Wed. December 12
Should We Give Chivalry Another Chance?
Is chivalry dead? If it is, who killed it? This is a topic that I addressed in a recent piece for the Atlantic, titled “Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance.” Feminists, I argue, have unfairly maligned chivalry as “benevolent sexism,” but I think they should reconsider their position. Chivalry, after all, has historically been about putting women first. If there is a victim of “benevolent sexism,” it is not the career-oriented single college-aged feminist. Rather, it is unconstrained masculinity.
In the words of Pier Massimo Forni, an award-winning professor of Italian literature and the founder of the Civility Institute at Johns Hopkins, ”We should have a clear notion of what chivalry is. It was a form of preferential treatment that men once accorded to women generations ago, inspired by the sense that there was something special about women, that they deserve added respect, and that not doing so was uncouth, cowardly and essentially despicable.”
I elaborate in my piece:
Chivalry arose as a response to the violence and barbarism of the Middle Ages. It cautioned men to temper their aggression, deploying it only in appropriate circumstances—like to protect the physically weak and defenseless members of society. As the author and self-described “equity feminist” Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in an interview, “Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even lethal.”
. . . A story from the life of Samuel Proctor (d. 1997) comes to mind here. Proctor was the beloved pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church. Apparently, he was in the elevator one day when a young woman came in. Proctor tipped his hat at her. She was offended and said, “What is that supposed to mean?”
The pastor’s response was: “Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”
According to a 2010 Harris poll, 80 percent of Americans say that women are treated with less chivalry today than in the past. I think this is a problem that all women, especially feminists, should push back against. My solution is for feminists and non-feminists alike to reclaim chivalry:
If feminists want to level the playing field between men and women, they should find common cause with traditionalist women . . . on the issue of chivalry. Both groups are concerned with how men treat women. They just differ in what that means: Feminists want men to treat women as equals; traditionalists want men to treat women like ladies. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be.
If women today—feminists and non-feminists alike—encouraged both men and women to adopt the principles of civil and chivalrous conduct, then the standards of behavior for the two sexes would be the same, fostering the equality that feminists desire. Moreover, the relations between the sexes would be once again based on mutual respect, as the traditionalists want. Men and women may end up being civil and well-mannered in different ways, but at least they would be civil and well-mannered, an improvement on the current situation.
Related Articles
-
-
The Acculturated Podcast: Ladies and Gentlemen
Your pop-culture maven and maverick are back with a new…
Read More > -
Popular Articles
-
Hot Wives, Bitter Bloggers, and Social Media Faux Pas
Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living.…
Read more > -
What “The Office” Can Teach Us About Love
In this final season of The Office (which airs its…
Read more > -
Emily, when you write that some young men “think that women need to do more to merit chivalrous behavior from men and they want to know what they gain from chivalry,” I can only shake my head in wonder.
Part of the point of social behavior like chivalry (or “manners” if the first word is too medieval for some) is that it is directed toward others apart from any merit on the part of the recipient. Like grace in theology, it is an undeserved bestowal of goodness.
As for what the young men will get out of it, well for one, women (and chilvarous men) won’t think that they are insouciant louts! The practice of virtue makes a person virtuous and I would think that that would be prize enough, although having the esteem of others because you’ve learned to behave well is a good reward as well.
Steve, don’t shake your head at me! Shake your head at those young men who issued that complaint against my article!
Emily, precisely who I was shaking my head at.
Count me as another young man criticizing your article.
Chivalry, as you’ve laid it out, not only doesn’t benefit men at all, but says that women deserve special treatment simply because they are women.
No one on this Earth is simply entitled to deference like that. The young men (myself included) call you out on it, and you disregard them as louts. According to your article, they should just lick women’s heels without complaint, for no reward.
Believing that women deserve Mother Mary-style treatment regardless of how they behave just smacks of a Jupiter-sized entitlement mentality.
My sense is that true, equal “chivalry” isn’t really felt when we say “civility.” Civility sounds like manners, which is important but hardly inspiring.
I think we all long for integrity, the “honor” of earlier generations. The more we move towards that (avoiding the hypocrisies as best we can), the better we will be as individuals and as a culture.
Emily, chivalry is more than mutual respect and courtesy. It implies gallantry and willingness to protect someone weaker. Feminists who flip out over the obvious fact that men are stronger than women will recoil at the very use of the word. Real-world women appreciate all the respect a chivalrous man shows them. Steve’s response above perfectly states what a man gets out of chivalrous behavior……he becomes more civilized. Women are the ones with the power to shift cultural mores by insisting on chivalrous behavior.
I should add that the weakness of women (relative to men) is merely one of physical strength. Intelligence, creativity, and assorted virtues and talents are found in abundance in both genders. But we can’t accept the desirability of chivalry unless we recognize that men and women can have equal worth while still having very, very different natures. And that’s a good thing!
Chivalry is based on the idea that women need a man to protect them. It’s not just about physical weakness – I’m not to weak to open a door on my own or pull out a chair.
Women don’t necessarily need a man to protect them. But a chivalrous man WANTS to protect women and believes it is his duty. The coarsening of our culture has done a great deal to beat down that almost visceral, instinctual reaction men feel toward women. Honor, duty, gallantry, courage, integrity…….all are part of chivalry & the men who demonstrate those qualities will attract quality women. (So if you are looking for a reward……there’s that.)
For one thing, most ‘visceral, instinctual’ reactions are actually a result of socialisation, not inherent in our brain chemistry. For another, obviously I would want to go out with a man who displays those qualities you list, but I would want him to have those qualities and treat me as an equal. In my experience, men who want to ‘protect’ me do it on the assumption that I’m incapable. I don’t know whether not wanting to be treated in a chivalrous way means I’m not a quality woman, but that’s how it is.
I do wonder, as an intellectual exercise, if a male-led campaign for restoring ‘femininity’ would gather anything but the most intense scorn & outright opprobrium. I wonder what the comfort level would be for men setting a standard (and passing out certificates, no less!) regarding what constitutes ‘femininity’?
Right.
No joke, sir. You can easily imagine the wretched mewling.
Emily, the men were right to ask you what women have to do to deserve chivalry. You wrote a piece saying that women deserve special treatment simply for being women. That makes no sense.
Besides, the men are closer to the mark regarding chivalry/courtly love as practiced in medieval times, as it was not aimed at all women. It only applied to women of noble birth.
Men behaving obsequiously toward all women will not do anything to foster respect between men and women; it’ll just make the men even more resentful than they are now, since the women will feel and act entitled. Your article says nothing of what women must do to earn the respect of men. Indeed, feminist conditioning does not even allow a concept like “earn the respect of men” to exist. Your article, as well as our feminist-saturated society, says that we should just give it out like Halloween candy.
Wow, intriguing discussion here! Be sure to check out my article, “Discovering Mr. Right; A Brief Analysis on Idealistic Male Traits” at http://wp.me/p2TeFs-eL! Thanks for sharing!
Bryony, if you don’t want to be treated in a chivalrous way, men will quickly pick up on that and save themselves the trouble. I’m sorry that you’ve not met chivalrous men who realize you are a highly capable woman. They’re certainly out there.