> >>It is the covert presence of an unequal estimation of female worth and ability to which the feminist (in its original sense) objects.
> >
> > But that idea exists only in the mind of the perceiver. If, by my holding the door, I am performing a simple act of courtesy and not thinking for a moment that you are less capable than I of holding a door, yet you assume that I am attacking your door-holding prowess and demeaning the entire female sex (I'm using a hypothetical "you," by the way), then the problem lies not with my action but with your perception.

******DISCLAIMER**********
Before you read what I post you might as well know: I'm not male
I'm also not transgender/gender ambivalent/ whatever - I guess that means I'm female
- not that there's anything wrong with that
I'm not 15
I'm not black or ethnic or racially challenged or whatever the aforesaid phrase of the moment is, just a nosey buttinsky
**************************

One of the fundamentals of courtesy my momma taught me (by negative example, but that's another story) is that it is TOTALLY DEPENDENT (sorry to shout) on the person who receives it. If they don't perceive your message as courteous it isn't, because it has broken a rule of politeness they hold to. If you ignore that and continue to put out your message your way, knowing that your way is offensive, then you are being discourteous. If you acknowledge that someone has a problem with your style or your presentation and amend that style or presentation to then you are at least trying to be courteous.
Of course this refers only to continuing interactions with a single person or group - it would be as fruitless to assume that all women have the same attitudes as the door-holding complainer as it would to assume that all A Rh(D) positive / brown eyed / right handed people do. The "trick" is to pay attention to what each individual you meet wants or expects, instead of making summary judgements of their expectations based on the size, shape or colour of the envelope of skin which contains them. And the only way to do this I've found so far (Please send How Do I 's if you can read minds or fathom the hearts of folk with just a glance) is to listen to them, ask them things, and pay attention to their answers...

>>And, though I agree that it is a good idea to avoid antagonizing others, when we begin to abandon courtesy and kindness because some people may misinterpret and be offended by our gestures, then what does that leave us but not to interact with one another at all?
> >
Like I said, courtesy is something most effectively applied 1 on 1, generic "courtesy" fails every recipient's taste as sadly as a Big Mac does...
>
> Yep, great point, and nope, I don't have a good solution for the dilemma. We need to maintain the practice of courtesy, whether or not good intentions are misinterpreted. It would also be good if we could help change the attitudes of prejudiced people, so that there's less cause for suspicion of the motives behind courtesy. Significant change is bound to be slow in coming, I think.
>
> There's this, too, which I think sums up much of what others have said so far in objection to the P.C. agenda: the issue of courtesy and its motives is not the best battleground for the cause of gender equality. There are much more worthwhile targets than the fellow who "demeans" women by treating them with an overabundance of chivalry, or however one cares to describe it. What about the many, many instances of outright abuse, denial of employment opportunities, inadequate support for mothers, and so forth--problems much more real and tangible than the old-fashioned attitudes that the door-holder is suspected of cherishing?
>
> I guess I'm raising more questions than I'm answering, and I don't especially feel like a fountain of good answers for this whole issue. I do know what I, personally, plan to do:
>
> 1) Be an equal-opportunity dispenser of courtesy.
> 2) Take as seriously as possible the offense that some people feel regarding certain terms, gestures, and so forth. If they feel offended, then whether my intention was to offend or not, it's a good opportunity to apologize graciously and let them feel satisfied at being taken seriously.
> 3) Take Scripture as my standard, not the P.C. agenda. P.C. doctrine states, "Practice tolerance towards everyone." Scripture commands: "Love your enemies." A Christian should be able to do much better than the bare minimum for expected social behavior.
>
> That's all for now (and it's enough out of me for a good while),
>
> Iss

Right On Iss! What I said! But...

Probably the biggest problem I have with the "PC Scripture" is its tendency to assume that tolerance or non-tolerance are the only choices. Thats a majority / ruling party / franchised view. There are an awful lot of us out here who don't feel we are part of the authority that makes these decisions as to what is tolerable. There's women, non-whites, people under 18, people over 65, and as the posts before this have shown, white men between 18 & 65.
Probably the only advice I can give all you other guys is the advice I try to follow myself: cherish the experience of being one of the tolerated rather than one of those who does the tolerating - It might not teach you much about the world and people in it, but it's a chance to learn something about yourself.

PresGram :-} (anticipating being told how offensive I've been)