> > I've always thought that the one who got there first or the one who isn't carrying an armload of stuff should be the door-holder. Gender seems so irrelevant in the matter.
>
> This is what I think, too. It's common politeness. However, a guy holding a door for a girl, when having your arms full and/or getting there first *don't* come into the equation, is a step beyond common politeness, with the extra hint of meaning which I suppose you could call chivalry.
>
> Brunnen-"in the romantic sense, not the heraldic one"G

Speaking as someone who tries to be a gentleman (and sometimes fails miserably), I am often annoyed when women complain that "chivalry is dead", or that "no-one acts like a gentleman any more". And, yes, I have heard both of those quite frequently.

I would be oversimplifying to suggest that this is because any act of politeness is more likely to be interpreted as male chauvanism, but I think it has to be a factor.

Actually, what annoys me more are those schizophrenic women who seem to hold both beliefs simultaniously: A girl I dated once (OK, it was twice) would insult me roundly if I dared to give up a seat on the train for her, or open a door, or insist on paying for a meal; but if (heaven forbid!) I took her at her word and didn't do these things, I was a rude and boorish pig.

Is it actually possible to win in a situation like that?

winter"But I still try"mute