Chivalry

[quatona]

Do you believe that chivalry is dead in today's world?
Do you believe that it has any place in today's world?
If so, should it be revived?

Maybe you could tell us what exactly you mean by "chivalry", for starters?
In my understanding, this word refers to gender specific behaviour that´s meant to respond to and confirm a certain set of gender specific roles (basically the strong, powerful knight saving the helpless girl) - an understanding of gender specific roles that I do not subscribe to. Thus, yes, I would be happy to see it disappear.


Then again, I am all for those with greater abilities and capacities supporting those with lesser abilities and capacities. This, however, imo depends on situational conditions rather than the gender of the persons involved. E.g. I am all for a person who has both hands free holding the door open for the person who is carrying a lot of stuff (or even offering to help carrying some of the stuff) - indepently of the genders of the persons involved.

 

[Fin12]

I'm known for being helpful and being almost ostentatious in my treatment of guests and others in my company. I DON'T discriminate with my genorosity or helpfulness. Women are NOT better than men, they are NOT worse than men. They get exactly the same treatment from me.





I have to wonder how many feminists support "chivalry" and fail to see the irony in destroying what they worked so hard to achieve. But I'm sure they'd agree special treatement based on gender is wrong.

The fact that chivalry is dead doesn't mean men have a lack of respect for women. It means they have more.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

If it really is just showing consideration others and being kind to them, it's all good.

The problem is that people like to throw in a bit of sexism with their chivalry. That isn't cool.

Chivalry encompassed more than mere gallantry toward women; it entailed an honorable code of behavior involving bravery in battle and general courtesy toward others, including foes.

It's this final aspect of chivalry that is most sorely missed in our savage era.

 

[Axioma]

Chivalry sucks in a way, since by saying that you should be nice to group A of people because they're just not as good at life as you are, it's reinforcing the idea that group A isn't really all that good at anything.

But if you take the fundamental ideas from Chivalry and apply them to EVERYONE, then chivalry is one of the best ideas ever. A code that says that men should hold doors open for women is crap, because it reinforces the idea that women can't open doors for themselves, and need men to do it for them. A code that says that everyone should hold doors open for other people because holding a door open is just a decent thing to do, doesn't cost you anything and leaves you both feeling a tiny fraction better about society, now that's a code to live by.

 

[TheReasoner]

Chivalry...

Before I answer the questions, I wish to elaborate a little.
The notion of Chivalry emerges from the middle east. From pre-Islamic times and came to Europe via the Muslim conquest. Therefore, Spain is seen as Europe's source of chivalry.
The code, as has been mentioned before, was more than merely one of courtship. But also one of honor, prowess, combat and more. After a time, it was adopted to a great extent in Europe, and modified to adhere to more European values.
As has also been said, chivalry was not originally what we today consider it. But this is the case with many things. Our language and our cultures are dynamic, living things that change with time. A small example is the word awful, which today means terrible, but in it's original meaning means something like awe-inspiring.

I do think that we do need more of what we today consider chivalry:
Respecting one's enemies, being humble, willig to commit sacrifices for those in need. Defending the weak and poor. And of course, the more romantic aspects of it. Opening doors, offering seats, being generally polite and, well... Respectful and romantic.
Whether or not this is in accordance with the 'original' chivalry is ofcourse something which can be debated. But considering the current definition and the popular perception of the word, I would say chivalry is :

• Not dead, but weak.
• Yes, we need more of it in today's world (minus the fighting for a maid's hand of course).
• I also think it should be adopted into today's society. Not in it's original more class-conscious and war oriented form. But in accordance with today's more romantic perception of the term.

 

[TheReasoner]

Chivalry encompassed more than mere gallantry toward women; it entailed an honorable code of behavior involving bravery in battle and general courtesy toward others, including foes.

It's this final aspect of chivalry that is most sorely missed in our savage era.

