# Women walking behind men . . .



## Reina140

My friend's boyfriend from a Central American country made the comment when they were arguing that "women should walk behind men." I'm personally OFFENDED (for me and every other woman on this planet), and I was wondering if this is a cultural thing or if he is just a sexist pig! I've never been treated this way nor will I allow it. I would like to hear other's thoughts about this.

Thanks and responses would be appreciated!!


----------



## quitejaded

It doesn't matter which one. If that is the culture, then don't you think the culture is sexiest?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

In 2006 we shouldn't even be commenting such a stupid statement: especially when they are a couple, a man and a woman should stand beside each other through thick and thin and never one behind the other one, in any sense.


----------



## Hockey13

Paulfromitaly said:


> In 2006 we shouldn't even be commenting such a stupid statement: especially when they are a couple, a man and a woman should stand beside each other through thick and thin and never one behind the other one, in any sense.


 
When I have a girlfriend, I prefer to stand in precisely the spot that my heart desires me to be in, wherever that may be. People here in the south have made similar comments to me about how a man should always stand on the street side of a sidewalk while the woman stands on the outside. I refuse to get caught up in such ridiculous formalities. Any woman who considers these things chivalry is not the one for me.


----------



## quitejaded

Wow, people really think about that in the south? Hehehe, that's not anything here in the US. No one even ... fathoms it to begin with!


----------



## Etcetera

A really odd statement.
I've heard once that in Muslim culture, women should walk behind men, though. But I'm not sure about that.


----------



## Sallyb36

No no no no no no no no , this is too old-fashioned.


----------



## Nunty

Just to put a different slant on it:

In a concert with a number of artists, the less important are the opening acts, and the most important goes on last.

In a liturgical procession, the lesser acolytes are in front, followed by the priests, then the bishops, then the presiding cardinal -- the most important  person in the procession.

At a formal wedding, the flower girls go first, then the maids of honor, then -- in place of honor -- the bride, bringing up the rear.

Don't throw anything at me. Just my attempt at lightening the atmosphere.

It is not odd, but not quite usual, in the streets of Jerusalem to see a woman walking behind a man. I don't think I'd care for it, myself.


----------



## Etcetera

Nun-Translator, you're wonderful - just as usual. I really like your point.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nun-Translator said:


> It is not odd, but not quite usual, in the streets of Jerusalem to see a woman walking behind a man. I don't think I'd care for it, myself.



I wouldn't care too much for it either, but whenever I try to picture the whole scene of a wife "forced" (because that's what likely happens: due to some cultural or religious beliefs she *has* to do it) to walk behind her husband there's something bothering me: it's "the male is a superior being and therefore he has the right to walk in front" thing which nowadays I can't stand any more.


----------



## xarruc

Did it come from a tradition of the man going first to protect?

Some of our customs we had in the UK are derived from obselete security practices. The one that comes to mind is taking your hat off in-doors and dof ing your hat to a superior when he passed by. - the point was so that your face could be seen and your recognised-

(interestly this issue has resurfaced now regarding hoodies and veils in the UK)

Not that that defends it now. Of course.


----------



## ElaineG

In ancient times, unfortunately, a Jewish wife was supposed to walk beyond her husband because she was a lesser person, not because he was protecting her.  
(Our traditional daily prayers have men thank God for the fact that they were not born a woman, while women thank God for having been made according to His will.  What can I say? It's an ancient religion, if observed in its most traditional forms.)

Sometimes when I see Hasidic families out in the park on Sunday, the man is walking ahead while the woman is a few steps behind with several children.  I don't know whether this is recreation of the ancient practice or simply the slowing down effect of looking after several children.  I'm happy to say that most walk side by side.

This religious attitude of course, is not unique to orthodox Judaism.  I recently attended an evangelical Christian wedding where the bride promised to obey, and where the pastor's speech was all about how the husband would be the head of the household, guiding, teaching and protecting the wife, as Jesus guides, teaches and protects the family as a whole.


----------



## Reina140

xarruc said:


> Did it come from a tradition of the man going first to protect?
> 
> Some of our customs we had in the UK are derived from obselete security practices. The one that comes to mind is taking your hat off in-doors and dof ing your hat to a superior when he passed by. - the point was so that your face could be seen and your recognised-
> 
> (interestly this issue has resurfaced now regarding hoodies and veils in the UK)
> 
> Not that that defends it now. Of course.


 
I heard a joke once that the women in middle eastern countries are forced to walk behind the men, but they don't mind, because then the men will step on the landmines first!  LOL

Thanks for all responses!  (he's just a butthole, apparently . . lol)


----------



## Heba

Reina140 said:


> I heard a joke once that the women in middle eastern countries are forced to walk behind the men, but they don't mind, because then the men will step on the landmines first! LOL


 
I do not find anything funny about the landmines thing.

Anyway...in Egypt , women usually walk beside  men, sometimes before them and rarely behind them. When a guy and a girl walk together, they usually walk beside each other. In a crowded place, a guy might walk before a girl to make the way for both of them, with her right behind him. Of course, this is meant for protection.

Nowadays,in a group of friends, I think that most people do not think about who comes first when walking through the streets. Perhaps you would find a group of friend with  guy and a girl ahead followed by two girls then two guys and a girl...you know...something like that. But even here, guys they still pay attention to things like pulling chairs for girls when in a restaurant , letting them pass first or opening doors for them.

In general, men here still behave in a **gentleman like way*, Thank God.

* I hope this is the correct word.
 ​


----------



## Outsider

People say a lot of stupid things when they argue, which later they regret having said, and don't identify with. It doesn't necessarily mean your friend's boyfriend is sexist.


----------



## mansio

It is very usual to see Turkish men walking a few steps ahead of their wife. Most of them are people of a certain age. 
There is a joke that says when you see a man talking alone in the street, look behind him, there must be his wife listening.


----------



## übermönch

Indeed, if've seen quite often poor younger immigrants (those of them wearing clownish pants and admiring rap)  to walk in front of their girlfriends, especially in groups - not regarding wether their parents immigrated from Turkey, Poland, Kazakhstan or any other country. Therefore I'd guess it has something to do with the western lowlife macho culture of the slums.


----------



## Hockey13

Heba said:


> I do not find anything funny about the landmines thing.


 
I do.  



> Anyway...in Egypt , women usually walk beside men, sometimes before them and rarely behind them. When a guy and a girl walk together, they usually walk beside each other. In a crowded place, a guy might walk before a girl to make the way for both of them, with her right behind him. Of course, this is meant for protection.


 
I don't know if it's for protection, but if so, what is he protecting her from? Isn't it a bit chauvinistic to think of a woman as one's own possession any of which nobody else can have?



> Nowadays,in a group of friends, I think that most people do not think about who comes first when walking through the streets. Perhaps you would find a group of friend with guy and a girl ahead followed by two girls then two guys and a girl...you know...something like that. But even here, guys they still pay attention to things like pulling chairs for girls when in a restaurant , letting them pass first or opening doors for them.




Guys pay attention to girls like that here too, but in my greatest relationships, I've found girls will do the same for me if I need it. Why must these niceties be limited to men? I will not neglect being polite and nice, but I will not go very far out of my way to pull a chair for a fully grown human being. I feel there is a certain level of disrespect in that action that says, "Here, I am looking to possess you as a parent possesses a child, I'd rather focus on this chair than on how we react with each other." Naturally, I will do anything she needs me to do and I will go beyond that to prove to her that I care about her, but I will not be chivalric for chivalry's sake.



> In general, men here still behave in a **gentlemanly like way*, Thank God.
> 
> * I hope this is the correct word.


 
You call it gentlemanly behavior, I call it archaic and old-fashioned. There is a clear distinction of culture here. I believe it to be more gentlemanly if you presume a woman to be independent and focus on her wits, as that, to me, is the most important facet, given physical attraction.


----------



## Outsider

Hockey13 said:


> You call it gentlemanly behavior, I call it archaic and old-fashioned. There is a clear distinction of culture here.


I take it you haven't read this thread.


----------



## mansio

I often discussed with my wife as to why elderly Muslim men walk in front and often at some distance of their wife. 
I think the simple explanation is that it is an other example of the separation between the sexes that Islam (or Islamic culture) puts forward.


----------



## Hockey13

Outsider said:


> I take it you haven't read this thread.


 
Seems to reiterate the same line of discussion of this thread.  Sorry, what was your point?


----------



## ireney

I don't think that particular habbit was ever part of the Greek culture (there were other sexist ones that I know of) but I know for certain that a man doing that will most definitely get in trouble  (even if the wife is slowed down by children; he should slow down too).

