Chivalry: It May Not Be Dead But Should It Be?

(source)

Chivalry:

1.the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.

2.the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.

3.the medieval system or institution of knighthood.

4.a group of knights.

5.gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English chivalrie  < Anglo-French, Old French chevalerie,  equivalent to chevalier

This is the definition as Dictionary.com would have it.

I recently read two different articles about the topic. One by Hugo Schwyzer entitled, "May I Walk You to Your Car? Chivalry and its Contradictions." and  "Chivalry is Dead Except When it's Done Right" by Jamye Waxman.

In Schywzer's article, he shares a story about how he had held a PTA meeting at his home. At the end of the meeting he walked one of its members to her car. He explained that the neighborhood wasn't particularly dangerous however, it was a late night in L.A., and he volunteered to escort her.

Schwyzer explained that at that moment he took pleasure in exploring the traditional gender role of man.

"One of the common misconceptions that a lot of people have about feminism is that it requires its adherents to act as if they are blind to gender. For example, it’s remarkable how many young women, convinced that a fondness for playing traditional gender roles is at odds with egalitarian ideology, cite a fondness for 'being treated like a lady' (or a 'girl,' or a 'woman') as a primary reason for rejecting the feminist label. There’s an enduring false assumption that taking pleasure in playing certain traditional roles cancels out one’s right to demand equality."

Schwyzer brings up an interesting point, but what exactly does it mean to be treated like a lady? If I were alone on a late night I might be interested in having a chaperon. The chaperon wouldn't necessarily have to be male but I would probably feel safer if it were. More than an issue of gender it is an issue of logic. Often men are stronger than women. I don't think I am any less of a feminist for saying this. While women can certainly carry more strength than men it is not always the case. Also, I think there is strength in numbers. If I am walking alongside another woman to my car there may be less of a chance of an attacker approaching us two. If I am alongside a man I believe that there is even less chance of an attack. A man, may not actually have to fight, he just may need to stand there with me.

But this brings up another issue all its own. Being that men are indeed typically stronger, it seems that it is often the duty of a man to assist a woman even if he does not know her. I'd like to think that strangers would help each other out regardless of gender. But it seems that a man is expected to protect women. I wonder if this ever feels burdensome to some men.

I remember in early college I worked at a bookstore. There was a rumor going around that a man was seeking out women in near parking lots and attempting to sexually attack them. For a while most of the women asked male co-workers to walk them to their cars after a late night shift. I often watched 40 year old women being escorted by 18 year old men. It was an interesting sight to see. Perhaps an example of gender roles but also representative of logic.

When I think of what it means to be "treated like a lady", I think of stereotypical politeness that I often find unnecessary. I have an image of men opening doors for women, pulling out chairs for women, and throwing a jacket over a puddle so as not to risk dirtying a woman's shoes. Ok, the last one is a little extreme but it does pop in my head as this is what I have seen in film and read in books.

I Googled "acts of chivalry" for the purpose of this post and was met by various websites that listed ways in which one can be chivalrous. Here are just some of the examples I found.

1) If the weather is cool offer her your jacket.

2) If it's raining hold the umbrella.

3) If you are sitting at a table with a woman, stand up when she leaves the table.
4) If you drive a woman home, open the car door for her.

5) If it's pouring rain get the car from the parking lot so that she doesn't have to brave the rain along with you.

6) When walking along side of her, take the side closest to the street so she will not be splashed by puddles as cars drive by.

If a man offered to do any of these things for me I would feel incredibly uncomfortable. Even so, I know plenty of women who would gratefully appreciate these acts of supposed chivalry. Some men might feel obligated to perform such acts and others may do them joyfully. So, for the men and women who would appreciate the give and take of these acts, should they embrace them or reject them?

Schwyzers tells us, "A woman who says, 'I like wearing heels because it makes me feel more feminine,' is surely aware that she doesn’t become more biologically female by putting on stilettos—or less so by putting on Crocs. She knows she’s playing a part. Sometimes that part may be burdensome (like having to wear heels because of work); sometimes it may be pure fun (like putting them on to go on a hot date); sometimes it may be a mix of both."

He goes on to say, "We don’t get to play parts that make us feel good at the expense of others. A 'gentleman' shouldn’t foist his manners on to others. To use another example, if a woman doesn’t want a man to race ahead and open doors for her, he shouldn’t be miffed if she doesn’t thank him profusely every time he does so. The performance of traditional roles is about mutual pleasure, not about mutual obligation."

I think it would behoove men and women to think about what gender roles mean to them and how they care to express them or reject them.

I think chivalry is often expected and then men feel obligated to carry them through in order to impress the women they are hoping to get a second date with. In other words there is a societal pressure that exists.

