I would agree with this advice, Amy. I would also point out that a better indicator would be how he acts toward those who actually are interacting with him.

How does he treat the waiter in restaurants? How is he with animals and children?

He could just have a reluctance to approach strangers. Possibly he doesn't know how his efforts at helping would be received. Maybe he prefers to wait until people actually ask for help.

I take issue with your comparison of his inactivity as seeing someone falling on a sidewalk and stepping over them as he takes their wallet. That's hardly a fair comparison, since he isn't taking advantage of their difficulties to steal from them or perhaps getting sadistic pleasure out of seeing someone who can't easily manage a door.

Possibly he doesn't know how his efforts at helping would be received.

Possibly, but I think I would've tried anyway. If I'm rebuffed, so be it, but at least I made the effort. If it's beyond him to do that, I think I'd take a pass at trying to establish anything more than a passing friendship, LW.

I'd keep it in mind as a red flag, but it doesn't seem like enough to rule him out just yet.

Apparently, no one else in the place offered to help besides the LW either, so he wasn't the only one perceiving that they could manage by themselves. We all make mistakes in judgment, and for all she knows, he now feels like a total heel for not helping and has already made a resolution to be more aware and proactive in the future.

My boyfriend constantly amazes me how sensitive he is after some klutzy social goof-up, and how he makes a conscious effort afterwards to improve next time. He's not perfect, and I don't expect him to be, but I admire his willingness to keep growing and learning from mistakes.

So I don't think this should stop the LW from getting to know him better. If this turns out to be an unacceptable pattern in his behavior, then by all means, don't take it any further. It likely won't even take very long to find out since a general lack of empathy for others manifests itself in myriad ways. But one instance isn't enough to go on, IMO.

Hell he might have been afraid of getting sued.

Frankly I find it hard to imagine not showing proper manners and holding the bloody door open. But without witnessing the event myself, I can't gauge his behavior's motivation.

Now if he was smiling while they were struggling...

I'd call it a red flag. Partially because he didn't help them and partially because she did. Since she did help them, helping others or the elderly is apparently very importaint to her. It does not seem to be that importaint to him. Sure he and others in the shop are not obligated to help, and may have many reasons to not do so.

Ah memories of a woman chewing me out for not giving her my seat on the metro, and me with a big imobilization boot on my foot.

But it is a red flag, now as to whetehr it takes one flag or more to not date someon is up to her. But there are plenty of cute guys who would open the door.

I'd keep it in mind as a red flag, but it doesn't seem like enough to rule him out just yet.

I agree with Alice.

What Robert said.

Men can actually face unpleasant outcomes for what in prior days was considered proper, mannered behavior. On the low side, it is a scowl from that woman you just held the door for (yes, it happens).

I still do those things men are supposed to-giving up seats, picking up wandering toddlers I don't know who are obviously lost and helping find their parents, etc. But I understand the more sensible approach of men who don't put themselves out there like that any longer. At best you get shrugs for what you do. Frequently, you get scowls or complaints.

My larger take on this is that our culture spent 40 years telling men to stop exhibiting various masculine behaviors, as though the group of masculine behaviors are easily an a la carte list of items to select from. Now this gal wonders why this guy avoids doing masculine acts, like helping less-able people who might need it. Probably no one taught him that was something he could/should do. And to the extent he tried out that role a few times as an adolescent (boys typically try out the role on older male promptings), he may have gotten the scowl. So would you get what you have here. The irony in that case would be this woman now blames him for simply doing what he would have been pushed toward: avoiding certain masculine behaviors exhibited in prior generations.

I don't know, I find it hard to believe that men are afraid to offer a hand to others because they have received scorn, or a 'scowl' as some here have put it. Does that really happen?

Women and the elderly - do you get pissed when someone holds a door for you? I hold doors for people all the time - all types of people - and I have never been chastised for doing so. If I were a man would I have been treated differently for doing something polite? Again, I find it hard to believe that I would be.

All I know is that when I was hugely pregnant, RARELY did a young white man ever give me his seat on the subway, even when I searched around with a desperate look on my face while almost falling over while the train was rocking. There were men who looked right at me and still didn't get up. It was usually a woman or an elderly man who gave me his/her seat. I repeat: a woman or elderly man. What does that tell us? Given that people generally do what they would like done to them, women and the elderly don't seem to have a problem with polite chivalry.

That's my deduction anyway. I think all those men who blame feminism or the 'de-masculinization' of men for why they don't hold doors are just making excuses for why they don't feel the need to be courteous or compassionate anymore.

I also agree that it is the polite thing to do to help people with doors no matter who they are. Courtesy is an important social lubricant that keeps people from being irritated with each other.