As for the man walking before the woman in crowds: Well, some of my boyfriends have tried it in the past (not to protect me per se; just thinking they can do a better Moses job in the sea of people). I always let them since I get tired of saying "I'm sorry", "excuse me", "pardon me" and trying to squiggle my way through but only one of them was as good as I wasn so after a while I usually take the lead to show them how it's done


----------



## Hockey13

ireney said:


> As for the man walking before the woman in crowds: Well, some of my boyfriends have tried it in the past (not to protect me per se; just thinking they can do a better Moses job in the sea of people). I always let them since I get tired of saying "I'm sorry", "excuse me", "pardon me" and trying to squiggle my way through but only one of them was as good as I wasn so after a while I usually take the lead to show them how it's done


 
I totally agree! I will "take control" of the situation in a crowd only if I'm better at getting through a crowd than she is. In standing-room concerts, my ex-girlfriend was a fiend at getting to the front row, so she'd lead the way and clamp down on my hand to drag me through. In large square or in New York City, I would lead the way, because, as a hockey player, I tended to have a better ability to find a quick path through a lot of big people.


----------



## Fleurs263

übermönch said:


> Indeed, if've seen quite often poor younger immigrants (those of them wearing clownish pants and admiring rap) to walk in front of their girlfriends, especially in groups - not regarding wether their parents immigrated from Turkey, Poland, Kazakhstan or any other country. Therefore I'd guess it has something to do with the western lowlife macho culture of the slums.


 

I don't believe this tradition of women behind men can be equated with "slums" or "lowlife".  It concerns the powerlessness of women in certain cultures, and this concerns women from all classes and varying economic backgrounds.


----------



## Outsider

Hockey13 said:


> Seems to reiterate the same line of discussion of this thread.  Sorry, what was your point?


That it has nothing to do with cultures. In the other thread, you can see the most disparate opinions, coming from people with the same culture as you.


----------



## Hockey13

Outsider said:


> That it has nothing to do with cultures. In the other thread, you can see the most disparate opinions, coming from people with the same culture as you.


 
Ah I see. But surely some cultures tend more toward one rather than the other. For instance, the apparent examples of a man walking far in front of a women existing in some Arab countries whereas that sort of thing would be very strange here. I do believe it is a matter of how "liberated" (if you want to use the feminist term) a culture is. Clearly some people in some cultures will feel some way some of the time, but I'm speaking in generalities, of course.


----------



## LouisaB

I suspect it may be an issue of age as well as culture - and hope it's a practice which will soon be considered archaic everywhere.

Even in England, we have little residual traces of this kind of convention. A woman should always stand or walk on a man's left (if he's right-handed), which was originally in order to enable him to draw his sword without striking her. You'll hardly ever, ever see this now, and I doubt more than 5% of English people are aware of it, but it still survives in formal weddings.

Similarly, a man should always walk on the road side of the pavement (in order to prevent his wife's clothes being splashed by the carriage wheels!). I quite like this one. However, it can be tricky if the man also believes in walking on your right (as above) - it would mean you'd have to keep crossing the road to get him on the correct side of you...


----------



## Outsider

Hockey13 said:


> Ah I see. But surely some cultures tend more toward one rather than the other. For instance, the apparent examples of a man walking far in front of a women existing in some Arab countries whereas that sort of thing would be very strange here.


I didn't get the idea that that was the sort of thing Heba meant by "gentlemanlike behaviour".


----------



## Hockey13

Outsider said:


> I didn't get the idea that that was the sort of thing Heba meant by "gentlemanlike behaviour".


 
Ah yes, of course, but therein lies the thing. I see the two as very similar, whereas she doesn't.


----------



## Heba

Hockey13 said:


> I don't know if it's for protection, but if so, what is he protecting her from? Isn't it a bit chauvinistic to think of a woman as one's own possession any of which nobody else can have?


 
He is not doing it because he thinks that she is his possession, but simply because she needs such help. Read my post again. I have not said that guys ALWAYS go before girls in crowded places. I have given example of one of the instances in which you might see a guy before a girl



> I feel there is a certain level of disrespect in that action that says, "Here, I am looking to possess you as a parent possesses a child, I'd rather focus on this chair than on how we react with each other." Naturally, I will do anything she needs me to do and I will go beyond that to prove to her that I care about her, but I will not be chivalric for chivalry's sake


.

I do not understand why you think that behaving like a gentleman implies some degree of possession. Again, I cannot find in my post anything that says that such nicities are ''restriced'' to men. As you said, a girl can do the same when needed...but I believe that such things are expected more from guys.



> You call it gentlemanly behavior, I call it archaic and old-fashioned. There is a clear distinction of culture here. I believe it to be more gentlemanly if you presume a woman to be independent and focus on her wits, as that, to me, is the most important facet, given physical attraction.


 
I call it the a b c of universal etiqutte rules which people from different cultures -and different social levels within these cultures- may or may not follow nowadays. Choosing to follow such rules by behaving in a gentleman like way does not in any way imply disrespect of a woman's wit.


----------



## Seana

übermönch said:


> not regarding wether their parents immigrated from (...) Poland (...) or any other country. Therefore I'd guess it has something to do with the western lowlife macho culture of the slums.


 
I really liked this forum very much but recently I cannot carry these terrible opinions on Poles. This quote and other former threads with jokes of Polish intelligence. To be honest I didn't even suppose about such opinion about us. Do you all really forgot about the Polish people here. It is very, very offended for me. I am very upset. Poland is a beautiful big country of wise intelligent, sensitive and civilised people.The Second World War relegated us to the terrible camp. Our life was dull and hopeless for a lot of years, We earned only 20 dollars for the month. We had the great punishment but not for our guilts. Now everyone scoff at us. All emigrations, humiliating life in poverty in Germany or US weren't our independent choice. Think about it, please.

Apologise but some statements for last days here caused me really great pain.


----------



## emma42

Seana, I am so sorry you have been upset.  I don't think anyone made any jokes about Polish people in the thead about jokes about stupid people.  Were people not just reporting what they had heard?


----------



## Trina

LouisaB said:


> I suspect it may be an issue of age as well as culture - and hope it's a practice which will soon be considered archaic everywhere. Amen to that!
> 
> Even in England, we have little residual traces of this kind of convention. [...]


Actually, in England , you even have the reverse....

Her Majesty walks ahead while her husband follows a few paces behind.

Another right royal example...
I remember watching a strange scene on TV where  Prince Charles was walking ahead and his wife, Princess Diana was meant to be following behind but she would not have a bar of it. She actually walked ahead of him  and he gently tugged at her clothing to pull her back. If looks could kill, he would have been dead on the spot.


----------



## rcaj609

i know that in the military the lower ranking officers walk infront of the higher ranking officers, so if theres a badguy around the corner the lower ranking officer get shot giving the higher ranking officers a chance to defend themselves.


----------



## LouisaB

Seana said:


> I really liked this forum very much but recently I cannot carry these terrible opinions on Poles. This quote and other former threads with jokes of Polish intelligence. To be honest I didn't even suppose about such opinion about us. Do you all really forgot about the Polish people here. It is very, very offended for me. I am very upset. Poland is a beautiful big country of wise intelligent, sensitive and civilised people.The Second World War relegated us to the terrible camp. Our life was dull and hopeless for a lot of years, We earned only 20 dollars for the month. We had the great punishment but not for our guilts. Now everyone scoff at us. All emigrations, humiliating life in poverty in Germany or US weren't our independent choice. Think about it, please.
> 
> Apologise but some statements for last days here caused me really great pain.


 
Dear Seana, I'm really sorry you've been upset - and reading the post you mention again, I can quite understand why.

But I do agree with emma. I honestly do not believe anything was said in the thread on 'stupid people' which meant any disrespect to Poles. I had the impression we were all deriding the use of stereotypes, including that one.

It would be very stupid of us to take any other view. Here in England, the view of the Poles is very much the one you yourself have given. To us, the very word Poland arouses positive emotions, many of them going back to the Second World War, and others arising from the heroism of Lech Walesa (is that the correct spelling?). To us, Poles are synonymous with courage, endurance and gallantry.

It can be very difficult on this forum. I am English, which means I have to endure a certain amount of automatic sniping from our traditionally ancient enemies, the Americans and the Irish. I am also a Christian, and have to read many posts which don't seem to think it could possibly be offensive to speak of 'the Christian viewpoint' as something every sane person must deride. I'm sure, in turn, that I myself give offence to any number of people through an inability to imagine a viewpoint other than my own. You are more senior than I, and know we all need to develop thick skins to stay here. Truly, I don't believe anyone means any harm. I do hope you stay.



> Actually in England, you even have the reverse...


 
Good point, Trina. I'd forgotten that - but you're quite right. I suspect, however, it may be more to do with a Queen taking precedence over her consort. How archaic it seems, though, doesn't it?

Louisa


----------



## Trina

> I suspect, however, it may be more to do with a Queen taking precedence over her consort. How archaic it seems, though, doesn't it?


