> 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.

Often rightly so? You're dangerously close to making sense here, but I've never heard, nor can relate to, a man holding a door for a woman because he suspects she cannot do so herself. This isn't what chivalry is or ever was. It is, however, a courtesy-based code that acknowledges that men and women are different and have different roles in life. Not that they are unequal and should assume unequal roles in life -- but different, in the same way that members of different races are different but not unequal. We may or may not agree with the belief upon which chivalry is based, but only an erroneous twisting of it could force it to imply an inherent inequality of the sexes.

> 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.

Does it? Did you pick your name? Did I pick mine? Did I, or any members of my race, choose the name by which it should go? Has any race in the history of mankind (the gender neutral meaning of "mankind") up until fifty years ago (or whatever) ever chosen their own names? If there are, and I can't think of any, it's the exception, not the rule. I'm not even sure that races have chosen their names in modern times -- rather, the acceptable PC terms today seem to be terms agreed upon by members of ALL races as being the most comfortable to use. All it takes is for a couple people to use a race name in a derogatory manner loud enough, and everybody flocks to a different one to avoid the association with the implications behind those offensive uses.

So on this point, I have to adopt the completely opposite point of view: that it's the assumption that races *should* be allowed to choose their own names that's the cause of half the problem, particularly since it changes so often, and not everybody seems to be able to agree on the same name at the same time anyway. I'll certainly say the right not to be called by an inherently derogatory name should be preserved (as in, "No, my name is not 'Idiot,' thank you"), and I certainly don't see any reason why people can't adopt new names to be put into use, but I fail to see why it should be acceptable to make it a social stigma if the rest of the universe doesn't instantly adopt whatever new name someone comes up with and tar and feather the users of a former.

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

Certainly not, and despite the points I chose to respond to, I do agree with the bulk of your post and wish more did.