While I have never run into a situation where my holding a door open for someone has resulted in a hostile response, I have gotten several responses from middle aged women that left a sour taste in my mouth.

The response went something like this and happens with a higher frequency than I would prefer:

“Thank you, you really are a gentleman, there aren’t enough of those these days.”

Now while that is a way of offering gratitude, for me it somehow falls short and I would much prefer a simple “thank you” as opposed for my courteous action being a platform to offer a back handed insult to all other men. It would be like a female coworker deciding to bake some cookies for the office and responding with:

“Thank you, these cookies are really great, most women just don’t know how to cook anymore.”

In instances like these a simple thank you is enough, no need for anyone to put their foot in their mouth by tacking on an insult to everyone else.

I don't know Jason, I doubt they meant any harm by saying there aren't enough gentlemen these days, but I do see your point. Maybe they hoped you would spread the word that women actually like the door to be held for them.

Anyway, I always thank ANY person who holds a door for me, but I make an extra effort to thank teenaged men, just to counteract any stupid idea that women don't like doors held for them. I hope that the men I thank will see that not all women are snippy about door holding!

My husband is a particularly great guy when it comes to door holding. He'll wait at the door holding it for people who are still ten paces from the door. Sometimes when we're in a hurry, I get a little frustrated with how nice he is, but then I realize I'm lucky to be the one he married!

I'll never forget the bitch that yelled at him though, for absent-mindedly NOT holding the door for her. We were walking out together and having some kind of intense conversation or focusing on something (I forget what it was now), but I went through the door about a step before he did, and as we did this there was a lady coming through the other side of the double doors, and since I sort of held the door for him, and she had opened the other side of the door for herself, I think we both just sort of rushed through to get out of the way, and she just turned on him and was like "THANKS A LOT for not holding the door!!!!"

I really wish I had been clear headed enough to respond that if she wished every man she encountered to be a gentleman, it would be wise for her to act more like a lady.. but I was just too shocked with her outrage, especially knowing how considerate my husband is.

I don't see the guys behaviour as a red flag. He could be oblivious. My son is like that. He's willing to help out, but frequently needs a nudge to see the opportunity.

Of course, the guy could just be a jerk. LW should keep watching and see what happens regularly rather than a single instance.

I consider this kind of behavior a big red flag. This man ignored not one but two elderly couples who needed help. He also ignored the girl he's been flirting with, who did help. He could have chosen to get involved when he saw her getting involved.

Unless he got the message and makes a point of helping people in the future, I'd be over him. Beware of people who are only considerate of those they think count (like people they're flirting with). If you get involved with them, one of these days they may decide they don't need to be considerate of you any more. I especially watch how people treat people they don't "need" to be nice to.

My husband and I both always hold the door for everyone and sincerely thank anyone who holds the door for us.

lori m: I don't know, I find it hard to believe that men are afraid to offer a hand to others because they have received scorn, or a 'scowl' as some here have put it. Does that really happen?

Yes. Sometimes, "I don't need a man to hold the door open for me!"

A friend of mine was in the grocery store when a kid came tearing around a corner and nearly crashed into his cart.

"Where's your mother?" he asked the child.

The mother came around the corner looking horrified that a man actually spoke to her son.

And not too long ago, Amy posted a story about a truck driver who happened to see a two-year-old walking down the street near a pond. He didn't offer to help the child (who eventually drowned), because he didn't want to charged with sexually assaulting a child.

Being male is now a crime.

Spartee: Men can actually face unpleasant outcomes for what in prior days was considered proper, mannered behavior. On the low side, it is a scowl from that woman you just held the door for (yes, it happens). . . . At best you get shrugs for what you do. Frequently, you get scowls or complaints. . . The irony in that case would be this woman now blames him for simply doing what he would have been pushed toward: avoiding certain masculine behaviors exhibited in prior generations.

Lori: I don't know, I find it hard to believe that men are afraid to offer a hand to others because they have received scorn, or a 'scowl' as some here have put it. Does that really happen?

Lori, it certainly can happen and surely does happen, although I'm skeptical that it happens, as Spartee says, "frequently." I also have to disagree with Spartee that "at best you get shrugs for what you do" (although perhaps that has been his experience.) I do little favors for people all the time -- from opening doors for women to letting someone go ahead of me in a checkout line if they only have one or two items and I have a lot -- and I usually receive a "thank you."

However, while I've never gotten a look of scorn from a woman for opening a door for her, it is fairly common for a woman to walk through without saying "thank you."

