen during those times, you can now associate everything that men were expected to be back then with the word "gentleman"... however the definition itself is " a chivalrous, respectful, educated or honourable man". If you think the word shouldn't bare any meaning or exist, don't use it...ignore it. Also I don't know why you keep associating what happened to you with the old man, with the discussion about gentlemen, I am sorry that happened to you...but clearly he didn't show respect or manners and no one today or in the past would have considered him a gentleman. " No, all men were not addressed as gentlemen in the past. The original meaning is to address an individual who occupied a specific societal niche - a gentleman was below an esquire but above a yeoman in the classification of gentry. All the traditional behavioural expectations stem from the expectations of men of such societal standing and had (have) equivalencies in the concept of a gentlewoman. A gentlewoman's place was to run a home (mainly by employing servants), provide heirs and do embroidery, sewing and perhaps a bit of charitable work. I'm not making it up, that's where the term gentleman originates. | |||
| |||
"There isn't one definition. Be a pointless debate if there was." I feel the debate took a turn to not be about gentlemen or what makes a gentleman, but more on how to neutralise a gender specific term. | |||
"I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. I hold doors open and I'm sat in a wheelchair. I get very funny looks
A curious thing for me personally and others trying to help by opening doors - often, people do not realise it can actually be easier for me to do it myself. The reason for this is that people under estimate the space required to manoeuvre the chair and they often make the space smaller by standing in the doorway or the space just beyond the door. Also, people often expect me to duck under their arm pits or get very close to their body in narrower doorways. I don't want to roll under armpits or brush against the groin of the person standing in the doorway (because I'm at groin height). I also don't want people to feel like pushing me through the door, so prefer strangers to go through first. I've had very bad experiences of people thinking they're helping by trying to push me, including nearly tipping me out or shoving me in areas of my back and causing significant pain.
So, I would very much prefer to open the door myself, which I am perfectly capable of doing from the chair. I have good reasons but cannot convey these reasons with a simple "no, thanks" or "please go ahead of me." I am never rude, perhaps save to the man who came up behind me, where I couldn't see and who essentially punched me in the spine by trying to push a chair by shoving in the soft upholstery bit. I screamed "Yes but the circumstances you speak of could easily involve other women holding doors or hindering you in their attempts to help you. The aggression I'm speaking of was male specific by women who only got angry because it happened to be a man holding the door. That wasn't just my perception of it because they both vocalised their aggression and called me a dick and a bloody man. I wasn't trying to be a white knight or a gentleman. I was simply doing something as innocuous as holding a door. | |||
"I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. I hold doors open and I'm sat in a wheelchair. I get very funny looks
A curious thing for me personally and others trying to help by opening doors - often, people do not realise it can actually be easier for me to do it myself. The reason for this is that people under estimate the space required to manoeuvre the chair and they often make the space smaller by standing in the doorway or the space just beyond the door. Also, people often expect me to duck under their arm pits or get very close to their body in narrower doorways. I don't want to roll under armpits or brush against the groin of the person standing in the doorway (because I'm at groin height). I also don't want people to feel like pushing me through the door, so prefer strangers to go through first. I've had very bad experiences of people thinking they're helping by trying to push me, including nearly tipping me out or shoving me in areas of my back and causing significant pain.
So, I would very much prefer to open the door myself, which I am perfectly capable of doing from the chair. I have good reasons but cannot convey these reasons with a simple "no, thanks" or "please go ahead of me." I am never rude, perhaps save to the man who came up behind me, where I couldn't see and who essentially punched me in the spine by trying to push a chair by shoving in the soft upholstery bit. I screamed
Yes but the circumstances you speak of could easily involve other women holding doors or hindering you in their attempts to help you.
The aggression I'm speaking of was male specific by women who only got angry because it happened to be a man holding the door.
That wasn't just my perception of it because they both vocalised their aggression and called me a dick and a bloody man.
