Quote:
Originally Posted by nguirado
I think there are real differences that transcend setting and some that are fashion. We can exaggerate or minimize.
|
My point is that you and I aren't objective about the anthropology of gender and therefore aren't in a position to know what we "exaggerate or minimize." Culture and its patterns of association tend to make the artificial appear natural and therefore normative.
Quote:
|
However, some masculine and feminine behaviors are either learned or capable/worthy of reinforcement. This is the idea behind the rules of chivalry and Emily Post.
|
I'm not quite getting why you've brought up the history of chivalry and etiquette, which are (a) a completely different topic, (b) actually prove my point about cultural artificiality if you look at the conventions pitilessly (C.S. Lewis's
Allegory of Love is a good place to start), and (c) aren't subjects about which one necessarily displays ignorance simply by pointing out our arbitrary notions of gender.
Re your idea about the biological/evolutionary bases of chivalry (if I understand you correctly): You could probably find and read evolutionary psychologists who agree with you on this, but I doubt you'll warm to certain unchivalrous pronouncements they tend to make in tandem with that theory.