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?

Yes, actually, I can. If they feel protective towards them eg if they were a couple.

And you said should up there ^^

"Do you think bigger stronger men should walk between smaller weaker men and the road?"

Yes, I take the 'should' back, I'm asking a different question.

Two men, not a couple, walking alongside each other. The bigger one repeatedly steps to the outside of the road to protect the smaller one. How do you think the smaller one would feel about that?

I did say 'if they felt protective towards them'. clearly everyone feels differently about it. As a woman, it doesn't upset or offend me at all but from this thread it seems that some women dislike it. I'm
Not sure why you're trying to suggest that my opinion of it is wrong. Each to their own as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't ask you why the bigger man would do it, I asked you how the smaller man would feel about it.

And I'm telling you I don't know because obviously everyone feels differently about it. See variety of comments from this thread ^ I was pointing out situations in which one male may feel protective over another (which is the motivation people have suggested for the man/woman situation) but you seem to want to keep narrowing this down further and further. What's wrong feckity? Do you not like women haven't different opinions than you?

Having

You were arguing that it makes sense for men to walk on the outside of the pavement when walking with women, in the same way that it makes sense for adults to do so when walking with children. I was trying to show that if you take that to its logical conclusion (bigger man walking with smaller man), it's absurd.

You were the one narrowing it down by saying, if it's a father with a son, if it's a couple.

"You were arguing that it makes sense for men to walk on the outside of the pavement when walking with women, in the same way that it makes sense for adults to do so when walking with children."

No, I wasn't. Re read my posts.

It seems that the motivation for it (as suggested on the thread) is the idea of protection. You were using a male male example so I was giving examples of where there may be a similar motivation of wanting to protect - eg father/sons or a couple.
You want to rule those out.

Obviously DH doesn't feel the need to protect me as I've never noticed him walking on the outside of the pavement. In reality l usually end up walking a few steps behind him - not as a sign of respect but because he walks faster than me!

However I quite like the idea of being looked after. I'll put him right and make him walk on the outside with his sword in future!

Just to be clear I don't think men should feel obliged to protect someone. I don't think my sons' lives are in some way less valuable than someone's daughters' lives. But if someone (male or female) feels protective over someone else (child/partner) and wants to put themselves at risk for that person then I think that is a nice gesture, not an offensive one.

My do does this and I like it.
I like manners though.
Interesting how many moan that people don't stand up for women or the elderly, yet scoff at asn who does this.

I also like it if dp offers me his seat.
I have noticed men who take the last seat and let their partner stand.

Everyone is different.
I find it an attractive trait just as I find other things attractive.

Yes, actually, I can. If they feel protective towards them eg if they were a couple.

how often have you seen this fantasy scenario occur?

Even if it did, you are arguing that it makes sense between two specific people (which, from what I can tell, never happens between two men). the problem here is that people are saying that it usually should happen between a man and a woman because it's "polite". But once you dig into why it's polite, you get some pretty nasty answers.

Apparently a 'gentleman' should walk behind a woman when walking up the stairs but in front whilst coming down in case the woman on the stairs should come over all delicate and faint. Said gentleman could this deftly catch her in his arms.

I have never attempted this with my wife. Because A). She is a real woman not a character from a melodrama so does comparatively little swooning. B) She is taller and several stone heavier than me so any attempt to delicately catch her in my arms would result in both of us ending up in a heap at the foot of the stair.

I don't see anyone saying it should happen or that it makes sense.

And yes, I have seen one male be more protective over another in a same sex relationship. So just because you can't imagine/haven't seen something doesn't mean it's 'imaginary' or doesn't happen.

Onedirection, I would bet that some women would think it was disgraceful that the make partner wouldn't give the last seat to his female partner because it suggests that he, as a man, is more deserving/important while others would argue that if he did give the seat to her it is offensive/degrading/he's not treating her as an equal etc.

haven't read full thread - but there are still some men in my generation who were brought up to do this and so do it.

My father (obviously next generation up) wears a fur hat in the winter and quite often raises it as a thank you. Goes down a storm, never seen anyone offended by it.

I'm not suggesting these things should be compulsory, and they are dying out, but they are not insulting so find something worth getting annoyed about.

BTW whoever gets to the door first opens it and holds it for the next person to grab. If you are asked to go through say thank you, don't throw a tantrum because it is an old custom.

BTW whoever gets to the door first opens it and holds it for the next person to grab. If you are asked to go through say thank you, don't throw a tantrum because it is an old custom.

Who's suggesting people should throw a tantrum when somebody holds the door for you?

People are suggesting that when these customs involve specific actions against a specific adult group (in this case women), and the basis for the custom is that that group is more vulnerable than the other, then the custom should be questioned because both the underlying assumption is false and what logically follows is unpleasant.

My current boyfriend doesn't do this, and I'm surprised and rather with myself for wishing he did

As DH made clear to me last night, what's wrong with the picture is that he is wearing brown shoes in the city and shoving back the front of his double vented jacket.

A true gentleman would know that was not on, regardless of whether a female was hogging the roadside of the pavement

What 'logically follows'?

Akin to Issy's post - apart from the 'brown in town' observation, gentlemen shouldn't walk with their hands in their pockets!

Or brown shoes with a blue suit. That's a style faux pas there too.

What 'logically follows'?

from the idea that women are more vulnerable and need protection by men even when not requested?

bumbly Perhaps a man walking with his teenage son on the inside should try holding his hand while crossing the road, as an encore.

The point I am making is that if the teenage son works out what is happening, it's quite likely he'll feel infantilised, too. Just like he would if his dad tried to hold his hand while crossing the road.