> I'll hold a door open for anyone, man or woman. It's just a friendly, polite thing to do!
>

I think yours is the best policy. We can get by just fine without chivalry, but *courtesy* is (or should be) non-negotiable. Interestingly, when my wife-to-be and I were first going out, she didn't like for me to hold doors for her all the time, and I made a conscious effort to hold the door only about half the time, and let her do it for me at other times. At this point in our relationship, we've moved beyond the tensions of gender equality issues, and I hold the door for my wife all the time (okay, most of the time :-) ). It has become a way to express affection and respect for her, rather than a statement of male superiority. A gesture made by two people who already think of themselves as equal partners in a relationship is good, while the exact same gesture can be offensive when made by two people who have unresolved tension between them in the areas of power and gender roles. Strange, no?

It's not the gesture itself, then--it's the underlying, understood relationship. If a woman had good reason to believe that the man holding the door for her is doing so out of common courtesy and respect for someone else--an equal someone else--then she'd be able to smile and walk on. But because she suspects, often rightly so, that the man holds a view of her as being incapable on her own, or in some other way inferior, she frowns instead and may even make an acerbic remark.

It's my belief that in many instances, what we call "politically correct" is simply the protocol already in use among people who practice common courtesy. It becomes P.C. when it is forced upon discourteous or prejudiced people who aren't already in the habit of respecting others.

In other instances, P.C. speech and behavior seems to go beyond mere courtesy, to the point where some people feel they are required to bend over backwards to avoid offending the thin-skinned citizens of this nation that we've lately become.

I remember when I used to feel annoyed that the correct term for "black" people kept changing, seemingly, every few years. "Negro", "Afro-American", "people of color", "African-American", just plain "black"--when would black people settle on something I could safely call them? After some reflection, though, I decided that it would be no problem whatsoever for me if the black community in general decided to go by a different name every six months. After all, part of having power as a people-group includes the privilege of naming yourself, as opposed to having a name given to you by someone else. It's a natural part of the process of black people coming to be fully privileged members of the USA that they should choose names for themselves at different stages of the struggle for equal rights and equal opportunities.

Once I came to that decision, it became much easier for me to go along with the P.C. protocol, because I'm able to think of using proper nomenclature as something with real importance to certain groups of people. I reject P.C. stuff when it's obviously frivolous, the product of needlessly thin-skinned people. But I do believe that a group of people should be able to decide what they want to be called, and to change that name if a more suitable one presents itself later on. It's part of showing respect, and even common courtesy to keep up with the currently accepted names and terms. Once again, though, it's the motivation that really counts. Observing political correctness out of a willingness to respect other people and make a reasonable effort to avoid giving offense, is a good thing. Observing political correctness as a game, or taking it to ridiculous extremes, isn't worthwhile at all.

And there's not a single good substitute for plain old respect and common courtesy, dispensed in generous doses.

Iss