I wasn't trying to be a white knight or a gentleman. I was simply doing something as innocuous as holding a door. "Oh I agree, I personally prefer doors not to be held open, period. Gender irrelevant. It's unacceptable that women were aggressive or rude when you held open a door. However, my example of actually finding it to be a hindrance when doors are held open has, in the past, been interpreted by men as me being somehow intolerant of their "gentlemanly" behaviour. Nope, I just don't want my nose to poke in their groin, my head to pass under their armpits and my wheels to squish their size 11s *shrug* I decline almost all forms of unsolicited "help" when out and about and am always polite. It's generally only men who respond by criticising my lack of willingness to be "helped". Note again, I am always polite in declining help. | |||
"With all due respect, that's not what the definition of the word "gentleman " is...you are just cherry picking things that happened in the past, and because respectfully all men were addressed as gentlemen during those times, you can now associate everything that men were expected to be back then with the word "gentleman"... however the definition itself is " a chivalrous, respectful, educated or honourable man". If you think the word shouldn't bare any meaning or exist, don't use it...ignore it. Also I don't know why you keep associating what happened to you with the old man, with the discussion about gentlemen, I am sorry that happened to you...but clearly he didn't show respect or manners and no one today or in the past would have considered him a gentleman. No, all men were not addressed as gentlemen in the past. The original meaning is to address an individual who occupied a specific societal niche - a gentleman was below an esquire but above a yeoman in the classification of gentry. All the traditional behavioural expectations stem from the expectations of men of such societal standing and had (have) equivalencies in the concept of a gentlewoman. A gentlewoman's place was to run a home (mainly by employing servants), provide heirs and do embroidery, sewing and perhaps a bit of charitable work. I'm not making it up, that's where the term gentleman originates. " If we create a sociopolitical structure to every word, based on societal norms in the past, and completely ignore the definition of the word within the dictionary, there is no point of continuing this conversation... we do not agree with eachother on this occasion, however we have chatted in the past and I believe you are a decent person and I hope my opinion about this word has not changed your opinion about me as a person. Have a lovely evening | |||
"With all due respect, that's not what the definition of the word "gentleman " is...you are just cherry picking things that happened in the past, and because respectfully all men were addressed as gentlemen during those times, you can now associate everything that men were expected to be back then with the word "gentleman"... however the definition itself is " a chivalrous, respectful, educated or honourable man". If you think the word shouldn't bare any meaning or exist, don't use it...ignore it. Also I don't know why you keep associating what happened to you with the old man, with the discussion about gentlemen, I am sorry that happened to you...but clearly he didn't show respect or manners and no one today or in the past would have considered him a gentleman. No, all men were not addressed as gentlemen in the past. The original meaning is to address an individual who occupied a specific societal niche - a gentleman was below an esquire but above a yeoman in the classification of gentry. All the traditional behavioural expectations stem from the expectations of men of such societal standing and had (have) equivalencies in the concept of a gentlewoman. A gentlewoman's place was to run a home (mainly by employing servants), provide heirs and do embroidery, sewing and perhaps a bit of charitable work. I'm not making it up, that's where the term gentleman originates. " I feel that you are fixating on what the term used to mean rather than what it means now. People are still knighted, and are knights, but I doubt they ride around on white steeds wearing polished plate armour whilst fighting dragons and rescuing fair maidens. | |||
"With all due respect, that's not what the definition of the word "gentleman " is...you are just cherry picking things that happened in the past, and because respectfully all men were addressed as gentlemen during those times, you can now associate everything that men were expected to be back then with the word "gentleman"... however the definition itself is " a chivalrous, respectful, educated or honourable man". If you think the word shouldn't bare any meaning or exist, don't use it...ignore it. Also I don't know why you keep associating what happened to you with the old man, with the discussion about gentlemen, I am sorry that happened to you...but clearly he didn't show respect or manners and no one today or in the past would have considered him a gentleman. No, all men were not addressed as gentlemen in the past. The original meaning is to address an individual who occupied a specific societal niche - a gentleman was below an esquire but above a yeoman in the classification of gentry. All the traditional behavioural expectations stem from the expectations of men of such societal standing and had (have) equivalencies in the concept of a gentlewoman. A gentlewoman's place was to run a home (mainly by employing servants), provide heirs and do embroidery, sewing and perhaps a bit of charitable work. I'm not making it up, that's where the term gentleman originates. If we create a sociopolitical structure to every word, based on societal norms in the past, and completely ignore the definition of the word within the dictionary, there is no point of continuing this conversation... we do not agree with eachother on this occasion, however we have chatted in the past and I believe you are a decent person and I hope my opinion about this word has not changed your opinion about me as a person. Have a lovely evening " The first definition from Collins dictionary of "gentleman" is: "A gentleman is a man who comes from a family of high social standing." I maintain that the behaviours we associate with the term gentleman have their origins in this very old English societal structure. The concept of chivalry, treating women a certain way, conducting oneself in a certain way in polite company etc. I would consider myself to be a decent person, and I think people who've met me from here would agree. I do however, prefer not to be defined by my gender, and my husband has the same feeling. He and I are probably very non traditional in how we view the roles of men and women in life and so this perhaps impacts how we would both seek to define a "gentleman". I have no issue with what has been said here by you, Mr Original Poster, so no worries there. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"There isn't one definition. Be a pointless debate if there was. OK...nothing has a clear definition nowadays ...let's burn all dictionaries "Or you could try reading a few because they're not all the same. Better still read a few from a few years back and take a look at how the definitions have changed | |||
"Personally I don't think it is outdated. So many men on here want and expect women to dress up in heels etc. What is the difference?" I don't find people in heels attractive. They look uncomfortable and not very practical. | |||
"There isn't one definition. Be a pointless debate if there was. OK...nothing has a clear definition nowadays ...let's burn all dictionaries
Or you could try reading a few because they're not all the same.
