Feminism and Chivalry

@ Dr. Billing

Interesting post. I am writing a treatise related to this subject, so far 5,000 words and climbing.

My point is first, after we separate the fact that feminism is NOT in any way about equality as it is practiced in the culture at large, we are left with the fact that not only does it coexist quite well with chivalry, but in fact could not exist without it.

I will even take it a step further and assert that not just chivalry, but masculinity itself is at the root of feminism.

Men are, or long were, mandated by biology to protect and provide for women, and to compete with each other for sexual access to them. To that extent, we find the feminist were right about one thing, but as usual for the wrong reasons.

Feminism, in its current psychotic form, is enabled and fueled by the traditional male sex role. So it is masculinity that must change if men are going to survive.

There is much more to this, but I don’t want to give away the brilliance of my upcoming treatise, LOL!!

Thanks, as always for giving us all much to consider.

I would say that “chivalry” is not really about how one treats one’s spouse, by common consent, but rather about a total societally recognized and enforced system about how men are to treat women. One *may* act towards one’s spouse in a chivalrous way by choice, but if this is indeed a personal choice then it isn’t really “chivalry” in terms of being part of a broader social system.

For example, in the workplace where I work (a building of some 4000 people), we have socially enforced chivalry in place. This means that women always enter and leave elevators first, always have doors opened for them and enter and leave rooms first and so on. Any deviations from this protocol are not socially tolerated in my workplace — it’s just the unwritten rule of conduct. *That* is chivalry in its essence — an unwritten social code that reflexively favors the female sex.

In my view, chivalry, when seen as a social system rather than a personal choice, is disastrous for men as a sex currently. It is a system of social etiquette that favors women in an age when women do not merit or need that social favoring, and in an era which has embraced formal equality between the sexes. The impact of systemic chivalry today is to preserve “female privilege” in the face of an environment that has diligently and systematically eliminated male privilege. Women gained formal equality and yet retained their traditional privilege through the widespread exercise of chivalry — thereby gaining a double, and lopsided, benefit. There’s no justification for the retention of female privilege in an environment which insists on formal equality between the sexes, and retaining it creates a slant that is unfavorable to men in the culture.

We were just discussing chivalry on the StandYourGround blog, but what we said fits seamlessly here.

One poster, “SecondToDie,” commented,

“…when “chivalry” was in vogue, women would serve men the food before sitting down and serving themselves. In many non-European cultures, this is still commonly practiced today.”

I replied:

“Those were the manners and niceties of the times and out of respect for women, men also made reciprocal concessions: opened doors, carried heavy loads, held their hands when walking on rough terrain, etc. Men and women actually believed that there were certain fixed role traits for each sex and observed them.

A while back, I acquired some old tin photos, just after the civil war ((1865 – 1890). In almost all the formal portraits, or perhaps all, the men were sitting down and the women standing. I find that a very interesting reflection of the “spirit of the time” (zeitgeist).

We do know that respect for men is in all time short supply today. From TV commercials, to gender feminized classrooms, to the home, men are laughed at, put down, and outright ridiculed and abused. These are brutally abusive times that men live in, IMO, regarding their relationship to the opposite sex. Men’s stature as people is constantly being denigrated as, most recently, Sen Harry Reid’s comments on unemployed men show us, but there are endlessly other examples.

In the cropped, old tin photo in this poster (bottom right), you can just see the left hand of the standing woman resting on the seated man’s shoulder, illustrating what I was saying.

http://tinyurl.com/yhwx7h3

Rather than telling the whole truth, gender feminist, revisionist historians are notorious for omitting information that does not advance their viewpoints. Rather than view the man’s seated position as respect for his hard physical work and leadership, modern gender feminists would say it illustrates man’s abusive power and control privilege, requiring women to stand, while men sit. They would say it shows women doing all the work and having to wait on men hand and foot, etc. Rather than ascribe the niceties of the times, the way men and women tried to respectfully treat each other and get along in their difficult lives. Nasty gender feminists want to make it all about women’s oppression.

Mean spirited, gender feminists, apparently want to destroy every nicety that ever existed, or still might exist, between men and women.”

Brendan: Just as you consider the chivalry that goes on in a marriage a personal decision and not a societal one, I consider what goes on in your workplace as unique to your workplace and not society at large.

Why do you consider the chivalry you mention in your workplace societal and not unique to your workplace? It certainly isn’t going on in most of society, at the level you describe, IMO. I think it all depends on how broadly or narrowly we define society, IMO.

Personally, I think society’s definition regarding its scope should include all venues, your workplace, the home, etc.

