To think men don't need to walk between a woman and the road and wonder where that idea came from?

[Damselindestress]

I saw this picture on Facebook. After staring for a while I eventually realised that they were saying he should be walking on the street side and that was confirmed in the comments but I don't know why that is considered correct etiquette. I've only heard of walking on the street side when walking with children so they don't run into the road, seems a bit patronising with an adult. I wondered if anyone could let me know where this idea comes from?

I can't explain why it isn't patronising, in the same way as I can't explain why anything that I don't think is vaguely patronising, is patronising. I just don't see it that way. Fair enough if you do. Meh. I love old-fashioned manners and chivalry. Just because women and men are equal doesn't mean we're the same, and I think it is nice for a man to make special gestures such as the one we're discussing, as a way of appreciating women. We are the life-givers after all.

I wouldn't be offended by It, it is learned behavior after all and not nessacarily learned from men. It's meant well and life's too short to get heat up about where you stand on the street side by side is equal whichever side you are on, I'd be livid if I was expected to walk behind someone tho that is a clear indication of your place.

Another one here who has no problems with it. I work full-time in a difficult job for the same pay as the blokes, but I still like it when a man holds a door open or is chivalrous. So shoot me!

I just open the door for whomever is coming next. Slightly more likely to do it for older people, people with mobility issues, people with prams and so on. Walk on the outside for kids and animals.

I don't see why doing these things for women is 'manners' rather than 'oud-moded tradition'.

My brother used to insist on this, practically pushing me to the inside so he could be 'chivalrous'.

Pissed me off massively. I never understood why forcibly causing me to move where I was walking was so chivalrous.

Mind you this was the same guy who wouldn't let me breast feed in front of him (more relevantly wouldn't let the mother of his child breast feed in front of him) because he was "squeamish" so I generally thought his attitude to women was a bit messed up.

Whoever isn't pushing the pram walks on the outside in our household.

If I'm alone with pram and crossing paths with someone I move to the inside, if I have no pram and cross paths with someone who does I move to the outside. I had no idea this was a protect the woman thing. I was taught to do it to benefit smaller children who may run into the road or have the pram roll towards/into traffic in a freak accident.

I like being on the outside as I convince myself that in the event of a traffic accident I could throw myself in front of the pram while pushing it and whole family out of the way and the sheer strength of my motherly love would shield my family from any danger. Reflexes of a cat, delusions of super strength - no chivalry here.

Just a desire to protect. DH is massively better insured than I am so I might start encouraging him to do this. Or does 'protection' and 'chivalry' only work one way?

From my etiquette manual, that all men are issued with:

Why do we escort women on our left arm?

When a man escorts his partner, tradition has it that he offers his left arm.This tradition originates from medieval times when men escorted women around town and through the fields. Should a threat arise or the woman’s honor require defending, the man’s sword hand (his right hand) would be free, giving him quick and easy access to his sword, worn on his left side.

To this day, the left arm rule still applies while indoors. However, with the rise of wheeled vehicles and non-pedestrian streets, the proper escorting etiquette evolved over the years for outdoor environments. Today, when escorting a women outdoors, you should position yourself on the outside (closest to the street) to protect her from traffic, mud splashing, etc.

I want a life manual, Tree.

Do you think we're overthinking this?

DH is massively better insured than I am so I might start encouraging him to do this.

Just make sure there are no witnesses when you push him into the path of oncoming traffic. I suspect that would invalidate the insurance.

I like men opening the car door for me, letting me go through a door first etc. Do I need protecting? Am I more vulnerable because I'm a woman? Well no.

I'm a feminist but I try not to read too much into everything.

A man at work helped me carry something that I was more than capable of carrying myself but I still thought it was nice of him to do that. Maybe that makes me a bad feminist. I would rather be viewed as a bad feminist than be a person who takes offence at someone doing something nice for me, no matter the history of the act.

I hope you don't all think you're getting a cut.

A man at work helped me carry something that I was more than capable of carrying myself I helped an elderly lady get some bread yesterday. She was capable but it was easier for me to do it than her. It's nice to be nice. Why does it have to be gender-based?

It's assuming a while group of people need protecting simply because of the fact they are women.
It's assuming that women are somehow weaker or less capable.

My dh knows I'm just as capable as him. He knows I'm not weaker in the sense that I need protecting from puddles.

It's just that he was raised to do it, for him it's just having good manners. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

Personally I think she should be carrying her bag in her left hand - that's just asking for one of those motorbike muggings that happen.

The only people who need to be protected on the inside are people who are likely to bolt or fall over - ie. young kids, and infirm adults, otherwise, it doesn't matter.

By all means walk on the outside, but if you're a man, and you insist because it's 'Gentlemanly' then you're actually being the opposite - a Gentleman wouldn't force a woman to do something she didn't want to.

I helped an elderly lady get some bread yesterday. She was capable but it was easier for me to do it than her. It's nice to be nice. Why does it have to be gender-based?

It doesn't, obviously.

I do nice things for people all the time. I'm sure the man at work would do it for another man as well.

Nothing wrong with being nice, nothing wrong with doing it if no-one minds, it is polite.

The only issue is forcing it.

My Dad always did this. My DH does, and my son does. It's just good old fashioned manners, and the way a gentleman would behave. But of course there's no need for manners in modern life. Don't hold open doors, don't stand up when someone older enters the room, don't say thank you, don't give up a seat, I could go on. Last week when we were at a party I noticed a group of 20somethings eating with their mouths open - not one -four of them. They looked like a bunch of lizards snarfing down their food. But who would care?

There is a brilliant bit in Sarah Waters 'The Paying Guests' about 'taking the wall'

I've never heard the chamberpot thing. I'd always assumed mud splashes from carriages in the days when washing a silk gown would be a much bigger ballache than wiping the mud off a man's boots but these days I can't see it serves a purpose, unlike holding doors and helping people carry things, so it seems a bit of an odd thing to insist upon. That said, I do it with the dcs.

But of course there's no need for manners in modern life. Yes, changing one, sexist tradition really does mean the end of civilization.

No reason to suppose that manners change, rather than just evaporating totally.

Grey dog I have plenty of manners thanks. I always offer seats on train or tube to pregnant or elderly people. Manners are by everyone to everyone. Not by men, to women.

Pregnant elderly people get two seats :o