Also, back when I worked at Boeing my building had two sets of doors facing our courtyard cafeteria building. Whenever I was going to or returning from lunch and a woman was approaching the doors with me, I'd open the first door for her. Hardly ever would a woman reciprocate and open the second door for me. Most opened the second door and just walked right on through. On the other hand, whenever I'd open the first door for another man, he would always reciprocate and open the second one for me.

Spartee, I can see something like opening doors for women as a "masculine behavior" but when it comes to things like opening doors for elderly people, giving up seats on the bus to elderly people, and generally doing other small favors for people, those are just common courtesies (or, they should be common courtesies, imo.)

I admit to being a bit reluctant to ask blind or other handicapped people if they need assistance since it's my understanding that many (or some) of them see that as "patronizing." But I usually go ahead and do it anyway. I can only recall one or two occasions where I got a somewhat-scornful response. Usually it's just a "I'm fine, thank you." On the other hand, when I was flying back from San Francisco two years ago I saw a young blind guy in the airport who looked like he might need help. He did, and he was extremely appreciative when I walked with him to where he wanted to go.

Yes. Sometimes, "I don't need a man to hold the door open for me!"

...Amy posted a story about a truck driver who happened to see a two-year-old walking down the street near a pond. He didn't offer to help the child (who eventually drowned), because he didn't want to charged with sexually assaulting a child.

Being male is now a crime.

Patrick, I don't doubt that you and Spartee (and other guys) have received that type of retort from some women. I guess I've just been lucky because that's never happened to me. And I can't ever recall a time when an elderly person wasn't appreciative.

Being male is a "crime", unfortunately, because of all our asshole brothers out there. Who sexually assaults kids? Men, not women (okay, I'm sure some women do but I'm also sure they're a very small percentage of child molestors.) Who rapes people (outside of prison)? Men, not women. As one of the "good guys" out there, I don't like it when women or parents are suspicious of me just because I'm a guy but I understand why they are.

I don't have kids of my own, but I have eight wonderful nieces and two great nephews and I love goofing around with kids so it makes me sad that I can't interact with kids in public the way I'd like to. But that's the reality.

In a situation like the one you mentioned, if I saw a very young kid walking near a pond, and thought there was a chance the kid would fall in, I'd probably just hang around watching from a distance and be ready to act if the kid did fall in.

I forgot about this earlier...

Many years ago I had just picked a woman up at her apartment building and we were headed to downtown Seattle for our first date. There was a car ahead, blocking one of the lanes, with a very young woman inside trying to start it. I turned the corner, parked, and ran back to the car. A couple other guys also arrived and together we pushed her car onto a side street. When I got back to my car, instead of saying something like "that was very thoughtful of you", my date asked me if I did that to impress her. I thought to myself, "well you're sure not impressing me with that response."

JD,

I am curious about what percentage of a group needs to commit a particular crime before you consider it justifiable to hold the entire group accountable?

I've always been one to think that it is proper to hold criminals accountable for crimes and not the groups they hold superficial traits in common with, but based upon what you wrote you seem to disagree.

It is highly irrational to generalize from the actions of an extremely small percentage of any group to the entire group. Yet this is exactly what you have done for men while simultaneously suggesting that it is unreasonable to go from an extremely small number of women to holding all women partially accountable for their actions.

As such I reiterate my initial question in a different way, what is the threshold percentage for group guilt, because apparently men have met that threshold in your opinion but women haven’t and I would very much like to know the quantitative grounds for your position.

For the doubters out there - YES it happens that men get yelled at for traditional chivalry - including opening doors.

It doesn't happen often but it most certainly happens.

I assure you that I've been told 'I can open my own door' and less polite things occasionally.

I'll emphasize that it's rare, less than one of of one hundred times.

Lori M and Amy need to understand that it most certainly does happen.

Jason,

I can't give you a percentage. All I can tell you is that, as a man, I don't have to fear being raped or sexually assaulted by a woman I don't know, and the chances of me becoming a victim of violent crime by a woman I don't know (as opposed to a domestic violence situation) are extremely slim. So if I was meeting a woman on a first date and she, for example, suggested a candlelight picnic in a park late in the evening, I could go ahead and meet her, knowing that the odds were overwhelmingly in my favor that nothing bad was going to happen to me.

If the roles were reversed, and I asked a woman on that kind of a first date, I wouldn't blame her for declining the offer. I would know I was a perfectly safe "good guy" but she wouldn't know that. Asshole guys who commit violent crimes are not the majority of men so the odds would be in her favor (greater than 50/50) that nothing bad would happen to her, but they wouldn't be overwhelmingly in her favor like they would be for me (or you) meeting a woman in that situation. People differ all the time in their definition of what's "reasonable" so you may not see that as a reasonable precaution on the woman's part. But I do.