Chivalry is not defined by the male treatment of women, it is a set of morale guidelines and a code of ethics that knighthood once ascribed to. A large part of it was the treatment of women but that was by nature of the society at the time. If you doubt me go look up the definition of the term.

Modern Chivalry is entirely possible with adapting gender roles, the difference is women can practice it too.

Good manners and proper conduct to other human beings is the core of chivalry, if you remove favoring women then what remains is a morale code of decency that can be adapted to all.

In some ways chivalry embodies what is best about men, to protect and serve, to place something before yourself, if you stop focusing on the gender politics it is noble in purpose.

So I would argue men need chivalry more than ever as our identity is progressively corrupted and maligned we need something we can be proud of.
I will no more give up my seat on a bus for a woman than I would a man, but I will give up my seat for a pregnant woman or an old man.

Chivalry goes much deeper than many people believe. It is not simply holding doors open for women, standing up when they enter the room, or pushing in their chairs when they sit at a table. These manners are the superficial side of chivalry, the side that gets all the attention.

But much more important, is the attitude behind chivalry. I’m talking about the attitude that says “I will die for you,” or “I will put my cape in the mud so that you don’t have to get your shoes dirty when you cross the road.” This deeper attitude shows up in the adage “women and children first” (dictated by the pilot recently as the airplane that landed on the NYC Hudson River went down).

We really need to look at male sacrifice that has become automatic, has become expected. That includes men continuing to work when the children are all grown up and out of the house, but the wife just gets to goof off full time, and not work (and nobody thinks there’s anything inequitable about that). That includes men registering for the draft, but not women. The list is a long one.

Society has created two types of women. Ladies and Feminists. For those women who act like ladies, who count themselves in the traditional role, and fulfill that role, be chivalrous to them. For the rest, get your own door!

We can move back to the way it was, or we can forge ahead building a society with a cracked foundation. Given our history it is virtually assured that we will forge ahead. Women in combat, Women as the bread-winner, Women with stress induce health problems, Women living and dying by the sword. A grateful country acknowledges you with a stone marker. Your children weep, adieu, adieu. Of course we will have to have smaller weaker male recruits. After all as the men lie wounded, the women need to be able to pull them to safety. And in the interest of “fairness”, we will have to fight only those Armies who subscribe to our good intentions of equality.

But seriously, we have two societies developing in parallel. Which one do you believe in? Which one do you want to teach your children? The battle for your kid’s mind is raging right now. It was raging for your mind when you were growing up. It’s been raging for a hundred years. It will be raging for the minds of your grandkids. The liberal mindedness has apparently won. Have the conservative minded awakened to the battle, or have they been beaten.

If you understand that as Men, in this country, you are not afforded the same rights as women, and that you are treated as a second class citizen by law, demonized in the media, mocked and ridiculed. Valued only as disposable and disrespected by all. If you understand this, then only a FOOL would be chivalrous. You will only be reinforcing your position in society, that of a slave and disposable warrior. Get a clue, please!

I’m looking forward to your treatise, Paul. I’m sure it will be brilliant

I see a far amount of info being posted here on the historicity of chivalry. Yes, that was all true then, but what we have today is not that chivalry.

Chivalry today is primarily: men opening doors for women, men paying for dinner, ladies going first, men carrying the grocery bags for women, etc. Chivalry today primarily appears to want men to be “gentleman,” expecting them to be polite slaves who provide a vast array of nonreciprocal services to women.

Layer gender feminism into the modern mix and we see lots of traditional, conservative women who buy into gender feminist, women’s oppression propaganda, while fully expecting all the chivalrous perks they’ve learned to expect. Even avowed gender feminists admit they like the niceties of polite, servile men who pander to women’s wishes, while ignoring their own wants.

Women as do men, come in all degrees of personalities and belief in ideologies, but there’s no mistaking, entitlement princesses and their chivalrous expectations of males are a plague on the American landscape of men’s lives from sea to shinning sea, IMO.

That should have said “fair amount,” not “far amount.” Grrr.

I liked the chivalry I grew up with. It fostered good feelings in the daily interaction between the sexes. You would open a door for a woman and get a smile in return.

Should we maintain a chivalrous attitude toward those women who see men as enemy oppressors? No. But I agree with the commenter who suggested offering it to those women who still act in a more traditional and supportive way toward men.

I’m looking forward to the treatise as well. Chivalry was a BIG topic of discussion among commentors here at MND since 2001. I would love to see a NEW perspective that has not already been thought through here extensively. I could name many brilliant commentors over this period who have long since moved on. As Editor I’m sure you now can as well. I could site many brilliant ideas. I’m hoping for more than simply a search-copy-paste. I expect that will be the case. MND has a treasure trove of commentary in it’s database that is timeless. The ideas deserve to live long and last. The movement always needs men to keep ideas alive. BUT it is better to move the ball forward.

