>but also grants authority to the door-holder.
> > Consider:
> >
> > --a teacher opens door for students to enter, not the other way around
> > --a doctor/nurse/medical technician ushers patient into treatment room first, then follows
> > --parents shepherd children through the door in front of them
> > --observe behavior at business meetings--who goes in first?--the subordinate, followed by the supervisor.
> >
> > You can take this last example to the extreme and find it still holds pretty true in principle, if not in (literal) particulars--who enters first when the President addresses Congress, or when the Queen opens Parliment? The subordinates are in first, waiting for the authority figure, right?
> >
> > koala"a lot of gamesmanship just to get through a door"mom
>
> Having thought about this a while, I think you're wrong - it's traditional for the authority figure to be in front (the focus of attention) and the subordinates behind. Certainly, when the Queen opens Parliament, she is the second person through, followed by a big crowd of attendees. The fisrt person is Black Rod, who is simultaniously granting her the authority to be in the House of Commons in the first place and a symbol of her authority; a standard-bearer, if you will.


..but you're talking about, shall we call them, since I don't know what else, the "principals" here, who get to perform the actual ceremony.** The Members of Parliment, who witness the ceremony, are already seated and waiting for them to arrive, yes?
...so it still follows (in the big picture) the format of subordinates (MP) in first, superiors (HRH) in last. (Although no, I don't suppose she actually holds the door open for the other principals and closes it behind them ;-)

>
> There is also a tradition of the autority figure being in the center of his subordinates, but that is in deference to security more than anything else.

Yes, I think security plays and played a part in the custom of subordinates entering first--whether the Viking theory is true or not, it *could* be. :-) Regardless of gender, it makes sense to send the more expendable in first to check things out, don't you think?

>
> Certainly there are cases where the pattern you describe holds true, but I think they are for different reasons. In the case of a teacher or parent, I think it may well be to keep an eye on the students /children, though I have *never* seen a teacher hold a door open for pupils.

...ah, but *why* does the teacher or parent want to keep an eye on students/children? Because they are the person in charge, the AUTHORITY, who is going to be responsible if someone lingers behind outside, or will be the one taking care of little fingers that accidentally get smashed in the door, etc. (I'm thinking about elementary school teachers here. You're probably right in that it wouldn't apply much to older grades)


>A doctor way well be deferring to his patient as most doctors tend to be polite (bedside manner, I assume).

I guess my experience with doctors has been way different than yours, because I would not automatically classify doctors as "polite". Some of them, yeah, but just as many have been rude. (I had an obstetrician once whose charming manner earned him the nickname "Kevorkian", for instance. Believe me,Dr. K wasn't being *polite* when he held the door open, he was asserting his authority.)

>
> winter"I still see holding a door for someone as an act of politeness"mute

Well, I do too. The question originally asked was (more or less) "what ARE these huffy women thinking?!" --and my reply was more meant to offer insight into that mindset, not necessarily to defend it. Like a lot of extreme viewpoints, there is often a little kernel of truth there, however blown out of proportion it eventually becomes.

koala"open sesame"mom

**Speaking of doors and Parliment, I was hoping a RinkBrit would respond (thank you) and possibly explain the door shutting thing with the House of Commons. Is that what you meant by the Black Rod "granting authority"? I thought it was fascinating.