I'm not a parent, but if I was, I don't think I'd be wary at all (or maybe only slightly so) if I saw a single woman chatting with my young kids in a store. If I saw a single man chatting with them, I'd probably be more concerned. Now that's a gut feeling. I said above that I'm sure women are a very small percentage of child molestors, but I don't know what the actual statistics are. If a man is, say, ten times more likely than a woman to molest or abduct your child, then I'd say it would be reasonable to be ten times more concerned about a single guy chatting with your young kids.

For the doubters out there - YES it happens that men get yelled at for traditional chivalry - including opening doors. It doesn't happen often but it most certainly happens.

Thom, I can't recall ever getting that reaction from a younger woman, but I don't doubt that it happens to other guys.

However, since this topic started off with a guy not opening the door for elderly people, have you ever had an elderly person yell at you for a courtesy like opening a door? Do you know any guy who has?

JD,

If you cannot articulate your perspective on this issue with some sort of definitive metric it becomes completely arbitrary. You are basically justifying your position because it “feels” right to you. This is the basis for most irrational belief systems. Rational belief systems can be explained to others in a way that is in some sense objectively true.

For example, the fact that you personally do not fear being raped or sexually assaulted by strangers has no bearing on what the actual threat level is. It also doesn't determine whether or not women in general hold that fear to a greater extent than you do. Furthermore it has no bearing on whether or not other men fear those things.

Whether or not you personally fear something has absolutely nothing to do with the facts about any particular situation. Making important decisions based on what you fear rather than what the facts are results in people making poor choices. Your position is also completely incoherent when you say things like this:

“So if I was meeting a woman on a first date and she, for example, suggested a candlelight picnic in a park late in the evening, I could go ahead and meet her, knowing that the odds were overwhelmingly in my favor that nothing bad was going to happen to me.”

While I agree with what you have explicitly said here, you have also implied something further that is factually inaccurate. That implication is that if the roles were reversed that the odds would NOT be overwhelmingly in the woman’s favor that nothing bad would happen to her.

All that being said I don’t blame anyone for taking precautions and meeting people for the first time in public places, it is a bad idea for anyone to meet strangers in a secluded place all by themselves. However, your assertion is essentially that men will attack women they do not know so often that women are justified to be afraid of all men, but that women attack men so infrequently that men aren’t justified to be afraid of women at all.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but in the overwhelming number of situations, neither men nor women assault one another, so in the absence of some threshold value your position is just a subjective one that makes victims out of half of the population and perpetrators out of the other half. The reason I don’t like subjective measures like this is you can freely move the goal posts whenever you feel like it, so even if it turned out that women were a danger to men, you would rationalize it away so long as men were a relatively greater danger to women. Your measuring stick has no marks on it.

“If a man is, say, ten times more likely than a woman to molest or abduct your child, then I'd say it would be reasonable to be ten times more concerned about a single guy chatting with your young kids.”

Here is a question for you to ponder. What is ten times an extremely small number?... another extremely small number. So since you say that you don’t think you would be “wary at all” if a single woman was chatting with your child, what exactly is ten times zero? As such your concern in either case should be relatively small unless OTHER indicators suggest there is a problem. You have chosen to discriminate against half of the population on the basis of statistical anomalies as opposed to legitimate trends in behavior. Men and women who molest children are anomalies, they are aberrations, they are abominations. It isn’t any more typical male behavior than it is typical female behavior.

Jason, thanks for your comments.

All that being said I don’t blame anyone for taking precautions and meeting people for the first time in public places, it is a bad idea for anyone to meet strangers in a secluded place all by themselves. However, your assertion is essentially that men will attack women they do not know so often that women are justified to be afraid of all men, but that women attack men so infrequently that men aren’t justified to be afraid of women at all.

I said that I understand why women are cautious with men. Furthermore, I don't think men are similarly cautious with women and if they are not, then I understand why they are not.

I don't know if men attack women "so often." I do know that, outside of the home, men attack women FAR more often than women attack men (men also, of course, attack a lot of other men.) I do know that while men rape women, women do not rape men.

so even if it turned out that women were a danger to men, you would rationalize it away so long as men were a relatively greater danger to women.

Well, if turned out that babies or butterflies attacked men, then I wouldn't rationalize it away. I'd say that I understand why men are cautious around babies and butterflies. But babies and butterflies don't attack men. And neither do women.

Men and women who molest children are anomalies, they are aberrations, they are abominations. It isn’t any more typical male behavior than it is typical female behavior.