@ Denis

I appreciate the encouragement. One thing I can promise you is that whether this turns out great or sucks, it won’t be cut and paste.

I can honestly say that in contemplating a lot as I write, I have come up with some conclusions that are a little disturbing to me.

I won’t go into it much here, as it really is still developmental. I still don’t know if I will have to put a flak jacket on when I post it.

I will hopefully be done in 2-3 weeks.

Chivalry+feminism= total slavery, no thank you.

Frankly I find this whole chivalry business to be an idiotic, outdated and frankly demeaning.

I think people should subscribe to common courtesy.

As many other posters pointed out for men to engage in chivalry in this day and age, it is akin to burning what few rights we have.

I say if feminist’s want to bring chivalry back and since only women benefit from our society, let them practice chivalry in the truest sense. Me? I will just follow the golden rule.

Paul:

First off let me say, I love your columns and especially your videos. As far as needing to wear a flak vest, I don’t see that, at least not because of MND readers. If you can make a case for something controversial, it might be stimulating, but I doubt it will be so indefensible, or off putting as to lead to openly hostile vituperation from MND readers.

The fascinating thing about doing research is the discovery of new info that imparts knowledge we never imagined. Discovering info that challenges what we believed can be both refreshing and disturbing, but it’s still the light we were looking for to illuminate our ignorance. Info may also support established beliefs.

Is chivalrous treatment of women by men somewhat innate? Is it conditioned by women, or demanded through use of women’s sexual power and control? Has chivalry become outdated, or less valued in our modern, over-populated world, where women are not as valued for their innate procreational worth? Should a broader code of chivalry be established for humanity, one which recognizes the higher order-mental state of our species and respects the individual life value of each human equally?

So many questions, and the frustration is often that one question just leads to another, instead of to a simple and complete answer.

Chivalry demeans the value of a man’s life. It is a vehicle of exploitation and oppression. It is shackle, chain and whip. Each time it is held as a virtue, it will later be held against you. It will define you as a beast of burden, and it will defer and postpone your ability to express the significance of your talents, your potentials, your true loves and your life.

Is it the mark of a man, to put the safety and significance of others before himself. To serve warmly, a gesture of kindness for kindness sake. Will I serve you this kindness, lift you up this moment, hold you no less than equal to my effort. Am I no more than my effort? Is this moment I give you, a moment of me. Am I now as worthy as you?

Must you legislate my chivalry beyond my ability to offer it. Extending what I would not and could not give, as a debt to be paid.You have your affirmative action, you have your funding, you have your accusations and your beliefs. You have your political correctness and your double-speak, you have your politicians and policy to impose chivalry on me. You have your family courts, your police and your bailiffs. You have sole custody. You have your birth control, your romance pornography, your abortions and your body. You have your vote your freedom and your choice.

I will not hold your door, or your chair. I will not wear those manacles you offer for your sweet smile. I will not shovel the snow from your mothers driveway or cut her grass. I will not be hired out to work for free so that you can be esteemed. I will not give up time with my children to work another Saturday to pay down your credit card. I am not your appliance to shovel the snow, cut the grass, improve the home, enhance the quality of life, have the solutions, pay the bills, be an accountant, be accountable, coach the delivery, be a babysitter, everyone else knows better, exact judgment, exact an orgasm, use my imagination, use a kleenex, put down the toilet seat, fix the problems, protect the family, go to war, go to the store, go to jail, go to hell, fix the lock, set the clock, answer the complaints, buy the paint, make it better, take the blame, be ashamed, hold the door, enjoy every meal, don’t cook, fix the dryer, fix the car, clean the basement, never be late, be loving, be sensitive, kill, be supportive, pay support, be quiet, be alone. As you wait for me to open that door for you all I have left to offer is a sweet smile. Bye the way dear, you look fat in every outfit. Hope you enjoy my shovelry.

Keith, good points although you forgot “kill spiders”

GetYourOwnDoor “Society has created two types of women. Ladies and Feminists.”

I disagree, the two type of women existing in current western society are Feminists and women that just pretend to appreciate men. To see that, push a woman just a little too far on issues of fairness or appreciation and the feminist will come out like a lion.

@ PK

that’s hilarious “Kill Spiders” thank you for noting my oversight. I forgot the damn spiders. This is an obvious rewrite. aaaHAHAHAHA

It’s one of my favorite observations that feminism is a paradoxical derivative of chivalrous patronage. The notion that women can be victims of sexism even as they can only achieve equality via patronage from men could only exist in a hyper chivalrous society.