Better still read a few from a few years back and take a look at how the definitions have changed "The word "gay" was used to describe a happy person in the past, now it is used to describe a person's sexual orientation, of course words may change, but we use words in today's society as they are defined today in the dictionary, not 100 years ago. I find your comment rather insulting , as someone who is not even British, but has a very vast knowledge regarding British language and history. I have read many books (and dictionaries) in many languages and from different years...but thank you for your passive aggressive advice. | |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to... The origin of the word "gentleman" is to describe a man of certain social standing, owning land but not being part of the nobility. Sort of middle levels of landed gentry, entitled to use a coat of arms but not a full noble. Men of that sort of social standing were expected to behave and conduct themselves in a way befitting the status they held. Similarly, women of an equivalent social level were subject to certain behavioural and societal expectations (gentlewomen) and of course, gentleman married gentlewomen. To me, all that sort of thing is horribly outdated. I certainly do not behave in the manner expected of a gentlewoman and my husband does not behave in the way expected of a traditional gentleman - for a start, he doesn't expect me to be seen and not heard, nor does he expect to provide financially for me while I pop out an heir (male) and a spare. All the connotations of "gentleman" relates in significant parts to behaviour towards women, which I personally find to be extremely old fashioned. Referring back to the scenario I experienced yesterday on the plane with the older chap, I'd have had the same behavioural expectation of a female or person whose gender I could not identify, as I did of the man. My expectations of behaviour are the same among all people - I don't hold men, women etc to different behavioural expectations. I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. " I wonder if they would verbally abuse a woman who held a door open for them? Manners courtesy and respect cost nothing. You can be a strong independent woman and not find hidden agendas in random acts of kindness Thing that bothers me is men of my Dad and Grandads era would view these behaviours as the epitome of being a gentleman....They would not understand why they were being abused. Yes ladies be strong, be independent but don't tear others down for trying to be courteous | |||
"A gentleman is a benchmark, a measure that can be held internally and more importantly a positive role model. Whenever I read threads like this the message quickly becomes one of removing any or all terms of gender, even if it's a positive role model. Removing any or all references of gender is preventing people supporting already existing ideas for fear of being seen to have an outdated or sexist view, it stifles debate and challenge which can deliver meaningful change where needed. I believe a gentleman is a positive role model and having such role models does not hurt our society but enhances it. No-one is suggesting removing gender references. What we're saying is that the "qualities" that supposedly constitute gentlemanly qualities seem in fact to simply be qualities of a nice human being. Being a pleasant and productive member of society SHOULD BE gender neutral - we can all be polite, respectful, tolerant, helpful etc etc. That's not specific to men. OK, yes but the notion of men and gentlemen relates to those people that identify as male, and the fact that the word "gentleman" exists which correlates with qualities that all people can poses, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used to address something positive about men. You can say that traits that you can see in toxic masculinity (aggressiveness, ignorance ,bigotry, sexism) exist in all people not just men, however toxic masculinity relates only to men, and all the negative accumulation of what a man can be... as men we should also have something positive that we can aspire to... The origin of the word "gentleman" is to describe a man of certain social standing, owning land but not being part of the nobility. Sort of middle levels of landed gentry, entitled to use a coat of arms but not a full noble. Men of that sort of social standing were expected to behave and conduct themselves in a way befitting the status they held. Similarly, women of an equivalent social level were subject to certain behavioural and societal expectations (gentlewomen) and of course, gentleman married gentlewomen. To me, all that sort of thing is horribly outdated. I certainly do not behave in the manner expected of a gentlewoman and my husband does not behave in the way expected of a traditional gentleman - for a start, he doesn't expect me to be seen and not heard, nor does he expect to provide financially for me while I pop out an heir (male) and a spare. All the connotations of "gentleman" relates in significant parts to behaviour towards women, which I personally find to be extremely old fashioned. Referring back to the scenario I experienced yesterday on the plane with the older chap, I'd have had the same behavioural expectation of a female or person whose gender I could not identify, as I did of the man. My expectations of behaviour are the same among all people - I don't hold men, women etc to different behavioural expectations. I agree with what you say but going back to what I said in an earlier post about holding doors open. I do that without thinking. It's a reflex action. Sometimes but not always I will stand back and let the other person go through first especially if they are older or infirm or have kids by the hand. Most people nod and say thank you and many others have returned the favour if there is more than one door. The only times I have have given it any thought were when 2 women on seperate occasions became very animated and annoyed at the fact I had simply held a door for them. One of them told me to grow up and not be a dick. This was a complete stranger and I was at least 10 years older than her. The other grabbed the door, told me to go through it first and said she didn't need some bloody man doing things for her. So manners and respect work both ways. My actions didn't require verbal abuse on either occasion. I wonder if they would verbally abuse a woman who held a door open for them? Manners courtesy and respect cost nothing. You can be a strong independent woman and not find hidden agendas in random acts of kindness Thing that bothers me is men of my Dad and Grandads era would view these behaviours as the epitome of being a gentleman....They would not understand why they were being abused. Yes ladies be strong, be independent but don't tear others down for trying to be courteous " | |||
"There isn't one definition. Be a pointless debate if there was. OK...nothing has a clear definition nowadays ...let's burn all dictionaries
Or you could try reading a few because they're not all the same.