I agree with you that it's not "typical" male behavior. Never said it was. And yes, men who molest children are aberrations. They are not the norm. But I believe that statistics would show that men are far more likely to do this than women and that, because of that relative difference, I understand why parents would be more cautious when seeing a man with their young kids than they would be when seeing a woman.

For the doubters out there - YES it happens that men get yelled at for traditional chivalry - including opening doors. It doesn't happen often but it most certainly happens.

I agree completely with Amy. I'm not going to change who I am because someone else is dumb. I hold doors, etc for my (mostly) male colleagues at work, they do the same, all depends on who gets there first. It's courtesy, not chivalry.

If someone wants to yell at me about it, fine, I'll yell back.

Keep it natural though. The exaggerated "run ahead and open the door with a bow", unless you know the person well I can see women being creeped out by that.

The other side of the coin - I have a friend who, when she is out with a man, expects them to light her cigarettes for her, pour drinks, generally treat her like a lady. She used to sit there clearing her throat, holding cigarette in the air, to notify you that she was waiting. I ended up telling her that while I didn't mind participating in what I saw as a comic opera, especially when we dress up and go out to a good restaurant, she had better not think I took it seriously. She rang me back the next day to apologise, which I laughed off - I wasn't really annoyed, just wanted to point out she couldn't have it both ways.

"Is his behavior a clear sign that he'd be bad boyfriend material?"

What is it about women and their "signs"? They always seem to be looking for "signs", instead of just using their heads. Are they indoctrinated by magazines like Cosmo that life is full of these hidden "signs" --- extremely over-simplistic, contextless incidents that supposedly hold the power to make vastly complex generalized inferences? Seriously, the guy might just have been daydreaming, and not really noticing what was happening in front of him ... I often do that, but I'm still a decent person.

This whole thing is far, far simpler than you're making out. You don't need to try divine "signs" from the heavens at all. All you need to do is this:

- Try flirt back with him a little.
- If he likes you, he'll take the hint and flirt back, and maybe ask you on a date (unless he's very shy). If not, then it's all irrelevant anyway.
- When you're on a date, you can start learning to get to know his personality and character a little better. In the process, you will soon learn if he is a decent person or not.
- If you then learn that he is not a decent person, end it.

Or you could just keep looking for "signs" in the coffee shop. Maybe buy a Cosmo, I'm sure they'll have lots more "signs to look for".

"Who sexually assaults kids? Men, not women (okay, I'm sure some women do but I'm also sure they're a very small percentage of child molestors.)"

@JD: Bzzt, wrong, but keep perpetuating the so-called 'understandable' lie that it's somehow OK to automatically regard all men with totally paranoid hysteria. Here are the latest actual figures (2010) published by the US Department of Health and Human Services:

"More than two-fifths (45.2%) of perpetrators were men and more than one-half (53.6%) were women; 1.2 percent were of unknown sex."

Yes, you read that right: MORE women than men were perpetrators of child abuse or neglect (though it's relatively close to 50/50). I understand if this is so contrary to popular mythology that you might need to take a few moments just to let that fact sink in.

There is some evidence to suggest that child abuse by females may have been under-reported in the past, due to an over-focus on men supposedly being evil monsters, but reporting rates against females have been increasing.

Here is the reference to the above stats:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/can/stat_natl_state.cfm

Anon, I should have been more specific in this comment:

"Who sexually assaults kids? Men, not women (okay, I'm sure some women do but I'm also sure they're a very small percentage of child molestors.)"

As with female violence against men -- where I did say that I was referring to incidents outside of the home -- I should have noted that I meant sexual assaults of kids outside the home.

I went to that website but couldn't find where you got that specific statistic from (and didn't care to spend a lot of time looking.) Does it say where those assaults occurred (i.e. in the home/families vs. outside the home/strangers)?

it's somehow OK to automatically regard all men with totally paranoid hysteria.

That's a mischaracterization of my view. But I understand the hyperbole.

Anon, I found the answer to my question. The chart doesn't say where assaults/neglect took place but it does break them down by parents/nonparents/unknown.

Figure 5–3 Perpetrators by Relationship to Victims, 2010

81.2% parent
16.0% nonparent
2.8% unknown

This is what I would have expected, that most child abuse/neglect is by a parent.

There is no breakdown, that I could find, of the sex of the perpetrator when the perp is a nonparent. In those cases, I remain with my previous assertion...

Who sexually assaults kids? Men, not women (okay, I'm sure some women do but I'm also sure they're a very small percentage of child molestors.)

When Patrick made his comment that "being male is now a crime", he gave two examples of kids being out in public (in the grocery store, and walking down the street near a pond) and both of the males in these cases were nonparents, so that's the context in which I made my assertion.