Yes, I think you're right but I thought it was good that Diana fought it (both as a woman and as a consort)


----------



## Seana

Hi Luisa,

Thank you a lot for your words. The fact that somebody here is conscious of our very difficult Polish situation is for me very comforting.


----------



## Fleurs263

LouisaB said:


> I suspect it may be an issue of age as well as culture - and hope it's a practice which will soon be considered archaic everywhere.
> 
> Even in England, we have little residual traces of this kind of convention. A woman should always stand or walk on a man's left (if he's right-handed), which was originally in order to enable him to draw his sword without striking her. You'll hardly ever, ever see this now, and I doubt more than 5% of English people are aware of it, but it still survives in formal weddings.
> 
> Similarly, a man should always walk on the road side of the pavement (in order to prevent his wife's clothes being splashed by the carriage wheels!). I quite like this one. However, it can be tricky if the man also believes in walking on your right (as above) - it would mean you'd have to keep crossing the road to get him on the correct side of you...


 
I've heard of the second example, but not the first; it must have been a nightmare for some young beau not sure of his right from his left .... and the woman must have been a little stunned herself ... "Where's he going now?" kinda thing.
As for walking behind your man ... Maybe the  women  should just nip back home, while the men keep walking  ... put their feet up with a cuppa and  chuckle ....


----------



## xarruc

On the Polish (and any others) issue.
 
I just want to make the comment that the concept of an Eastern Europe being so different to Western Europe is, in my mind, a new thing due to communism and the Iron Curtain. Until about 60 years ago much of Eastern Europe was much like Western Europe with empires, kings, queens, merchants etc. Western royals would visit Eastern royals and vice versa. In another 60 years the last 60 will just be a blip in an otherwise fairly harmonious Europe. The Eastern/Western concept should be buried as it is based in inferiority/superiority and breeds racism and mistrust. Unfortunately due to our hardly-democratic EU and the resulting inevitable, but poorly-handled migration, racism and xenophobia is on the up.
 
 
On the Diana issue.
 



> Yes, I think you're right but I thought it was good that Diana fought it (both as a woman and as a consort)



 
The origin of the formality and so on of the royal family was to intimidate others as part of a power game. Now it is just tradition and she should not have taken it upon herself either as a woman, nor as a consort, to take a unilateral and spontaneous decision to change if. Her intentions may have been feminist-inspired, republican-inspired or simply trying to get in the papers, it doesn’t matter, it was ill-mannered and disrespectful. There is a time and place and process for such things.
 
 
On the demise of chivalry.
 
Common practice over times becomes culture and is society’s way of enforcing acceptable and sensible behaviour. Traditional food often comes from ways of eating up the scraps or rotten meat: spice, herbs and strong sauces to disguise the flavour, fondues for stale bread and dry cheese, paella for leftovers, etc. Acceptable behaviour often came from security and safety practices, such as taking of hats, woman walking on the right. Other traditions exist through a need to control society to preserve health. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that pork was banned by Judaism to prevent disease (pigs being less hygienic than other animals) or that lent fasting was inspired by a need to force people to save the stored crops through barren winters. No sex before marriage made a more ordered society and was good advice in days when women didn’t work.
 
All these vestigial snippets and anecdotes of the past make up our culture and should be cherished. Culture has to be dynamic and so as some traditions fall out of practice others replace them. However I think now there is a tendency of small, single-issue pressure groups to force through things, either through laws or landmark court cases, that chip away at ‘natural behaviour’ and create this sort of neutral, politically-correct, grey world. Live and let live!


----------



## Fleurs263

On the Diana issue.

[/color]

The origin of the formality and so on of the royal family was to intimidate others as part of a power game. Now it is just tradition and she should not have taken it upon herself either as a woman, nor as a consort, to take a unilateral and spontaneous decision to change if. Her intentions may have been feminist-inspired, republican-inspired or simply trying to get in the papers, it doesn’t matter, it was ill-mannered and disrespectful. There is a time and place and process for such things.

I think you have to appreciate how much respect she had for Charles at the time. She was living with him and given her smitten starry eyed behaviour at the beginning of their relationship, things must have gone down hill ... perhaps she wanted to make people realize the Royal Family are just a group of people who use traditional behaviours to cover the reality of their existence.  Phillip ... as in the rudest man in the world ... has been known to smack people with his walking stick to get them out of his way and frequently walks in front of the Queen. Personally I'd like to smack him with my walking stick ...


----------



## xarruc

> I think you have to appreciate how much respect she had for Charles at the time.


 
It was not just disrespectful to Charles and to the monarchy, but also to all the other people who choose to follow protocol. When I worked as a waiter in a 5* hotel, although we as staff ate off mismatched, chipped crockery, we took pride in that the guests had everything immaculate. There were some guests who had got deals etc and come on the cheap and were not your typical 5* clientele. I found it offensive to our efforts and to the other guests when they did not follow simple etiquette. It's true that the ins and outs of etiquette are pretty pathetic and I don't follow them at home, but in this setting they are very important to some people and as such it was disrespectful to disregard them. The Diana example is the same. It was disrespectful for all the other people who make protocol central to their work and social setting.


----------



## Fleurs263

Hi xarruc, I understand your point .. but do you think her intention was to be disrespectful to those other people?  I think, first and foremost, she was  a young woman who was fighting a system; my impression is she was isolated, had been misled and was making a point in the only way she could think of ... for maximum effect.  Does Charles now insist that Camilla walk behind him? Or does he behave in a more equal fashion towards her, because of the way he feels about her?


----------



## xarruc

I accept your point. I guess then it gets to the ends and means debate.



> because of the way he feels about her?


 
...or because society in general has changed?


----------



## Fleurs263

Dear xarruc .. it's possibly a bit of both, I'm not sure.  What does gladden my heart is to hear you say that you prided yourself on providing a quality service to anyone who came into the restaurant.  It would have been easy for some to resent eating off chipped plates etc and with this in mind, I believe manners, etiquette and attitude are to be valued. In society, everyday, I am stunned by the lack of basic manners and I am by no means a stickler for etiquette.


----------



## maxiogee

Reina140 said:


> My friend's boyfriend from a Central American country made the comment when they were arguing that "women should walk behind men." I'm personally OFFENDED



We finally let you out of the kitchen and look at how you thank us! Honestly, some people are never happy! 

======



Hockey13 said:


> …about how a man should always stand on the street side of a sidewalk while the woman stands on the outside.


Surely the 'street' side of a sidewalk _is_ the outside? 
Wall - -pavement- - road
<—inside ---- outside—>

In British and Irish chivalry a gentleman walks between the woman and the roadway, to protect her from splashes of mud, or, in the days of horse-drawn carriages, horsey-matter. This serves the purpose nowadays of thwarting motorcycle pillion-passengers who snatch exposed handbags(purses) draped over a woman's 'off-side' shoulder.


----------



## Fleurs263

*


maxiogee said:






We finally let you out of the kitchen and look at how you thank us! Honestly, some people are never happy! 

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


maxiogee said:


> *But you could have unlocked the chains first.... it's not easy following you men around, dragging the sink and part of the kitchen wall at the same time  ...  Ah, the strength of women ... if only you knew!!*


----------



## Hockey13

maxiogee said:


> Surely the 'street' side of a sidewalk _is_ the outside?
> Wall - -pavement- - road
> <—inside ---- outside—>
> 
> In British and Irish chivalry a gentleman walks between the woman and the roadway, to protect her from splashes of mud, or, in the days of horse-drawn carriages, horsey-matter. This serves the purpose nowadays of thwarting motorcycle pillion-passengers who snatch exposed handbags(purses) draped over a woman's 'off-side' shoulder.


 
I see the street as a closed system:

Outside system <=== Sidewalk <=== Street ===> Sidewalk ===> Outside system

Hence, the outside side is toward the left and right, whereas the inside side is toward the center.


----------



## emma42

I find it extraordinary that Xarruc feels entitled to talk about the disrespect of others when s/he feels able to criticise a woman because she did not walk behind her husband, and, further, talks about, "...some guests who had got deals etc and come on the cheap and were not your typical 5* clientele...".

This last, I find disrespectful in the extreme.


----------



## LouisaB

emma42 said:


> I find it extraordinary that Xarruc feels entitled to talk about the disrespect of others when s/he feels able to criticise a woman because she did not walk behind her husband, and, further, talks about, "...some guests who had got deals etc and come on the cheap and were not your typical 5* clientele...".
> 
> This last, I find disrespectful in the extreme.


 
I'm sorry, emma, I'm afraid I'm about to incur your wrath, because I do think xarruc is making a very legitimate point.