Paul hit on it as did others. The notion of feminism and women’s equality is a delightful illusion that only exists among, well, MRA’s trying to ‘clean up’ feminism or feminist apologists.

Again the mis-use of the word chivalry. If you are going to define it in a manner that solely suits your need to deride it then you are better off creating a new term, or at the very least being far more specific.

The word comes from chevalier, referring to the actions and manners of a knight in all things, not solely gender relations.

It is feminist culture that deranged the definition of the term to refer solely to its gender references. Don’t fall for the same linguistic manipulation and railroading you claim to despise. There is much in true chivalry that defines some of the greatest aspects of what it means to be a man.

But in terms that it is getting referred to her, the feminist jargon of gender relations, that chivalry I agree is BS

Oh so this is where the commentary for this post is going on. Then I’ll copy/paste it here.

In order to have a healthy, happy relationship, there needs to be equality in all aspects, including the chivalry.
Equality and chivalry are nearly oil and water. The point behind chivalry is that it is a code of conduct meant to account for inequalities (actually incorrect and sexist presumptions and practices not actual inequalites mind you).

When a man fought another man for a woman’s honor it was under the presumption that that woman could not defend her own honor (and when it came to combat chances are she could not because sexist presumptions kept her away from learning how to fight and pushed said man into learning how to fight). Hell the fact that she had some sort of “honor” that actually warranted a duel to the death to defend is a sexist presumption pushed on her and those men (unless the one that offended her honor actually committed some criminal act against her).

As you say if you strip out the sexist presumptions and practices and have a true level playing field between the genders then those things they do for each other are simply acts of kindness. If I chose to help someone in a fight regardless of gender then I’m just trying to help. If I’m depending on a gender check (as in if its a woman then I assume she needs help because she can’t fight and if its a man I assume he does not need help because he can fight) then I am indeed falling back on chivalry.

Now if they want to redefine chivalry (because feminists love redefining things that are not to their liking) great but its pretty damn sexist to men and women to want to try to incorporate chivalry as it traditionally defined into feminism.

From that article:
I think that some men may feel that being chivalrous is letting a feminine side show, and that they may not want to be teased by their male counterparts.
While I’m not certain of the writer’s gender (Jayme seems to be a woman’s name but I can’t be sure, it might be male or unisex) but this leads me to think that its a woman writing it. Among men performing kind gestures for a woman is something that we don’t tease each other about. Hell in many cases NOT performing a kind gesture for a woman can invoke teasing (namely having his masculinity questioned).

I believe that chivalry is still alive and kicking, it just takes a certain man who is okay with his sexuality and his identity to find it.
I can say that as a man in this day and age it doesn’t take that much security in my sexuality and identity as a man to perform chivalrous acts. The REAL challenge is not performing those acts and then having to deal with people (yes people as in men and women) trying to “call you out” for not doing them.

The writer of that article seems to me to be too hung up on labels (especially his/her label as a feminst) and is maybe getting a bit confused on chivalry. He/she wants to cherry pick from chivalry and dress it up in feminist (because you know that something is not valid until it is labeled feminist right?) clothing but he/she either doesn’t realize or doesn’t want to see that those behaviors are already a part of “equality” and “being nice”.

To supply chivalry to “ladies” but not to “feminists” is rather irrational.

Women are good at changing faces when they have something to gain.

The same woman who files an affirmative action complaint when a more qualified men gets a job; or files a false DV complaint to destroy her husband during a divorce; will happily look so sweet and helpless and ladylike when she wants her tire changed, or wants a man to pay her way.

You pick-n’-choose chivalry guys, why don’t you come back to the real world. Galahad was a fictional character.

The die is long cast. Chivalry in the Anglosphere is for dummies.

First of all, thank you for speaking for me. As a woman, and a feminist I generally feel uncomfortable when a man takes on the protector role to try and save me from some sort of boogeyman that I can not apparently, handle myself. To take me to dinner, or buy me a drink, as some sort of means of ‘earning’ my sexual or romantic attention feels more like prostitution than equality. To expect more from my partner than I expect from myself, it just feels wrong. I enjoy is when a man opens a door for me as a kind gesture, as much as when a woman does it, and as much as I enjoy holding the doors open for people. I think what you’re missing here whilst spending your energy condemning certain women (and let’s be clear on women- just because someone identifies themselves as a feminist, doesn’t mean they are a feminist) is that what once was considered to be the responsibility of men, is now considered to be common decency. I know you’re angry that there are social expectations for you to be kind, sensitive, and support your other, but those social expectations are just as much in place for me as they are for you. To argue against something that is clearly hypocritical- and to pin the hypocrisy on every woman as if it were the believe of feminists everywhere, is not an argument- it’s a tactic.