Savage? In some ways I expect. But less savage than at any previous point in time. We should have learned enough to change a few things though. For example the penal system. We know enough to know that many criminals are criminals due to sociological, psychological and physical factors that can be treated. Yet we don't deal with these factors. We don't work prophylactically to reduce crime, we still adhere to ancient practices of locking offenders up in small rooms with other offenders for differing periods of time and then releasing them back into society. In our more enlightened era, when we are finally able to treat many criminals for the issues which cause their behavior, (though some I suspect can't be treated) and given this we should have the brains and will to start acting on our knowledge for the good of society as a whole, and for the good of the individuals who are victims of crime and those who are criminals or potential criminals as well.
Furthermore we should also have learned enough to stop bumping eachother in the head as much as we do.
So yes, in some senses we are more barbaric and cruel than we could be given our knowledge and level of development. But we are less so than ever before. Maybe with the exception of very recent periods in the last few decades. Maybe.

Chivalry sucks in a way, since by saying that you should be nice to group A of people because they're just not as good at life as you are, it's reinforcing the idea that group A isn't really all that good at anything.

But if you take the fundamental ideas from Chivalry and apply them to EVERYONE, then chivalry is one of the best ideas ever. A code that says that men should hold doors open for women is crap, because it reinforces the idea that women can't open doors for themselves, and need men to do it for them. A code that says that everyone should hold doors open for other people because holding a door open is just a decent thing to do, doesn't cost you anything and leaves you both feeling a tiny fraction better about society, now that's a code to live by.

I am enclined to disagree with that idea.
I like to open doors for my wife and other women. I like to pull out their seats, help them down stairs if they wear high heels and things like that. My in-laws call me 'evidence that chivalry is not dead'. For which I guess I thank them. I do not intend it to show any superiority towards women, but it is in accordance with my role as a man. Given to me, some would say by God, some evolution, some culture, me; all three. It is a man's role - traditionally - to be the breadwiner, the support of the women, their strength. For sociological reasons this was at one point crucial to the survival of the family - and the women themselves. Today - and to me - it is not only about showing women respect and brightening their day, it is also about keeping an attitude of self-sacrifice even in small things. Let others enter into the heat of houses, out of the winter cold first. Let others get their drink first. Their chair first. When I do "chivalric" things for my wife, it is always a small way of telling her that I love her. To keep those words whispered in her ear at all times through small actions. When I do it to other women it's mostly a cultural thing I snapped up in Ecuador. But I find it to be a great way of reminding oneself of higher ideals, and reinforce a will to defend society, to stand up and be strong and brave when needed in defense of others. Not through superiority, not because they are weak. But because the main ingredient in strength is will. And being willing to sacrifice small things continually helps prepare you for a time when bigger sacrifices may need to be made.

 

[Braunwyn]

Do you believe that chivalry is dead in today's world?
Do you believe that it has any place in today's world?
If so, should it be revived?

Can you explain what chivalry means (to you at least) and its application?

eta: I see this question has already been asked.

When I think of chivalry, the first thought that comes to mind is opening doors, etc. And it's behavior directed from men to women. Given the other responses in this thread chivarly seems to be more of a general 'be kind to others' concept and that sounds much better.

 

[wanderingone]

I am enclined to disagree with that idea.
I like to open doors for my wife and other women. I like to pull out their seats, help them down stairs if they wear high heels and things like that. My in-laws call me 'evidence that chivalry is not dead'. For which I guess I thank them. I do not intend it to show any superiority towards women, but it is in accordance with my role as a man. Given to me, some would say by God, some evolution, some culture, me; all three. It is a man's role - traditionally - to be the breadwiner, the support of the women, their strength. For sociological reasons this was at one point crucial to the survival of the family - and the women themselves. Today - and to me - it is not only about showing women respect and brightening their day, it is also about keeping an attitude of self-sacrifice even in small things. Let others enter into the heat of houses, out of the winter cold first. Let others get their drink first. Their chair first. When I do "chivalric" things for my wife, it is always a small way of telling her that I love her. To keep those words whispered in her ear at all times through small actions. When I do it to other women it's mostly a cultural thing I snapped up in Ecuador. But I find it to be a great way of reminding oneself of higher ideals, and reinforce a will to defend society, to stand up and be strong and brave when needed in defense of others. Not through superiority, not because they are weak. But because the main ingredient in strength is will. And being willing to sacrifice small things continually helps prepare you for a time when bigger sacrifices may need to be made.

If one needs help walking in one's footwear and it's not because of injury I might suggest a different type of shoe.

I take no issue with a person reaching out a hand as I walk behind them on an icy walk - regardless of their gender, or holding a door for me - regardless of gender.

