General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)it sure seems like gender-policing ie. "If you want to be a real man (like myself) than you would give deference to the lady-folk (like I do)"
It also reminds me of a similar discussion I observed on another forum regarding the politeness of crossing the street in order to avoid creeping out a solitary woman whom you happen to be walking behind late at night. One person, who was arguing in favor of this "politeness" said something to the effect of "of course men aren't required to cross the street when walking behind women late at night, but it is polite" to which another poster replied (more or less) "okay, but how long does it take for "politeness" to become an expectation of behavior?" Which is, in effect what politeness is: a societal expectation of "correct" behavior.
Manners in general are a form of social control. I think we all generally agree that it is good to be "polite," but taken to its extreme "polite" behavior is a way for those with social standing to weed out those without that social power, ie. those who don't know which fork is the salad fork and who don't know how to properly drink their afternoon tea.
I'm not saying that their should be no "politeness" ie. social controls invoked to prevent unpleasant behavior. I have myself argued that what some call "political correctness" could be more accurately described as "having manners;" however I also think that there is a point where dictating peoples behavior goes beyond the proscription of good manners into extremely controlling and (I'm trying not to be too hyperbolic) authoritarian behavior.