"Gwenhyffar Milgi" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:24:48 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 6/11/04 12:13, in article ,
"Gwenhyffar Milgi" wrote:

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 21:49:18 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" wrote:



Piggybacking. I'd rather they bring out the food and serve it in the
order in which it comes out of the kitchen. That way everyone has a
chance to have their hot meal.

I find all these "ladies first" things annoying.


When I commented on the business of Ladies being served first, I was
actually talking of the table and those sat at it, be it 2, 4 or 6
people,
i.e. one couple, two couples or three couples. On the assumption that
all of
the food is ready to serve to all people, whether the same food or
from the
menu, then I feel that the Ladies should be served first out of
manners,
etiquette or whatever you want to call it.

As a female, I don't understand what is particularly good manners
about serving women first.


You will when you need a lifeboat.

I've never understood that one either. What's so special about women
and children that they need to go first? Whoever came up with such a
ridiculous idea?



Possibly someone wishing to give credence to the old superstition it was bad
luck to sail with women aboard - well, bad luck to *sink* with women aboard,
I suppose :-)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 7/11/04 0:22, in article ,
"Gwenhyffar Milgi" wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:20:14 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 7/11/04 0:09, in article ,
"Gwenhyffar Milgi" wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:24:48 +0000, Sacha
wrote:
snip
As a female, I don't understand what is particularly good manners
about serving women first.


You will when you need a lifeboat.

I've never understood that one either. What's so special about women
and children that they need to go first? Whoever came up with such a
ridiculous idea?


Simple biology and human compassion, I should think. But if you need
to
ask, you'll never be bothered by the answer. Your problem. Glug.

Biology? What does biology have to do with it?

One man can impregnate one million women. Given a KitKat and a cup of
Bovril
from time to time.
One woman cannot impregnate another woman. No man can impregnate another
man. However, as I think you know all this and are just being 'funny' for
the sake of it, I'll leave you to work the rest out for yourself.

But isn't the biological imperative to ensure the continuance of one's own
contribution to the gene pool? Accepting an increased risk of one's own
death to ensure the survival of one's children (and someone to look after
them) might qualify, but doing similar for the sake of other people's
offspring would probably be counterproductive, IMO. I suspect the tradition
has more to do with human moral values than biology.

Gwenhyffar Milgi wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 22:03:44 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

ex WGS Hamm wrote:
[...]
Do you have a crewcut, tattoos , piercings and wear dungarees?
curious

A bit out of touch there, ex? (I assume we can't call you WGS any
more.)

I welcome the opportunity to offer and accept courtesy on
absolutely
equal terms. Sure, I'll do things like treating an obviously
pregnant
woman, for example, with extra consideration, as I often would a
man
laden with parcels; but I think it's best to tailor behaviour to
circumstances. Courtesy is knowing what's right at a particular
time
and place, not a mechanical thing.

Yup. I'll hold open the door for someone who is laden with parcels,
infirm etc. I'll hold open the door if someone is right behind me
or
coming from the other side.

If I'm first out the car, I'll open the door for anyone who needs
getting out.

You see, my idea is that these simple courtesies work much, much
better if everyone practises them for everyone, not just men for
women
because women should somehow be regarded as special simply because
they are women.

Right. (And we're really really OT he apologies to those who quite
reasonably resent that.) But I've had interesting, and inconclusive,
discussions with my daughters about certain wider implications. I
worry about allowing women to become combat pilots, which may seem to
contradict my other views.

We operate a disgusting double standard here as elsewhere, I know;
but we still have a vague relic of the sense that if you go to war
you should on the whole, and when it's convenient, and if the world's
press isn't looking too closely, not kill too many of the enemy's
women and children. Killing men is one thing: but killing women is
wiping out a community or a race. In former Yugoslavia that would
have broken down if the mass-murderers hadn't, apparently, usually
restricted themselves to males over the age of puberty. If the
opposing sides in Yugo had used women as combat troops, those rules
would have led to _everybody_ being murdered; and the losing
communities would have had no chance of recovery.

I'm not pretending I'm clear about this.

Mike.