I have to say, if I am at a coffeeshop alone, chances are I am lost in my own head and not seeing whatever it is that lies in the direction my eyes are pointing. If you want to go out with him, do so. But keep your eyes open to how he acts when you know he's mentally present. easy enough.

As to the getting yelled at for holding a door open,It has happened to me. That being said, in thinking back the times it happenedit does also seem t be a regional thing. Frankly on the East coast the furtur South you go the more politeness seemed to be more appreciated, also the furthur you got away from cities.
The corrilary with that is that where I've had foot in cast/boot, I did get chewed out by a "lady" for not rushing ahead and holding the door open for her.
That being said, How many times do you recieve negative criticism and no positive responses before you chage your behavior.

Maybe you should yell at people who yell at those who hold doors open. Holding doors open is the 'right thing to do' and yelling at someone for holding a door open is the 'wrong thing to do' and very rude, so call these people out on their rude behavior when they do things like that.

"Depends on whether you base your character on how popular you are."

Brilliant, Amy.

Also, I like everything AnonDude has to say on this thread.

As for my own input, those claiming that feminism has killed chivalry haven't tried chivalry. I truly don't believe that any man within the reach of this blog or any medium, for that matter, has ever faced scorn for holding a door open for a woman. I think that those that are making such claims merely heard a third-hand story and are using that as an excuse to be boorish.

As a middle-aged, single guy, I don't date a lot, but I date some. You wouldn't believe the mileage you get from standing up when the woman returns from a trip to the powder room. They're shocked. They're also shocked and amazed when you come over to their side of the car and open the passenger side door for them. Apparently, this isn't normal treatment. They notice.

Sometimes, I'll look around a restaurant and see other "daters" wearing a god damned hat indoors, using their cell phone while on their date, or hunching over their food.

For this, I'd like to thank my fellow men. Thanks for making it so easy for me to make a good and lasting impression. Would you care to guess who has two thumbs and winds up with a glaze on his dick at the end of the night?

I'd also like to thank my mother and father, who made damned sure that I knew what the rules of polite society are.

I think that's the main issue. That is, that mothers and fathers wind up forgetting the importance of clearly articulating the very easy and clear rules of politeness in society -- particularly when it comes to men's treatment of women.

I've also been guilty of this. Recently, my ex-wife and I wanted to meet our son's girlfriend. The four of us went out to dinner and had a very nice time. When my son's girlfriend rose from the table to excuse herself for a moment, I instinctively stood up and my son didn't. I had to give him a little look and head nod (hopefully imperceptible to her) before he followed suit. Once she was gone, I said, "What the fuck, man? You've got to stand when a woman enters and leaves the room."

He actually thought that was just a weird thing between me and his mother. He didn't understand that it was what everybody should be doing. While I modeled it throughout his entire life, I never actually told him.

We're getting lazy as parents. It's no wonder why younger people don't get it.

Jason & Anon,

I just remembered something last night. About a year or so after 9/11 happened, I saw an interview with an American man who was an Arab-Muslim. He traveled a lot by air and the interviewer asked him what kind of reaction he was getting from people. He said a lot of people looked at him with suspicion and he didn't like it but, on the other hand, he understood why they did that. He understood that if 19 Arab-Muslim men hadn't hijacked four planes and murdered 3,000+ people, that people on those planes wouldn't be giving him a wary eye.

The only people who have ever been insulted when I've offered help have been well-dressed young women.

Here's another thing about that meal. While the rule in my family was to never lift your fork before Mom started eating, for my son, that didn't translate to other women. Before I specifically articulated it, my son figured it only applied to his mother and not to his girlfriend. He's since been set straight.

I truly don't believe that any man within the reach of this blog or any medium, for that matter, has ever faced scorn for holding a door open for a woman.

I've had women act indifferent (as in "if you want to open the door for me fine, but I'm not going to thank you for it") but I've never had any scorn or contempt. However, I've no doubt that happens to other men. Probably not commonplace, but I'm sure it happens.

I'd also like to thank my mother and father, who made damned sure that I knew what the rules of polite society are.

My parents taught manners to me and my four siblings too and, like you, I'm thankful for that. The "rule" my parents taught us was: if someone needs help, help them. It wasn't gender-specific (i.e. men should help and do nice things for women, but women don't have to help or do nice things for men.)

Amy said earlier: I get up out of my chair at the coffee shop I go to to help people through the door -- young, old, men, women -- if they seem to have a hard time moving or if they are carrying a lot. And I think that's great. I think helping people should be based on need, not on someone having a pair of breasts.