What Diana did was not only disrespectful, it was downright hypocritical. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she married Charles. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she accepted the adulation that went with her role, along with the curtsies and general royal protocol. To accept all these things as her right, and then deny them to the very man who had given her that status was despicable. Yes, she may conceivably have been a saintly person who wanted gently to change the monarchy from the inside, but this was hardly the way to do it. She could have said she no longer wanted to be addressed as Your Royal Highness. She could have forbidden people to curtsey to her. No, she chose instead to publicly humiliate her husband and everyone else present who had obediently folowed protocol by effectively declaring that she, and she alone was above it. Personally, I don't care for that kind of behaviour.

Xarruc's point about the waiters is critical. There are many people in service industries who take a genuine pride in being the best they can be at the job they do. We may personally feel politically they should not have to do those things, but that is our own opinion, and to deny the feelings of people like this is itself a form of snobbery. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mean for a moment that your argument is 'snobby', only that some people take a perverse pleasure in embarrassing service staff just in order to show how liberal (?) they are. When someone has spent their entire day preparing for something, and taken real pride in presenting it perfectly, it is naturally upsetting for them to see the lucky recipients of their attentions so ungrateful that they actually declare 'this whole way of doing things is cr*p'.

I totally disapprove of a woman being made to walk behind her husband because she is a woman. However if you accept the idea of a monarchy, you have to accept that the monarch (and her heir) are entitled to forms of respect. If you don't accept the idea of a monarchy, then that's a totally different topic, which has nothing to do with women walking behind their husbands.

Louisa


----------



## Fleurs263

*"What Diana did was not only disrespectful, it was downright hypocritical. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she married Charles. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she accepted the adulation that went with her role, *
*I totally disapprove of a woman being made to walk behind her husband because she is a woman. However if you accept the idea of a monarchy, you have to accept that the monarch (and her heir) are entitled to forms of respect. If you don't accept the idea of a monarchy, then that's a totally different topic, which has nothing to do with women walking behind their husbands." Louisa[/quote*]

I made this point earlier, but I think it's still valid. Charles makes an effort in public to ensure that Camilla walks with him or in front. He treats her as his equal. This was never apparent with Diana and probably for the reason that she was younger and seen as a good match, a good womb and no threat to the hierarchy.  Given how used she was by the Royal Family, she behaved well, I think.  She was more popular and the people wanted to see her.  I doubt whether Charles ever gave her a quarter of the respect he gives Camilla ... with whom he was having an affair at the time, wasn't he?  Given the circumstances, protocol and etiquette seem very unimportant, especially since we're talking about walking down the street to meet and greet.  And again Philip's been known to walk in front of the Queen hasn't he?  Perhaps we've moved on ... I'd respect anyone who deserved it and wouldn't have a problem with  someone like Nelson Mandala walking in front of me ...but Charles or Phillip ... only if there was an uncovered manhole ahead ...


----------



## LouisaB

Fleurs263 said:


> I made this point earlier, but I think it's still valid. Charles makes an effort in public to ensure that Camilla walks with him or in front. He treats her as his equal. This was never apparent with Diana and probably for the reason that she was younger and seen as a good match, a good womb and no threat to the hierarchy.


 
Since I only met Diana twice and Charles once, I can't say I knew either of them well enough to be able to make such a comment on his view of her. I don't believe in making assumptions about other people's marriages based on what a highly manipulated media chooses to report. A possibly more obvious, but less emotive reason would be the one you give yourself - that we have _moved on. _This is not a matter of hearsay, or speculation on other people's feelings, it is a simple fact. The Queen has made it clear she no longer requires people to curtsey to her, which is official recognition that protocol of this kind has been relaxed. Under these circumstances it would be very surprising for Charles not to relax the rules with his new wife. 



> Given how used she was by the Royal Family, she behaved well, I think. She was more popular and the people wanted to see her. I doubt whether Charles ever gave her a quarter of the respect he gives Camilla ... with whom he was having an affair at the time, wasn't he? Given the circumstances, protocol and etiquette seem very unimportant, especially since we're talking about walking down the street to meet and greet.


 
To be honest, I don't feel it's my business to speculate on the emotions in this tragic marriage, nor am I sure what it has to do with the question under discussion. With regard to protocol or etiquette, it isn't a matter of what either you or I would necessarily feel appropriate, it's a matter of the 'rules'. As I've tried to say before, our own views on the monarchy aren't really relevant.



> And again Philip's been known to walk in front of the Queen hasn't he? Perhaps we've moved on


 
Philip was not a 'commoner'. However, I do think you make an interesting point here which is highly relevant to the thread if we can keep personality judgements or unhelpful comments about manholes out of it!!! I suspect the real reason the Queen has never (at least to my knowledge) objected to Philip's occasional breaches of protocol in this respect is _because he is a man, and her husband._ To me, this suggests the 'women walk behind' practice has not yet totally died in England (although I obviously wish it had!). I'm speculating myself now, of course, and I don't feel I can actually ask the Queen for the truth on this  , but it's difficult to think of an alternative explanation. The Queen is, of course, elderly, and her views would be considered very old-fashioned now, but she may have felt it would be unseemly in her to insist on her superior status to her husband.

Still, as I say, I'm speculating.

Louisa


----------



## emma42

Dear Louisa, I do not care whether Diana was pro-monarchy, anti-monarchy, libertarian, or communist, nor do I care about the traditions of the royal family.  She had the right to walk in whichever relative position she pleased.

Further, in relation to your third paragragh in post #49, I am a little bewildered:  I cannot recall denying, as your post implies, that people in service industries do not "take a genuine pride in being the best they can be at the job they do.", nor can I recall saying or implying that I feel "politically they should not have to do those things", nor can I recall "...denying the feelings of people like this...", nor can I recall talking about, "...the lucky recipients of their attentions so ungrateful that they actually declare 'this whole way of doing things is cr*p'".  I can't actually recall anyone writing anything like that.

Perhaps you were alluding to some post which has been deleted?

I was merely objecting in my post to the strong implication that people who were not the "usual 5* clientele" (whatever that may mean), and who had "come on the  cheap" were more likely to be rude than those (presumably more moneyed)  people who could afford expensive dinners. 

I am amazed that you would read so much into what I wrote.  I am also amazed that you should so obviously assume that I am not in the service industry myself.


----------



## HUMBERT0

Reina140 said:


> My friend's boyfriend from a Central American country made the comment when they were arguing that "women should walk behind men." I'm personally OFFENDED (for me and every other woman on this planet), and I was wondering if this is a cultural thing or if he is just a sexist pig! I've never been treated this way nor will I allow it. I would like to hear other's thoughts about this.
> 
> Thanks and responses would be appreciated!!


I think is a cultural thing in some societies. When my dad starts walking ahead of my mom, she tells him _"ya estás como el cora, el indio adelante y la vieja atras"_ it's an funny expression "_your acting like a Cora Indian, him in front and the women behind_". My Parents come from a state were there are still different ethnic groups, mestizos and whites, and different native americans peoples with their one culture, language, traditions, etc., these native americans come down to the city, and you can see them strolling along, and people do notice that women always walk behind them, sometimes even carrying heavy things, and the men don't help. Maybe it’s because the men carry the machete and cuts in a path across the jungle, je je je.  It's a different culture, what can I say.


----------



## xarruc

I do not believe that woman should walk behind men. (Eg what the original post was about)

I believe Diana had a RIGHT to walk in front of Charles

I do not thinks she should have EXERCISED that right as in the setting it was disrespectful to brek the protocol. If they had had a referendum and said "after much deliberation, the royal family is going to change protocol so Diana can walk with him" I probably would have voted yes.

But remember in a monarchy no one is the equal of the king/queen and the heirs to the throne are more important than their consorts. Thats not sexism it's monarchism.




> "usual 5* clientele" (whatever that may mean), and who had "come on the cheap" were more likely to be rude than those (presumably more moneyed) people who could afford expensive dinners.



That's just reactionist nonsense. Don't try and score a point then there is no point to be had. The usual 5* clientele are people used to going to 5* hotels ... and that's it. No class criticism here. "come on the cheap" is just peoples people who had got a good deal.

My point was simple. Some people came to the hotel and chose not to follow the etiquette established there. It's not to say all people who go to a 5* behave badly, nor that all who get a good deal have no money. In fact the opposite was more true. However there were some who came and acted like slobs. Some who belittled all the niceties we had prepared. And that was offensive.


----------



## Fleurs263

Louisa, ah now you made a fundamental mistake in thinking I didn't/don't know either Diana or Charles well.  And since both publically made comments and we can all see human emotions (through tv screen) I think some assumptions are valid.  And as for the tragic marriage ... Charles seems to be doing OK and as for Diana .... I can't see how you could fail, given the known truths since the marriage (of which Camilla is living proof), not have some respect for a woman who's background would have dictated certain protocols and who despite this chose to fight the backward, analy retentive protocol.  He wasn't just her monarch, he was her husband and he treated her badly.  
As for Phillip well .... Mon dieu ...is he just the rudest man in the Universe ..? (rhetorical)


----------



## cuchuflete

Did Charles the adulterer deserve any respect?  Who dishonored the monarchy more, Charles with his unfaithfulness, dishonesty, and deceit, or Diana, who walked where protocol would not have had her walk?

