No, I see it, and it is half the... excrement I was referring to in my post about "dolls."
It seems, at first glance, that a "gentleman" needs to be concerned with himself, for the sake of himself when interacting with the world in general, whereas a "lady" need to be concerned with how compatible she is to others, namely, "gentlemen."
And, did you notice the crap about not being forward when in the man's article, it mentioned not making the first move? Classy.
Also, what is this flippant nonsense about vulgarity? I'm quite aware this isn't considered "attractive" from a lady, but I'll be honest, if a man cannot deal with a woman using the same words HE DOES sometimes, he has no part in my circle. And do not feed me the line about "gentlemen" never using those words: some of the most TRULY chivalrous men I know (in the way I can actually respect) use that language with confidence.
I guess the problem I saw is the gentleman's article seemed to be generally decent rules to live by, whereas the lady's list seemed to be ew-these-are-things-I-hate-that-women-do.
I will also say that if a so-called gentleman chooses to raise his voice and berate ME in public, I will NOT graciously offer myself up to the abuse, but I WILL fire back a few missiles of my own, in my shrill harpy voice, no matter how annoying and unladylike that may sound. If a gentleman is king of his imminent domain and allowed to defend his honor, a woman is QUEEN of herself and allowed to act as well.
I will circumvent and offer up the gentleman will probably insist a nearby gentleman to the lady should intervene, but allowing one's self to constantly be rescued by gentlemen makes one weak, vulnerable, and a lovely target for numerous yellow wallpapers. I REFUSE to believe this.
I see the problem with these lists as coming back to the whole background conditioning our society has come up with with "ladies" being oh so "civilized" and working their polite charms over brutish men who need to learn to "behave" to earn the right to interact with ladies.
... You do realize that line of thinking ties right in to rape culture... think about it: after the man becomes civilized enough to "earn" a lady's attentions, why, then, he's earned... her, now hasn't he?
NO, NO HE HASN'T. But that is where the twits come up with this idea.
And, see, this is it: it came to me! The gentleman's article is about showing one's best side with enlightened polish, where the lady's article is about hiding all one's "flaws" under demure weakness.
That is so not the same thing. And it should be the same, for both genders.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-22 04:56 am (UTC)It seems, at first glance, that a "gentleman" needs to be concerned with himself, for the sake of himself when interacting with the world in general, whereas a "lady" need to be concerned with how compatible she is to others, namely, "gentlemen."
And, did you notice the crap about not being forward when in the man's article, it mentioned not making the first move? Classy.
Also, what is this flippant nonsense about vulgarity? I'm quite aware this isn't considered "attractive" from a lady, but I'll be honest, if a man cannot deal with a woman using the same words HE DOES sometimes, he has no part in my circle. And do not feed me the line about "gentlemen" never using those words: some of the most TRULY chivalrous men I know (in the way I can actually respect) use that language with confidence.
I guess the problem I saw is the gentleman's article seemed to be generally decent rules to live by, whereas the lady's list seemed to be ew-these-are-things-I-hate-that-women-do.
I will also say that if a so-called gentleman chooses to raise his voice and berate ME in public, I will NOT graciously offer myself up to the abuse, but I WILL fire back a few missiles of my own, in my shrill harpy voice, no matter how annoying and unladylike that may sound. If a gentleman is king of his imminent domain and allowed to defend his honor, a woman is QUEEN of herself and allowed to act as well.
I will circumvent and offer up the gentleman will probably insist a nearby gentleman to the lady should intervene, but allowing one's self to constantly be rescued by gentlemen makes one weak, vulnerable, and a lovely target for numerous yellow wallpapers. I REFUSE to believe this.
I see the problem with these lists as coming back to the whole background conditioning our society has come up with with "ladies" being oh so "civilized" and working their polite charms over brutish men who need to learn to "behave" to earn the right to interact with ladies.
... You do realize that line of thinking ties right in to rape culture... think about it: after the man becomes civilized enough to "earn" a lady's attentions, why, then, he's earned... her, now hasn't he?
NO, NO HE HASN'T. But that is where the twits come up with this idea.
And, see, this is it: it came to me! The gentleman's article is about showing one's best side with enlightened polish, where the lady's article is about hiding all one's "flaws" under demure weakness.
That is so not the same thing. And it should be the same, for both genders.