JD,

I appreciate that you can "understand" some belief systems. However there is a fundamental difference between “understanding” a belief system and that same belief system being “justified”. For example, I understand why children are frightened of monsters under the bed. However at the same time I acknowledge that those fears are unjustified.

What you call “understandable” is just the product of fear mongering without any basis that would justify it. This type of thinking is the easy way out because it subverts the critical thinking process and just replaces it with easy to follow rote behaviors. It is lazy and nothing more. Adults have more tools at their disposal than gender profiling to identify problematic situations. As a matter of fact, there are probably superior indicators that someone might be a problem and most of those indicators are behavior based. The key point is that parents need to pay attention to the behavior of other adults, just assuming men are dangerous and women are safe is a good way to get into trouble.

You are promoting lazy thinking, not critical thinking.

Let me try a neutral analogy here to help get my point across. The odds of dieing due to contact with hornets, wasps and bees is ~1 in 70,000 and the odds of dieing due to being attacked by a dog is ~1 in 120,000. Now based upon the type of reasoning you are using one would say it was “understandable” to be more cautious around bees than dogs. However this type of generalization is really poor because it fails to take into account mitigating factors such as whether or not someone is allergic to bee stings or the dog breed we are talking about.

Let’s face it, it would be pretty stupid for a grown adult with no sting allergy to run for cover because they see a wasp but later that day walk up to and try to pet a pit bull who was foaming at the mouth just because the statistics told them that dogs were safer than wasps. Critical thinking involves a careful assessment of the entire situation, not just rote responses that conform to statistical data.

For the record, just assuming that an arab-muslims are terrorists is as uncritical and stupid as just assuming that men you do not know are child molesters.

I promote critical thought, not fear mongering. The statistics simply do not support the conclusions you are coming to. In fact based upon your way of thinking it would be "understandable" for your siblings to be more suspicious of you around their children than of complete strangers since 90% of child sexual assault is committed by adults the children already know.

Thanks Amy (and, again, it's cool that you're willing to help anyone in need.)

*

I appreciate that you can "understand" some belief systems. However there is a fundamental difference between “understanding” a belief system and that same belief system being “justified”.

I know there's that difference, Jason. But I think you're conflating the two here. I think you're taking my understanding of why women and parents feel the way they do about men and then claiming that means I'm justifying it. I don't recall doing that. What I recall is continuously stressing that I understand why they feel the way they do.

There are people who are terrified of flying on airplanes but they will drive cars. We both know that, statistically, it much safer to fly than it is to drive. I wouldn't say those people are "justified" in their fear of flying. But, again, I understand why they are. When you're flying, you're not in control, you're thousands of feet in the air, and if the plane were to start falling, you'd have time to contemplate death (which, I think, is far more terrifying than being killed in a split-second auto accident.)

Also, when therapists try to help people overcome their fear of flying, I suspect they don't throw statistics at them and tell them they're being irrational. Likewise, if I'm meeting a woman for a first date and I offer to pick her up at her apartment or home and she says she's not comfortable with that because she doesn't know me, I'm not going to lecture her on how, statistically, the odds of me being a "bad guy" are very small, and tell her that she's being irrational.

I said above that I love goofing around with kids so it makes me sad that I can't interact with kids in public the way I'd like to. But if it was a situation like one of the ones Patrick mentioned, where a kid was alone in a store, I'd have no problem going up to the kid to help him/her find the parent(s). And if the parent(s) then showed up and gave me the evil eye, so be it. I tried to help their kid; I don't care how they look at me. But, generally, I don't goof around and play with kids. I'm a "good guy" but their parents wouldn't know that...why cause them any grief?

In fact based upon your way of thinking it would be "understandable" for your siblings to be more suspicious of you around their children than of complete strangers since 90% of child sexual assault is committed by adults the children already know.

Jason, I forgot about this. Actually, on the contrary, I understand my siblings not being more suspicious of me being around their kids than they would be if they saw a strange man interacting with their kids. Why? Because they know me and trust me. They don't know that strange man and, therefore, can't trust him. It doesn't matter that, statistically, I'm a greater risk.

Take a poll of parents. Ask them who they'd feel safer with babysitting their young daughter: a male relative or a random male stranger. Even if, statistically, the odds are much greater that the male relative would molest the young girl, I would bet that almost all parents would choose the male relative they know over the random male stranger they don't.

"I appreciate that you can "understand" some belief systems. However there is a fundamental difference between “understanding” a belief system and that same belief system being “justified”. For example, I understand why children are frightened of monsters under the bed. However at the same time I acknowledge that those fears are unjustified."