Is there a different protocal for royals?  Are they supposed to be treated with respect when they behave as Charles did?  If so, then I'll move away from my long-standing indifference to monarchy, and become an opponent.


----------



## übermönch

Fleurs263 said:


> I don't believe this tradition of women behind men can be equated with "slums" or "lowlife". It concerns the powerlessness of women in certain cultures, and this concerns women from all classes and varying economic backgrounds.


An "ecomic background" is just one of the things that define one's culture - The pack of values, traditions and rules a human lives with - and, certainly, it affects it much stronger than religion or anything else - that's what I was trying to say. Benazir Bhutto, being a prime-minister's daughter, had more in common with an average western princess than an average Pakistani peasant, who, on the other hand, had many things in common with any person in similar socio-economic circumstances. 
Why's the European and US-American lowlife culture so terribly homophobic and antiintellectual? Whatfor are the Fubu-pants, why all the hip-hop stuff? The manity cult, the macho behaviour and the subsequent repression of women has not been any different for thousands of years all over the world - it wasn't brought from Turkey, West Africa or Latin America it's all our local culture. 




Seana said:


> I really liked this forum very much but recently I cannot carry these terrible opinions on Poles. This quote and other former threads with jokes of Polish intelligence. To be honest I didn't even suppose about such opinion about us. Do you all really forgot about the Polish people here. It is very, very offended for me. I am very upset.
> Poland is a beautiful big country of wise intelligent, sensitive and civilised people.The Second World War relegated us to the terrible camp. Our life was dull and hopeless for a lot of years, We earned only 20 dollars for the month. We had the great punishment but not for our guilts. Now everyone scoff at us. All emigrations, humiliating life in poverty in Germany or US weren't our independent choice. Think about it, please.
> 
> Apologise but some statements for last days here caused me really great pain.


Seana, I am both terribly sorry and terribly confused. Either you misunderstood me or I am misunderstanding you  That indeed is somthing to think about. All I told is that 
<<a considerable part of the _poorest _*GERMAN* youth _(which, due to lack of vertical social mobility and severe social descrimination in FRG almost wholely consists of children of people lacking any kind of capital, who, once again, mostly are immigrants from *VARIABLE *poorer countries,) _parts common values, not only seen in Germany, but all over the anti-social part of the West.>> _
"Poland, Kazakhstan, Turkey or *any other country*"_ were taken as examples of that the apparent cultural heritage actually doesn't make any difference. The 3 countries were called simply because most immigrants in Germany hail from there, which, by the way, isn't related to their ethnicity.


----------



## emma42

zarruc, please don't accuse me of trying to "score points".  This is not why I participate in this Forum.  I had an objection to something you wrote, and I voiced that objection.  You, apparently, do not now think that only people who have got a cheap deal are ungrateful to waiting staff, so we have no argument.

In relation to Diana walking behind Charles, how can someone have a "right" to walk where they wish to walk, yet be criticised for "exercising" such a right?


----------



## LouisaB

emma42 said:


> Dear Louisa, I do not care whether Diana was pro-monarchy, anti-monarchy, libertarian, or communist, nor do I care about the traditions of the royal family. She had the right to walk in whichever relative position she pleased.


 
Dear Emma, thank you for stating your position. Personally, I am neither pro or anti monarchy myself, nor am I concerned with Diana's political views, nor do I personally care about the traditions of the royal family. However, when behaviour occurs within the context of certain rules (which Diana's did) then I don't see how I can make any kind of reasoned argument about it which ignores those parameters as if they did not exist. When, for example, we discuss Muslim women walking behind men, then I don't think I could say anything sensible about it without recognising the restrictions imposed by their religion.



> Further, in relation to your third paragragh in post #49, I am a little bewildered: I cannot recall denying, as your post implies, that people in service industries do not "take a genuine pride in being the best they can be at the job they do.", nor can I recall saying or implying that I feel "politically they should not have to do those things", nor can I recall "...denying the feelings of people like this...", nor can I recall talking about, "...the lucky recipients of their attentions so ungrateful that they actually declare 'this whole way of doing things is cr*p'". I can't actually recall anyone writing anything like that.
> 
> Perhaps you were alluding to some post which has been deleted?


 
I was aware of the danger of a reader misinterpreting this kind of implication , which is why I included a sentence specifically to make it clear it was _not_ your attitude I was talking about, but that of the clientele to which xarruc refers. Have a look at my sentence beginning 'Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mean for a moment that _your_ argument is snobby'. As you know, I'm always pitifully anxious not to give offence!  But I see you did not quote this part of my post, so perhaps you missed it. Fair enough, it was a long, rambling post!



> I was merely objecting in my post to the strong implication that people who were not the "usual 5* clientele" (whatever that may mean), and who had "come on the cheap" were more likely to be rude than those (presumably more moneyed) people who could afford expensive dinners.


 
In my opinion, it would be a little unfair to call someone disrespectful by referring only to a single line taken out of context, without the weight of the preceding argument behind it. Those described as 'not the usual 5* clientele' would be those who are by definition unused to the etiquette traditionally required. The money is only relevant as an explanation of why these people were attending an occasion to which they were unused. I would totally agree that money or lack of it makes no difference whatsoever to a person's willingness to be rude, but it would be a charitable explanation of why someone comes to an occasion demanding particular etiquette and then flouts it. Diana, unfortunately, has no such excuse.



> I am amazed that you would read so much into what I wrote. I am also amazed that you should so obviously assume that I am not in the service industry myself.


 
Dear emma, I think you have possibly misread me. My post was based on xarruc's, not on yours. My only disagreement with you was that I do not find xarruc's argument 'disrespectful'. Nor do I make any assumptions as to whether or not you work in a service industry. I know I could now say 'Perhaps you are responding to a post that is deleted', but I am not interested in point scoring, I'm trying to take part in a discussion about the cultural practice of women walking behind men.

I was not attacking you, and I am sorry you felt the need to respond in this way. I hope my position is now clearer.

Louisa


----------



## LouisaB

Fleurs263 said:


> Louisa, ah now you made a fundamental mistake in thinking I didn't/don't know either Diana or Charles well.


 
I never said you didn't know them well. What I said was that _I_ didn't. For me personally, it would be ludicrous to give any credence to what the media say or present on this subject, because I have had considerable experience of being misrepresented myself in the past. I know how the system works, I know how interviews are traded for television, and how they're edited, and how easy they are to slant. I know how innocent people can be used as hostages in order to persuade people to 'say' certain things on air, and what kind of threats are made behind the scenes. I know that 'truth' is what a paper or tv station can publish without being sued, and that the Royal Family do not sue. I know that Diana's face on a cover sells more papers and magazines than anyone else, and any media or TV tycoon who happens to own newspaper interests or to have close dealings with those who do, would go out of their way to avoid falling out with her in any way. I also (unfortunately) know that some media are prepared to tell whopping great lies. So are some individuals, when anxious to ensure their case receives maximum sympathy. I would mistrust any organ which imagines there is an 'absolute truth' in the conduct or break-up of a marriage, especially when their perception relies almost entirely on one person's account.

You personally may be happy to rely on what the media presents, and to base your judgement on that. That is your prerogative, as long as you acknowledge your sources. But with my own experience, I cannot possibly do that.



> I can't see how you could fail, given the known truths since the marriage (of which Camilla is living proof), not have some respect for a woman who's background would have dictated certain protocols and who despite this chose to fight the backward, analy retentive protocol. He wasn't just her monarch, he was her husband and he treated her badly.


 
I do actually have some respect for Diana, but my personal feelings about her are not relevant to a discussion about whether women should walk behind men, and I am anxious they should not colour what I say. With reference to the topic itself, my concern (as I said above) is that she did not attack those protocols when respect was given to _her_, only when it was given to _him. _Whatever one's personal views on the protocol, I would find it hard to defend that kind of hypocrisy.

I hope that clarifies my position. For me, this is not a Charles v Diana thread, it's about a cultural practice.

Louisa


----------



## xarruc

> In relation to Diana walking behind Charles, how can someone have a "right" to walk where they wish to walk, yet be criticised for "exercising" such a right?



I have the "right" to answer my mobile phone in a cinema, but surely should be criticized for exercising that right, (with unexpected emergancy situations excepted, of course).


----------



## emma42

I'm sorry, xarruc,  but I think your argument is illogical.  I think we are interpreting "right" differently.  I don't want to get off-topic with this....