Let's take a common example. Men paying for dates with women. I have never felt comfortable with a man paying for me. Whether it is the beginning of a relationship or far deep into it. Offering to pay a woman's way may be an act of kindness (depending on the reasons behind it) but is it fair? Whether a man can afford to pay for dinner and a movie is not the point. If he is a gazillionaire and can afford to buy the entire restaurant and movie theater, that is not the point. There is this unfair notion that men are expected to pay and there is no clear reason as to why.

Is it because once upon a time women did not frequent the workforce? Is it because men brought home the bacon? Eventually the tradition just carried over? I'm not sure but tradition doesn't always need to remain just for tradition's sake.

If a man wants to spend time with a woman and simply wants the pleasure of her company (or even if he is rude and is simply putting up with dinner so he can get laid) why should he have to fork however much money so he can do that?

Perhaps he feels the pressure or as Schwyer said, perhaps he is actually exploring and enjoying traditional gender roles.

In Jayme Waxman's article, she shares a story about two dating ventures. On the first date she rose out of her chair to get a straw for her cup of coffee. Her date would not let her as he specified that she was a lady and therefore should not have to get her own straw. Waxman was put off by this experience.

On a second date with another man, Waxman told her date how much she enjoys eggplant parmigiana. This dish was not on the menu however her date convinced the restaurant chef to make it.  Waxman, said that even though she was a bit embarrassed she also felt like a queen. In her words, "The sad truth is, chivalry is a mixed bag baby." 

Waxman goes onto say, "Maybe it's an age thing, but there's something about being treated like a lady that I like, and that something is being treated like a lady. For example, I'm more attracted to a man who knows that men walk closer to the street and women walk on the inside. It doesn't matter the reason (back in the day, a horse and buggy could really make a mess), what matters most is that he does it. There's something honorable about him knowing and doing. Enough said. 

Sometimes a guy doesn't want to act like a guy because then he's perceived to be too much man, but sometimes too much of a man is exactly what I want. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving in to the roles we feel comfortable in. It feels like a relief to let men be men, when men want to be men. And I enjoy being a woman when I want to be a woman. But not when it comes to getting my own straw."

Confusing ay? So, is chivalry really a mixed bag as Waxman says? I see how this might have to be a topic of discussion between couples. In relationships everyone bends a little. Compromises are made. But if someone is asked to do something that is drastically out of their comfort zone, I believe they shouldn't feel pressured to doing it.

But what if you are hanging out with someone for the first time? What then? I say set the groundwork for what's to come. If you don't feel it is necessary to pull out a chair for a woman then don't do it. If she resents you for it then you know she's not the one for you. It is possible to be polite but to maintain your own set of values.

Waxman credits her revised views on chivalry to age. It had me wondering if my views on this issue will drastically change as I age. Don't know, but I think I will be cognizant of how I feel now. If my feelings change I will definitely want to explore why. That's just how I am.

Waxman says, that she is "more attracted to a man who knows that men walk closer to the street and women walk on the inside." This actually was one of the examples I found when I Googled, "acts of chivalry". To review that list of examples see above.

What concerns me is how Waxman says she is more attracted to a man who "KNOWS that men walk closer to the street." She is implying that a man is at all times supposed to do this when the opportunity arises. That being of the male sex, calls for this behavior. Apparently there is a handbook that tells us how men and women are supposed to behave and the title of that book is "Societal Views".

As Schwyzer, stated in his own article, men and women can play with gender roles if they choose but there is no reason a person should have to assume responsibility of typical gender roles if they choose not to.

Schwyzer says, "I take the stance that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary. Men and women may be different, but the differences between members of the 'same' sex are so vast that it’s unreasonable to extrapolate any universal truths about how 'men' and 'women' should behave."

I agree with Schwyzer's take.

What about same sex couples? I was once friends with a gay woman who was the only lesbian I knew who actually disliked straight men. She would joke with me and say things like, "Why do you like boys, they look funny and they smell!" I thought it was cute. I did however, notice that she took up aspects of the traditional male gender role.

I asked her why if she disliked men so much that she would open the door for her girlfriend, pull out her chair, and so on. She told me that she appreciates some of the kinder aspects of men and apparently she deemed these stereotypical acts as belonging to that category. Again, playing with gender roles.

Through reading Schwyzer's and Waxman's articles it has been brought to light how intensely I reject chivalry but yet appreciate politeness. I believe chivalry and politeness are separate. One is dependent on gender roles and the other is not. In addition, while I reject many assumed gender traditions I embrace some. When I wear a dress I may not always be dressing up for men but I am most certainly dressing up for me. I feel different in a dress than I do in pants and sometimes that difference is fun.

The examples mentioned above are only few. I'm sure you all can come up with many other ideas and personal experiences. If the question still remains, "should we kill off chivalry all together?" The answer is, it is up to you.