@Jason, thanks, was also going to say 'understanding' irrational ignorance doesn't imply 'excusing' irrational ignorance, especially when harmful. It's not about 'understanding' primitive irrationality. I can 'understand' why irrational ignorant superstitious folk believed some women were witches but that doesn't mean it was OK to burn them. I can 'understand' why irrational ignorant people believed Jews were responsible for the Black Death, doesn't mean one should have said nothing when many Jews were being murdered for 'causing' it? I can 'understand' how irrational ignorant people came to believe Jews were the cause of Western Europe's troubles before WWII, does that excuse the Holocaust? Forgive me if I take a dim view of irrational ignorance - especially willful irrational ignorance.

JD,

I honestly didn’t think I was conflating anything with regard to the concepts of “understanding” and “justification”.

I could have misinterpreted your statements, but it seemed to me that all of your comments with regard to statistics and fear mongering statements like “Who sexually assaults kids? Men, not women” and “Who rapes people? Men, not women” were an attempt to justify why it was okay for men to be treated like criminals without any evidence that they are in fact criminals.

Now let’s ignore for a moment that the things you said which I quoted above are factually inaccurate. The reason why my impression was that you were trying to justify those beliefs was because of what you said here:

“Being male is a "crime", unfortunately, because of all our asshole brothers out there.”

By using the word “because” one is left to assume that you are trying to offer a rational explanation for the treatment. The purpose of rational explanations is to justify belief systems.

It would be helpful here if you could clarify your position. Do you believe that it is justified for people to treat men they do not know as criminals, child molesters and rapists without any information beyond the observation that they are men?

Jason wrote: "It would be helpful here if you could clarify your position. Do you believe that it is justified for people to treat men they do not know as criminals, child molesters and rapists without any information beyond the observation that they are men?"

From this woman's perspective, I don't think taking safety precautions (e.g. meeting someone for the first time in a public setting as opposed to someplace secluded) can be accurately described as treating somebody like a criminal. True, I don't intend to have my ferally disturbed remains discussed on the evening news, but there are multiple other reasons why a woman (or a man) would be wise to limit a new person's access into their personal life, including simple incompatibility.

Meloni,

The topic of being treated like a criminal was originally brought up by Patrick with reference to a story about how his friend merely spoke to a child in a very public place and apparently the mother looked upon him with horror.

That isn’t a simple matter of “taking safety precautions”. Being horrified that a man so much as spoke to your child is a matter of being convinced that even the slightest interaction with an unknown adult man has a strong likelihood of causing damage to the child. That type of belief is irrational and damaging to society.

Meeting in public places for a first date is smart advice for both men and women and is a reasonable precaution to take. That type of behavior isn’t treating anyone like a criminal. Maintaining a certain level of privacy early on is also completely reasonable. Trust is something that people need to earn over time.

On the other hand, requiring that someone provides their social security number and passport information prior to going out on a date so that you can run a background check would be taking things way too far. Fortunately for us people haven’t gotten quite that paranoid. History teaches us however that those levels of paranoia are indeed possible (the witch trials are a good example), so it is best to nip the fear mongering in the bud early.

In any case, I am happy to report that I held a door open for an elderly lady with a walker this afternoon and she was very appreciative of the gesture.

I was in Mexico City many years ago. A very pregnant woman got onto the metro. I looked around - I was 32 at the time and perfectly healthy - to see if anyone would offer her a seat, as all the seats were taken. Nobody did, so I got up to give her mine.

Immediately, a young man sat in my seat.

A much older man across the aisle snapped to the young man, "You are no gentleman!" and gave up his seat.

I say the lack of opening the door is a red flag.

-- "Patrick with reference to a story about how his friend merely spoke to a child in a very public place and apparently the mother looked upon him with horror.

That isn’t a simple matter of “taking safety precautions”. Being horrified that a man so much as spoke to your child is a matter of being convinced that even the slightest interaction with an unknown adult man has a strong likelihood of causing damage to the child. That type of belief is irrational and damaging to society." --

I saw something very similar at work once. A secretary was with her daughter, two or three years old, and the owner of the business tried to interact with the child in an innocent and friendly/fun manner - in front of colleagues, obviously nothing sinister. She literally pulled the child away and behind her and protected the child, looking at him like he was some kind of predator. I saw her do this sort of thing a few times. I prefer not to think what kind of distorted message this sends to a child, but no doubt she will grow up equally paranoid about men.

Wow, I'm late to this party, but I have to respond to Jason... Jason, really? You don't think males are responsible for most of the violence on planet Earth? Recognizing this isn't male-bashing, it's reality. As Amy always says, do some research. Find the stats. Put yourself in a dark parking lot and hear footsteps behind you. Is it a woman? You're good. Is it a man? Run.