----------



## Fleurs263

cuchuflete said:


> Did Charles the adulterer deserve any respect? Who dishonored the monarchy more, Charles with his unfaithfulness, dishonesty, and deceit, or Diana, who walked where protocol would not have had her walk?
> 
> Is there a different protocal for royals? Are they supposed to be treated with respect when they behave as Charles did? If so, then I'll move away from my long-standing indifference to monarchy, and become an opponent.


 

  I'm hoping that you are now an opponent  ... the idea is that the Monarchy is to be respected at all times, despite the disgraceful behaviour, the arrogance ... it is well known that the "dear" Queen Mother was a good friend of Rhodes, as in the man and Rhodesia. He was a bigot, a racist and nothing short of a nazi.  He believed in total white supremacy.  The Royal Family has more than its fair share of skeletons and closets .. but I guess they're just better quality closets or deemed more valuable.


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> it is well known that the "dear" Queen Mother was a good friend of Rhodes, as in the man and Rhodesia. He was a bigot, a racist and nothing short of a nazi.



*What??????*
Cecil John Rhodes, (July 5, 1853 – *March 26, 1902*)
Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (*4 August 1900* – 30 March 2002)

"A good friend" — Cop on, she wasn't even two years old when he died! Were they ever even in  the same room?


----------



## Hockey13

Fleurs263 said:


> ...it is well known that the "dear" Queen Mother was a good friend of Rhodes...


 
It is also _well known_ that we never landed on the moon!

Maybe you should cite sources when you make such claims.


----------



## heidita

mansio said:


> It is very usual to see Turkish men walking a few steps ahead of their wife. Most of them are people of a certain age.
> There is a joke that says when you see a man talking alone in the street, look behind him, there must be his wife listening.


 
I have seen the same happen in Germany. It is an outrageous thing to happen from the German point of view.


----------



## mansio

heidita said:


> I have seen the same happen in Germany. It is an outrageous thing to happen from the German point of view.



I was confronted to the situation in the eighties in Syria. Women were walking behind their husbands and the only couples were two guys together, sometimes holding their hands (which has not the meaning it could have in the West). We decided my girlfriend and me to walk together and hold our hands.


----------



## heidita

> Now it is just tradition and she should not have taken it upon herself either as a woman, nor as a consort, to take a unilateral and spontaneous decision to change if. Her intentions may have been feminist-inspired, republican-inspired or simply trying to get in the papers, it doesn’t matter, it was ill-mannered and disrespectful. There is a time and place and process for such things.



I agree with this. I am a defender of tradition and I think the monarchy cannot survive if this fails. 
In Spain there was an enormous uproar as the new daughter-in-law-to-be of the King of Spain in the public presentation of the future wedding, held back Prince Felipe and interrupted him, while he was talking. She was very much criticized for this behaviour. I think in her position she didn't have the right to do so.





xarruc said:


> I have the "right" to answer my mobile phone in a cinema, but surely should be criticized for exercising that right, (with unexpected emergancy situations excepted, of course).


 
You do not have the right to bother other people. Why you should think that is above me. Your interpretation of the word "right" is peculiar.



Fleurs263 said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But you could have unlocked the chains first.... it's not easy following you men around, dragging the sink and part of the kitchen wall at the same time ... Ah, the strength of women ... if only you knew!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emma42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it extraordinary that Xarruc feels entitled to talk about the disrespect of others when s/he feels able to criticise a woman because she did not walk behind her husband, and, further, talks about, "...some guests who had got deals etc and come on the cheap and were not your typical 5* clientele...".
> 
> This last, I find disrespectful in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do so, too. "come on the cheap" sounds especially nasty...In any case I didn't get the idea very well. Was this a 5*hotel which didn't deserve the qualification of a 5* any more? So in this case, the "normal" clientele would have "come on the cheap" , wouldn't they?
> 
> 
> 
> LouisaB said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> What Diana did was not only disrespectful, it was downright hypocritical. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she married Charles. She was hardly anti-monarchy when she accepted the adulation that went with her role, along with the curtsies and general royal protocol. To accept all these things as her right, and then deny them to the very man who had given her that status was despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you marry into this status you have to follow the rules. She had no excuse in my opinion either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xarruc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that woman should walk behind men. (Eg what the original post was about)
> 
> I believe Diana had a RIGHT to walk in front of Charles
> 
> I do not thinks she should have EXERCISED that right as in the setting it was disrespectful to break the protocol. If they had had a referendum and said "after much deliberation, the royal family is going to change protocol so Diana can walk with him" I probably would have voted yes.
> 
> But remember in a monarchy no one is the equal of the king/queen and the heirs to the throne are more important than their consorts. Thats not sexism it's monarchism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seeing the next post I am almost sorry to agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just reactionist nonsense. Don't try and score a point then there is no point to be had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why you should think that a forera like emma should want to _score a point_ or have the intention or need to do so is also above me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The usual 5* clientele are people used to going to 5* hotels ... and that's it. No class criticism here. "come on the cheap" is just *peoples people* who had got a good deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some who belittled all the niceties we had prepared. And that was offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you taken into account that the clientele simply didn't think they were nice at a all? I might not get your point.
> 
> 
> 
> mansio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was confronted to the situation in the eighties in Syria. Women were walking behind their husbands and the only couples were two guys together, sometimes holding their hands (which has not the meaning it could have in the West). We decided my girlfriend and me to walk together and hold our hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw this too in Morocco, it seems to be rather customary. Very strange for a European.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fleurs263

maxiogee said:


> *What??????*
> Cecil John Rhodes, (July 5, 1853 – *March 26, 1902*)
> Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (*4 August 1900* – 30 March 2002)
> 
> "A good friend" — Cop on, she wasn't even two years old when he died! Were they ever even in the same room?


 
Maxiogee ... *a good friend of the Rhodes' family  ..* Whilst I like the colour purple, was there any reason to underline and highlight the dates? Next you'll try to tell me the Lord Mountbatten was a nice guy and living in Ireland you should know, surely that he wasn't either! Or ....  that Edward VIII didn't communicate with Hitler or that Oswald Mosley didn't move in the royal court circles of the day.


----------



## Fleurs263

Hockey13 said:


> It is also _well known_ that we never landed on the moon!
> 
> Maybe you should cite sources when you make such claims.


 

Sorry can't find the book where it was stated " "dear" Queen Mother." As for the mistake earlier ...It should have read ..."She was a *friend of the Rhodes' family*." ...It is an historical fact. Next you'll be saying we need to verify that Elizabeth II is the Queen ... and quote sources to that effect. 

I'm concerned that people don't wish to comprehend what is being said and would prefer to nit pick .. it shouldn't have taken much to work out what was meant.


----------



## Nunty

But, well, excuse me, but doesn't "Queen Mother" refer to the mother of the reigning monarch, in this case Queen Elizabeth's mum. If that's true, no matter what else one might say, the dates work.


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> Maxiogee ... *a good friend of the Rhodes' family  ..*


That is not what you said in your post. You made a categorical statement asserting that it was well-known that she and he were friends —> "as in the man and Rhodesia"
Now you say it was with his family that she was friendly - does this mean that because (you say) he held certain political opinions that his family automatically did also.

I have a problem with this sort of "guilt-by-parentage" - "He was a bigot, a racist and nothing short of a nazi." you said. Why didn't you make these allegations against whichever of his children she was friendly with? What do parental 'sins' have to do with them?



> Whilst I like the colour purple, was there any reason to underline and highlight the dates?


When making assertions here I like to give a spot of evidence. You might like to try it. I wanted to show that they couldn't have been what you asserted they were.



> Next you'll try to tell me the Lord Mountbatten was a nice guy and living in Ireland you should know, surely that he wasn't either! Or ....  that Edward VIII didn't communicate with Hitler or that Oswald Mosley didn't move in the royal court circles of the day.


Please try not to tell me what I'll do next - but when I was a lad and met the man he seemed pleasant and charming. My father had taken us fishing from the rocks at Mullaghmore and Lord Mountbatten was out for a stroll from Classiebawn. He stopped for a long chat.


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> I'm concerned that people don't wish to comprehend what is being said and would prefer to nit pick .. it shouldn't have taken much to work out what was meant.


It shouldn't have taken much to type what was meant!


----------



## LouisaB

Nun-Translator said:


> But, well, excuse me, but doesn't "Queen Mother" refer to the mother of the reigning monarch, in this case Queen Elizabeth's mum. If that's true, no matter what else one might say, the dates work.


 
Hi, Nun-Translator,

A good (and kind!) thought. In fact, Fleur263's next post makes it clear she was indeed referring to Elizabeth, but only to her friendship with Rhodes' descendants.

However, it's worth picking up your point as a matter of English expression.

1. I think it's highly unlikely anyone ever referred to Queen Mary as the 'dear Queen Mother'!  She was somewhat of a termagant, and unpopular with the public.