Better still read a few from a few years back and take a look at how the definitions have changed
The word "gay" was used to describe a happy person in the past, now it is used to describe a person's sexual orientation, of course words may change, but we use words in today's society as they are defined today in the dictionary, not 100 years ago. I find your comment rather insulting , as someone who is not even British, but has a very vast knowledge regarding British language and history. I have read many books (and dictionaries) in many languages and from different years...but thank you for your passive aggressive advice."I had no intention of being 'passive-aggressive'. I thought my comment was quite direct. Just because you chose one definition from one source doesn't mean other people can think differently. We don't use words as they appear in dictionaries. It's very much the other way round. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think the mark of a true gentleman is respect for all regardless of gender, age, persuasion, political views, ideals, holding a door open does not make me a gentleman it makes me respectful of others, I might not agree with what you say but I will listen and defend your right to have an opinion even if I don't agree with it Isn't that the mark of a decent human (gender irrelevant)? I tend to think that nowadays, there should be no distinction between the genders in behavioural expectations. We should all behave in the way described above. I'm personally not interested in doors being held open or physical or metaphorical capes being placed over puddles. I just want to be treated in a civilised manner, by civilised people. Today, on the plane home, I was treated in a most uncivilised way by a man in perhaps his 70s. I'm sure he would consider himself a gentleman if asked, probably by virtue of his age, but if he thinks that anyone younger than him should automatically defer to him and his demands, then he is categorically wrong. It did please me somewhat to see his eyes widen when he saw me leave passport control in my wheelchair though. His transgression? To refuse to allow me to hobble past him in the aisle of the plane. I had been ambu-lifted up to the plane and my wheelchair removed. They'd put me on at the front but our designated seats were at the back so I had to drag my arse on crutches past AAAAAAALLLLL the people already on board. Mr In-His-70s had managed to ascend the stairs but had a walking stick. He not only refused to let me hobble past him but expected me to reverse to allow him to his seat first. Unfortunately I am unable to stand and manoeuvre in a confined space due to my nerve injury and so I politely pointed out that I could not stand for much longer and could I please pass? He did move eventually but only after making quite a scene, which other passengers could be heard discussing loudly after I'd sat down (and nearly fallen over twice). Interestingly, it was ME, the wheelchair user, who came off badly in people's estimation, it would seem, because I didn't let an "elderly man with a walking stick" pass me. None of the other passengers could see I'd boarded via an ambu-lift and using a wheelchair so presumably they assumed my crutches were due to some sort of temporary injury or perhaps related to the fact I'm fat? Who knows? Anyway, I pretty well wanted to cry by the time I'd hauled myself to the seat and still feel pretty shitty, to be honest. I have probably digressed but this was an interaction with a man of an age where apparently all men were/are gents, it's the "yoof" who are all ignorant little so-and-so's etc. My experience as a disabled woman is that young people are, for the most part, no problem (no distinction by gender). Older people (especially men) are more likely to cause issues. I have no idea why that is, but that's my experience. Let's all just be nice people, irrespective of gender, age or any other "label", eh?! " Completely agree this is horrible to read and i am gutted for you. You shouldnt be made to feel that way. Again I completely agree about the older generation. They come across as entitled a lot of the time, and are more often then not just plain rude in my experience | |||