I take issue with the notion that a man doing so as some drama acting out chivalry - reinforcing in daily routine that women need the help of a man to get through their day.

 

[TheReasoner]

If one needs help walking in one's footwear and it's not because of injury I might suggest a different type of shoe.

I take no issue with a person reaching out a hand as I walk behind them on an icy walk - regardless of their gender, or holding a door for me - regardless of gender.

I take issue with the notion that a man doing so as some drama acting out chivalry - reinforcing in daily routine that women need the help of a man to get through their day.

Long story, but I tried to wear high-heels once. I am so glad I am a man! Those shoes are terribly uncomfortable. After that experience I try to be rady to help any woman who wears those nightmarish contraptions.

That set aside, I hear what you're saying, and I recognize it in other girls as well. One time whe I offered to carry a heavy amplifier a few hundred meters the girl who was carrying it snapped my head off in quite a fit of anger.
I never intended - and still never do - to seem or act superior in any way. I like being courteous. Even if some women consider it offensive. Most tend to welcome it warmly. I don't do it because of ulterior motives, I don't do it because I believe men to be superior to women, I don't do it to reinforce old societal boundaries and outdated ideas. I do it because I genuinely want to brighten other people's days. I don't think anyone I know have had ideas like you suggest imprinted on them by my actions. Though most have commented on them. When I was single and living at home we (youth) would have parties at church every Christmas. Parties where all single men and wmen were seated next to one another. I always did pull the chairs back for my lady of the day, offer her my jacket should we go outside the church. I got her drinks (soda or water, of course) and food. I didn't have any ulterior motives at all. I was not wishing romantic involvement of any kind. It was and is simply how I treat women who sit next to me. And NOT because of any illusions I might have of men being better than women. We are not. We are equal but different.

But - and I do not intend to boast - it was a sort of competition between the girls to end up beside me that day. Not because everyone wanted to be my girlfriend (at least I don't think they did). Not because of that at all. But because of how I treated them. Several thanked me profusely for a good day, and said it brightened the celebrations markedly to be treated like a lady, not just another guy, like most boys there would treat them.

I've tried to explain why I do it. I do not have a good explanation I fear, it is kind of hard to put words to it. I can only assure you it isn't for any negative reason at all. And women seem to like it. So why stop?
I do also open doors for men. Or bring them food and water if I suspect they are thirsty. But I don't pull chairs out for them.

 

[Axioma]

If you do also open doors for men, then we can have no beef with you, since your standard seems to be "anyone who needs help gets help" rather than "women all need help and therefore get help".

Being helped is nice, and you're awesome for helping people.

 

[TheReasoner]

If you do also open doors for men, then we can have no beef with you, since your standard seems to be "anyone who needs help gets help" rather than "women all need help and therefore get help".

Being helped is nice, and you're awesome for helping people.

Thank you

 

[Caitlin.ann]

What bunk! It was in those "chivalrous" days that people had no respect for women. Just because you aren't getting doors opened for you or having your hand kissed doesn't mean you're not being respected.

It sickens me that women fought for equality and respect, to be treated like equals and now I'm reading this nonsense about wanting to go back to "damsels in distress" who can't fend for themselves in the big mean world?



Yes...because everything was super hunky-dory in the past where everyone danced instead of fought and nobody starved or died...ever.

The good ol' days...

And let me say that as Cognitive's fiance, you have completely misread what he means. You have no idea what you're talking about regarding his post.

 

[Bombila]

And let me say that as Cognitive's fiance, you have completely misread what he means. You have no idea what you're talking about regarding his post.

The problem being, sacredsin, as we see from other posts on the thread, that there are too many people with a romantic idea of 'chivalry', having no knowledge of how classist and sexist the Mediaeval interpretation was. On top of that we have well meaning men who want to be 'chivalrous' towards women, when ideally, being kind, helpful, courteous towards everyone should be the objective. Cognitive did not explain himself very well in his post, either, mostly taking the opportunity to rail aganst modern behaviour (an estimation I in no way agree with, BTW).

