[Ansteorra] In defense of courtesy (was: Re:Courtesy challenge)

[Chris Zakes]

At 02:50 PM 10/7/2006, you wrote:
>Salut cozyns,
>
>In response to my
>
>> > Some
>> > have argued that many of the outlandish extremes of feminine fashion were
>> > ideologically designed as a reinforcement of the concept of women as
>> > chattel. A woman who can't go through doors on her own, feed herself, run,
>> > undress without assistance, ride a horse, or 
>> get into a cart or carriage on
>> > her own is decidedly dependent upon the good graces of her lord.
>> >
>
>Don Christian Doré says:
>
>>Not at all. Being unable to do things for yourself was a method of
>>showing wealth and applied to men as well as women.
>
>I've heard this argument, but I don't see much 
>support for it. Men of the same era could 
>accomplish most of these things without support. 
>Armoring and some (not all and not in all times) 
>clothing are exceptions, but I don't believe the 
>reason for those items requiring support had 
>anything to do with conspicuous consumption. 
>Armor required assistance because of 
>complications arising from concerns for safety 
>and for presenting the best possible appearance 
>(buckles in the back of a cuirass, for example).
>
>lo vostre per vos servir
>Meser Lyonel


I'm not so sure about Europe, but I've been told 
that in China, the rich would grow their 
fingernails to ridiculous lengths as a 
demonstration of the fact that they *didn't* have 
to do any sort of manual labor.

         -Tivar Moondragon