2. 'Her Majesty Queen Mary' preferred to keep her title in that form, and did not use the title 'Queen Mother', although she was entitled to it. Neither did her only predecessor, Alexandra. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the first person to be publicly known as 'Queen Mother'. When the phrase 'Queen Mother' occurs in an informed publication, therefore, it only refers to 'Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon'. Of course, if our present Queen abdicates in favour of Charles, then she too would probably take the name.

Louisa


----------



## tweety79

mansio said:


> I often discussed with my wife as to why elderly Muslim men walk in front and often at some distance of their wife.
> I think the simple explanation is that it is an other example of the separation between the sexes that Islam (or Islamic culture) puts forward.


It is important not to generalize about Middle Eastern culture..when you say saudi Arabia, its completely different to Jordan or Lebanon or Egypt...Each country is different in its traditions, just like when you say Europe...These are all stereotypes...if you really read about Islamic principles and law you will realize that Islam gave the women all her rights that were not existent before islam...I have been to every Middle Eastern Country and i have yet to see women walking behind men...I must say that the media has played a big role in our lives in making us belive things that are true or not.....Dont ever believe eveything you see on tv...I hate these stereotypes like when you say the french are arrogant and dirty...I never listen to these stupid stereotypes.......
If you buy books about Islam,\you will be astonished to what you will find...why is it the fastest growing religion in the world, and look at France......how many people convert there...there gotta be something that grabs their attention.....All I am saying is;it surprises me how the world have made stereotypes about the muslim religion without even knowing anything about these cultures or at least going there..........I hope this cleared your thought...If you need more clarification, please let me know......


----------



## tweety79

mansio said:


> I was confronted to the situation in the eighties in Syria. Women were walking behind their husbands and the only couples were two guys together, sometimes holding their hands (which has not the meaning it could have in the West). We decided my girlfriend and me to walk together and hold our hands.


You are talking about the 80's, wow thats 30 years ago....so much can change......


----------



## maxiogee

I forgot to ask…


Fleurs263 said:


> Next you'll try to tell me the Lord Mountbatten was a nice guy and living in Ireland you should know, surely that he wasn't either!



Why would my living here bring me to know anything about his degree of niceness?
Nor do I understand what you mean by "that he wasn't either!" Neither "nice" nor _ _?


----------



## Poetic Device

I guess I am a bit spoiled.  My husband insists on walking a step behind me so that he can look around and "protect me from all sides".  :^)


----------



## Fleurs263

maxiogee said:


> I forgot to ask…
> 
> 
> Why would my living here bring me to know anything about his degree of niceness?
> Nor do I understand what you mean by "that he wasn't either!" Neither "nice" nor _ _?


 
This answer will also refer to your previous comments. 
Firstly, to make a mistake is human. I rectified the mistake. I am amazed that given your speech on protocol and therfore manners that you couldn't have displayed some courtesy and asked me if I had in fact made a mistake. 
Secondly, it is insulting that you would assume I would come onto a public forum and make up any old crap willly nilly. the problem is and continues to be, it would seem that you did not wish to acknowledge the possiblities. And I think it's fair to assume that the family did not move much politically in one generation.
Thirdly, Mountbatten regularly made fishing trips off the coast of Ireland during the period of Irish (Northern, in particular) history when Catholic people were being heavilly discriminated against. (And I'm assuming here that he wasn't on a budget at the time.) Catholic homes were regularly being raided and women and children abused. My source for this is my own father, who told me of his expriences as an officer who had to raid "the dirty bastard Catholic houses". As a child, _I came into contact with the higher echelons of the military world_ and they are abusive and unpleasant. 

I believe you struggle with the concept of the "here and now". The idea that bad things are happening in the present not just in the past and there are some unpleasant people who have privelege and power. (And to burst your bubble, the Borgias weren't very nice either).

To finish, because I have to go out .. I think it would be good to establish some protocol to stop people attempting to ridicule or humiliate others when a mistake has been made. By the way your joke (linking this to the original subject of how women all over the world are forced to take second place) about women and the kitchen was as funny as a joke about giving black people equality when they've already been given their freedom.... on a thread about racism. I chose to take in good part but I thank you for maiking me more aware of how unfunny it really was.


I think you must have dropped your manners and fallen over them on the way to access the internet and check the birth dates.  and if there are any mistakes, try to be polite about it ... I'm in a rush.


----------



## maxiogee

Fleurs263 said:


> Firstly, to make a mistake is human. I rectified the mistake. I am amazed that given your speech on protocol and therfore manners that you couldn't have displayed some courtesy and asked me if I had in fact made a mistake.


I didn't see a mistake - I saw a categorical claim that she was friendly with someone whom she most likely never met.
I see an attempt to brand the Queen Mother by association — I don't know or care about who she associated with, but would I be justified in blackening your name because the brother of one of your friends wasn't very nice?

By the way, just to set the record straight - just which of his family is it you say she was friendly with? Perhaps if you enlighten us we can check them out for ourselves, and see if they made any public pronouncements which might have revealed their political or social thinking.



> Secondly, it is insulting that you would assume I would come onto a public forum and make up any old crap willly nilly. the problem is and continues to be, it would seem that you did not wish to acknowledge the possiblities.


You are at liberty be take insult if you wish to, but I was just challenging your assertion. The level of thought which most forer@s here put into their posts may have led me to overlook the possibility of error. I apologise for any gratuituous insult.




> And I think it's fair to assume that the family did not move much politically in one generation.


Who exactly are you saying she was associated with, and what are you saying they did?
My late father and I had widely different political opinions, and my mother had yet others. My sister and I would be close, politically, but I have differneces with both my brothers. You seem intent on using this guilt-by-association.




> Thirdly, Mountbatten regularly made fishing trips off the coast of Ireland


Of course he did - he had a home here. He lived at Classibawn, Mullaghmore, Co. Sligo.




> My source for this is my own father, who told me of his expriences as an officer who had to raid "the dirty bastard Catholic houses". As a child, _I came into contact with the higher echelons of the military world_ and they are abusive and unpleasant.


So, all those who serve in the officer corps are nasty people? Stunning reasoning. Mountbatten was navy, and they are a different breed of person. Mountbatten was a descendant of Queen Victoria, and was as unlike most military people as it is probably possible to get. He was a supporter of the Labour Party for example. He was a skilled diplomat - not a trait associated with most army officers! 

[Have you asked yourself why the raids on Catholic houses were necessary? There were some people operating in Northern Ireland - from Catholic houses - who weren't (and still aren't) very nice people.]
 




> I believe you struggle with the concept of the "here and now".


I don't know what gives you that idea.




> The idea that bad things are happening in the present not just in the past and there are some unpleasant people who have privelege and power. (And to burst your bubble, the Borgias weren't very nice either).


I never indicated that the Borgias gave me a moment's thought. I don't see why they figure here.
I have no problem with the concept that unpleasant people have privilege and power. I have known it at first hand - having been deeply involved in party politics here for many years. 





> By the way your joke …


… was another example of my style of humour. I haven't had any complaints before and I apologixe to you for any distress it may have caused. I console myself with the thought that you managed to be big and brave and stifle the sobs as you joined in the banter in the next post.




> I think you must have dropped your manners and fallen over them on the way to access the internet and check the birth dates.  and if there are any mistakes, try to be polite about it ... I'm in a rush.


My post came almost an hour and fifty minutes after yours - I hardly see any haste.



As for manners, I think you have probably been making an assumption or two too many lately…


Fleurs263 said:


> I think some assumptions are valid.(rhetorical)





Fleurs263 said:


> And I think it's fair to assume that the family did not move much politically in one generation.





Fleurs263 said:


> (And I'm assuming here that he wasn't on a budget at the time.)





Fleurs263 said:


> I believe you struggle with the concept of the "here and now".





Fleurs263 said:


> I think you must have dropped






Fleurs263 said:


> Phillip ... as in the rudest man in the world ... has been known to smack people with his walking stick to get them out of his way


Many people with sticks do this, or have you been so keenly observing the royal family that you haven't noticed?


I find it strange that I should be quibbling with someone about inane assumptions and assertions about the British royal family. I have about as much time for them as I have for line-dancing bores and on-commission chuggers!


----------



## Trina

Had I known what a hornet's nest I was stirring, I may have picked another example. (post #33) Then again, nah!
I feel like I am some little dog who has stirred up all the big dogs in the room, started them brawling and then quietly walked away.

My point was that this convention of one person exerting the power to walk in front of some other person whether it be based on feelings of superiority, racism, sexism or part of some monarchistic ritual, it should be questioned and hopefully abolished.