 

[Caitlin.ann]

The problem being, sacredsin, as we see from other posts on the thread, that there are too many people with a romantic idea of 'chivalry', having no knowledge of how classist and sexist the Mediaeval interpretation was. On top of that we have well meaning men who want to be 'chivalrous' towards women, when ideally, being kind, helpful, courteous towards everyone should be the objective. Cognitive did not explain himself very well in his post, either, mostly taking the opportunity to rail aganst modern behaviour (an estimation I in no way agree with, BTW).

Yet I would say that when most people think of chivalry they in no means think of the classist and sexist interpretation at all. I figured we were talking about the romanticized version that is often viewed as chivalry today instead of picking straws at what chivalry is now vs. what it was.

 

[Bombila]

Yet I would say that when most people think of chivalry they in no means think of the classist and sexist interpretation at all. I figured we were talking about the romanticized version that is often viewed as chivalry today instead of picking straws at what chivalry is now vs. what it was.

ss, I am not being ageist, but just trying to point out that a great many of the men and women posting on this subject have lived through part of a long era wherein a man could act 'chivalrously' in public while being a tyrant to women he had legal authority over, and still be admired for his ever so romantic behaviour. 'Chivalry', to many of us, denotes a double standard based on one gender being inferior to the other, and regarded as physically, mentally and emotionally weaker.

So it is not 'picking straws', but a genuine objection to applying a sexist, classist term from a feudal era to behaviour that should not be sexist or classist, but merely the actions of decent human beings, men or women.

 

[Tenka]

Isn't that funny, I'm currently reading Don Quixote.

Disgusting caricatures do nothing to support your cause.

Today's world is steeped in technological savagery in which people are crass brutes.

But they appear fine when supporting your cause.

 

[wanderingone]

That set aside, I hear what you're saying, and I recognize it in other girls as well. One time whe I offered to carry a heavy amplifier a few hundred meters the girl who was carrying it snapped my head off in quite a fit of anger.

Actually- you don't hear what I'm saying if you are comparing me to women who would bite off your head for offering to help. I made no suggestion that I am offended by an offer of help.
I take issue with the drama, the play acting. the assumption that to be a polite individual a man must perform simple symbolic tasks to assert their role as the stronger person around the "weaker" sex.

 

[GryffinSong]

I think the holding doors open for women thing is one of those "men are from mars and women are from venus" things. It wasn't until I dated a guy like this that I REALLY heard the man's side. I had always felt insulted by men who held doors open for me. It felt TO ME like he thought I NEEDED help. And I was rarely in heels. I usually wore sneakers and jeans, and took pride in my independance. It felt threatening to me. Like he was saying I was NOT independent and strong. That I was a weak woman who couldn't do what I wanted. I put the baggage of years of oppression onto that person who "dared" to hold my door open. But I'm old enough to remember being required to wear dresses in elementary school. Try playing on the jungle gym in a dress and you'll see how I might be sensitive to being handicapped by societal gender roles.

Then I dated N. He always held my door open, he would run around the car to let me out, and other "old fashioned" actions. It drove me nuts! We had numerous talks about it, and I finally came to see that his actions had nothing to do with belittling me. That he was raised that way, and he liked and respected me. It was, LITERALLY, a cultural difference. His culture as a man, and my culture as a woman raised to be whatever I wanted to be, rather than what older cultures dictated.

Now, societal roles that limit people based on gender are, in my opinion, wrong. Not every woman wants to have kids, a picket fence, and to be the stay-at-home caregiver. So, the trick is to be nice without pigeonholing people into certain roles. Not always easy, when humans are inclined to misinterpret each other!!!

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Then I dated N. He always held my door open, he would run around the car to let me out, and other "old fashioned" actions. It drove me nuts! We had numerous talks about it, and I finally came to see that his actions had nothing to do with belittling me. That he was raised that way, and he liked and respected me. It was, LITERALLY, a cultural difference. His culture as a man, and my culture as a woman raised to be whatever I wanted to be, rather than what older cultures dictated.

Thank you! Thats exactly what Nick does and I think it is a cultural thing, although Bombilla may be able to say otherwise since they live fairly close. Nick was just raised to be that way, it has nothing to do with belittling women.

 

[TheReasoner]

Thank you! Thats exactly what Nick does and I think it is a cultural thing, although Bombilla may be able to say otherwise since they live fairly close. Nick was just raised to be that way, it has nothing to do with belittling women.

Ditto. I was raised like that too.