----------



## Hockey13

Trina said:


> Had I known what a hornet's nest I was stirring, I may have picked another example. (post #33) Then again, nah!
> I feel like I am some little dog who has stirred up all the big dogs in the room, started them brawling and then quietly walked away.
> 
> My point was that this convention of one person exerting the power to walk in front of some other person whether it be based on feelings of superiority, racism, sexism or part of some monarchistic ritual, it should be questioned and *hopefully abolished*.


 
I don't know about that. As you can see in my posts in this thread, I abhor the practice, but nobody has the right to tell anyone how to walk.


----------



## Fleurs263

You know what Maxiogee  .... they're all really nice people ... Eva Braun too by association ... and hey maybe Marie Antoinette was too naieve to really understand what was going on ...
One point, however,  I don't recall saying was that Mountbatten was unpleasant because of the raids on Catholic houses ... no ...he wouldn't have dirtied his hands ... he was too busy fishing.  But I guess you'd have to an Irish Catholic, victimised and abused to see how insulting this would have been.  Also don't see the problem with expressing opinion, in terms of I believe and I think, it's called having an opinion/ thought. As for blackening someone's name .. your use of "blackening" as negative imagery and a valid description tells me all I need to know.  

You would need to have extensive personal and academic  knowledge of psychology and the process of actualisation/self improvement to understand why within one generation the offspring  is unlikely to have shifted psychologicallyand therefore personally from its parent, especially when in a position of power and privelege ... therefore there being no need.
Personally I think it's always got to be better to have a passionate opinion based on fact, than no opinion at all.


----------



## Lusitania

I've really tried, really hard to avoid this post because sexist behaviour does really gets on my nerves.

I try to have an intercultural approach of these things. I have many friends from countries were such practises are a norm and I do try hard to understand it and respect it.

It seems like that's not the case of our boyfriend and probably this could be a begining of many other attitudes that you probably sensed as not being correct and you have all the right to feel offended.

I would be behind yes, while he running! I would give him a latin experience that he wouldn't forget.


----------



## maxiogee

This is a public message as the forer@ has turned off PMs and emails.



Fleurs263 said:


> You know what Maxiogee  .... they're all really nice people ... Eva Braun too by association ... and hey maybe Marie Antoinette was too naieve to really understand what was going on ...


Why are you so insistent about trying to show that I am unable to recognise 'not nice' people?




> One point, however,  I don't recall saying was that Mountbatten was unpleasant because of the raids on Catholic houses ... no ...he wouldn't have dirtied his hands ... he was too busy fishing.  But I guess you'd have to an Irish Catholic, victimised and abused to see how insulting this would have been.


If you are not an Irish Catholic then I think you needn't tell me how those of us who were would feelm about anything.
I can tell you that for many who had to deal with the excesses of the British Army one of the last things on their minds was the lifestyle of Lord Mountbatten!




> Also don't see the problem with expressing opinion, in terms of I believe and I think, it's called having an opinion/ thought.


Opinions need to be 'formed' - and based on more than "I think we can can assume" and on more than "I read in a book". Find out. I see you still cannot say which of the Rhodes' family you are accusing of being as evil as Cecil the nazi whyo pre-dated the Nazis.



> As for blackening someone's name .. your use of "blackening" as negative imagery and a valid description tells me all I need to know.


It should tell you my age-group and that I live in a country where it isn't a word to be eschewed for PC reasons.  

[quotePersonally I think it's always got to be better to have a passionate opinion based on fact, than no opinion at all.[/QUOTE]Try offering us some then, and not assumptions and snippets from books. I have asked for some, but you have failed to deliver.

As for women walking behind men, you have certainly managed to take this way off topic.

and finally…


> within one generation the offspring is unlikely to have shifted psychologicallyand therefore personally from its parent,


And doesn't it show itself in very strange ways?


----------



## LouisaB

Fleurs263 said:


> You know what Maxiogee .... they're all really nice people ... Eva Braun too by association ... and hey maybe Marie Antoinette was too naieve to really understand what was going on ...


 
I apologise to everyone for the digression, but I too have been unable to respond to this by PM, and there are two statements here which can't be allowed to go unchallenged in a forum for serious discussion.

Fleur, you appear to be being sarcastic here, and thus treating as well known fact the guilt of Eva Braun, and a lack of naivety on the part of Marie Antoinette.

You may well be right about Eva Braun, and I haven't read sufficient to say with any authority exactly how much she knew, or how complicit she was in what was done. However, 'guilt by association' is not admissible in English law, because by very definition it is based on 'prejudice' rather than a judicial appraisal of the facts known about the individual concerned. That does not prevent it from being used by unscrupulous people to gain their political ends, as when the actions of Winnie Mandela were used in an attempt to besmirch Nelson Mandela. It is not, in my opinion, a tool of reasonable debate.

Your view of Marie Antoinette seems to be strikingly at odds with that of historians of the period, for instance Simon Schama and Christopher Hibbert. I am sure your statement is based on other well-researched histories which reached different conclusions about her, and I would very much like to know their titles. Even so, the controversy at this level shows her guilt cannot possible be credibly treated as known fact. It is true there were many prejudices against her in her lifetime, largely engendered by the national mistrust of a foreign princess, and she was certainly subjected in her lifetime to the most appalling, prolonged and disgusting smear campaign I know of before the Nazis used similar tactics against the Jews. It is true there may even be ill-informed people out there who genuinely believe she said 'Let them eat cake'!!!!' But surely nobody would base any kind of real argument on that?

I would take issue with the rest of your post too, but maxiogee has already done this far more effectively than I could do. If there is anything I have said which concerns you, do please feel free to PM me. I am anxious not to disrupt this thread topic any further.


----------



## cuchuflete

May I step out from behind my woman to offer a thought?  The most shallow thinking about history often manifests itself when people take the values of their era and superimpose them on a bygone era.  By today's standards, Mr. C. Rhodes had some very nasty attitudes.  By the standards of his own time perhaps he was fairly ordinary.  That doesn't move him up or down any objective scale, if such were to exist, of moral goodness.  It's just silly to play revisionist games.   

Once upon a time women could not vote in the UK or in the US.  That's historical fact. From today's viewpoint, that represented misguided thinking, injustice, and a lack of common sense.  Should we therefore judge all men—and all women—of those days to have been oppressors and oppressed idiots?  Or, should we note and attempt to understand the origins of that state of the world, and be glad for evolution in thinking and actions? 

Certainly many things that happened 'once upon a time' would be deemed unacceptable today, but then they didn't happen today.  Women being expected to walk behind men is one of those sad exceptions that happened both then and happens now.  There's an idea worthy of the rubbish heap, royal or otherwise.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:  Now that foreros and foreras are no longer slanging each other's gender, I am going to rephrase the original topic to something more neutral.

In your culture and its history, do couples walk side by side or does one proceed the other?  Why do they do this, and/or what is the history behind this?


----------



## la reine victoria

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Moderator note: Now that foreros and foreras are no longer slanging each other's gender, I am going to rephrase the original topic to something more neutral.
> 
> In your culture and its history, do couples walk side by side or does one proceed the other? Why do they do this, and/or what is the history behind this?


 


I walk beside my man. Sometimes we hold hands or put an arm around each other's waist.  

This is how it should be.  

As for the royal protocol in the UK, it is quite correct that Her Gracious Majesty should be followed by her consort. It is traditional and part of our great heritage.

Today was different, however. It was the State Opening of Parliament and most delightful to see H.M. The Queen being escorted on the arm of Prince Phillip as they processed to the chamber where she read the latest plans, for the coming year, of her dreadful government.

Princess Anne was a wonderful "Gold Stick-in-Waiting".

God, I'm so proud to be British.  





LRV


----------



## Lusitania

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Moderator note: Now that foreros and foreras are no longer slanging each other's gender, I am going to rephrase the original topic to something more neutral.
> 
> In your culture and its history, do couples walk side by side or does one proceed the other? Why do they do this, and/or what is the history behind this?


 

I don't think that was slanging. We were being humorous about sexist behaviours. Some sexism added to that as well and some girl power. I don't think that men still today get half the violence we have to take. At least I never heard that a man had to go to the police because he was being stalked and harrased in the subway (in my 8 years of experience as a victim support professional assisting male and female victims) as I had to do yesterday.

In my culture there is no norm on how couples walk side by side or if they proceed one another. It's their choice.
Thank you.


----------



## Maja

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In your culture and its history, do couples walk side by side or does one proceed the other? Why do they do this, and/or what is the history behind this?


 I don't know about the past, but today, they usually walk side-by-side. There is no cultural custom that obligates either gender to go first. 
I even think that it is gentlemanly thing to allow woman to go first (when he opens a door for her, or let her enter public transportation first even at the cost that he doesn't get in etc.).
However, there are some situations in which I prefer my boyfriend going ahead of me, holding my hand and lead the way (like in crowded places -> those 20cm of height difference between us comes quite handy ).


----------

