Feminism and Chivalry
February 25th, 2010 by Pelle BillingCan feminism and chivalry co-exist? Apparently this is a subject that some feminists are struggling with, since they want to be feminists and still have chivalry be part of their lives. There’s even a suggested solution of how to combine the two apparent opposites:
In order to have a healthy, happy relationship, there needs to be equality in all aspects, including the chivalry.
Equality in the chivalry? If we have equality in the chivalry then it is no longer chivalry, it is simply ordinary politeness or thoughtfulness. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s keep our labels straight. The very point of chivalry is that it is the man’s way of showing respect for a woman by taking care of her physical safety, whether by fending off an attacker, or simply pulling out a chair. For a woman, the traditional way to repay chivalry is not by being chivalrous back, but to repay the man by being sweet or cooking some food for him. Chivalry is therefore an intrinsic part of traditional gender roles, and the concept is impossible to preserve it if you are for a society where men and women have exactly the same roles.
Does that mean that chivalry is dead in a society with gender equality? Not necessarily. If a society equates gender equality with gender sameness, then chivalry is indeed dead. Contemporary feminism usually claims that all differences between men and women are socially constructed, and that these difference need to be torn down. This ideology is completely incompatible with chivalry, however much young feminist women might want to combine the two concepts. If you are truly for gender sameness, then women do half of the dangerous jobs and take on as many physical risks as men, but this is routinely forgotten in our current gender discourse.
On the other hand, in a society where gender equality is a given, but where men and women are free to choose the livestyles and roles that they like, chivalry is still possible. Any couple that enjoys gender differences can preserve some differences in roles, and also acknowledge any innate differences that they feel are present. This means that some aspects of chivalry can exist, without being forced to accept the full package of past gender roles. Traditional gender roles were strict, inflexible and unconsciously adopted. Consciously adopting some differences in roles in a romantic relationship is a whole different ballgame, but one that can be crucial for maintaining the spark and polarity needed in a successful long term relationship.
At the end of the day, if you want full equality between the sexes but want to retain some differences between yourself and your partner, then you can have the experience of chivalry to the extent that you are ready to accept those differences. However, if you want a gender equality that is based on gender sameness, then chivalry is out of the picture. Any young feminist who disagrees, is trying to have her cookie and eat it too.
Tags: double standards
February 25th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
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”.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Economics 101:
- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH
- YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO
As a single male in an American city, my experience with nearly ALL women (not just feminists) is that they want equality when it’s convenient, and chivalry when it’s convenient. They insists that gender differences are a social construct, and then ten seconds later insist that we adhere to biologically dictated, evolutionary roles. The fact that in doing so they are committing an intellectual and moral about-face within a ten second time frame is completely lost on them. It’s all about what they want, when they want it. Such an attitude is venal at best, suicidal at worst.
Feminism, like most Cultural Studies subjects of the postmodern milieu, rejects fact and logical argument and elevates extreme subjectivism in their place. Linear knowledge itself is scorned as a ‘patriarchal construct’: the search for truth is deemed an impossible endeavor. Is it any wonder, then, that the ‘truth’ consists of whatever a woman wants it to be in the moment, according to her ‘feelings?’ Is it far-fetched to conclude that a woman might not be able to see the TRUTH in front of her because the truth-seeking part of the brain has atrophied in a culture of relativism?
Thomas Sowell is right when he says that life is about Trade-Offs. if you want something Here, you’re going to have to give up something There. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But contemporary western women, fed on an unachievable Utopian diet of You-Can-Have-It-All feminism, have convinced themselves that there is indeed such a thing as a Free Lunch, which is why so many western women are miserable.
Feminism argues Equality, but it does not argue against the purchase of shiny, expensive baubles (read: engagement rings) for women to make them happy. It does not argue against government legislated chivalry like alimony, welfare for single mothers, or women only scholarships. It doesn’t acknowledge that 99% of workplace deaths are male. It doesn’t acknowledge that the wide majority of suicides are male. It doesn’t acknowledge the millions of men in dangerous or monotonous jobs who keep western civilization going, nor the conspicuous lack of women who line up for these jobs when there are openings. Instead, Feminism cherry picks its way towards ‘Equality,’ relying on its Marxist ‘All women are victims, all men are oppressors’ ideology. Feminism wants government legislated equality when its convenient, and government sponsored chivalry when its convenient.
It isn’t a mystery why this wide-spread, government sponsored chivalry trickles down into personal relationships. If it walks like a duck . . . well then, it’s a feminist.
May 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Jihan, you put it very eloquently. We’re in a dilemma. Despite the advances of gender equality, women are still sold the same basic age-old fantasy from birth (by parents, TV, womens mags) - a man will provide for you (and your kids). This runs very very deep. Later education then adds the idea of career/ self-support. But this is really a veneer. The problem is that it is held to very tightly (at least in word) for fear of betraying the sisterhood. The doublethink required to maintain both positions leaks out in all sorts of situations but, fundamentally, the fantasy always wins. So, independent career women still expect men to open doors, take all the initiative, and pick up the check (…and approaching 30 the old reliable contraception may suddenly fail)…I’ve seen all these things happen within the university department where I work. Add to this picture the increased expectations of men - i.e. chivalrous knight and emotionally in-touch listener, and expectations can never be met. Hence the misery. My question is, what does a sensible man do about the situation? Go religious? Go abroad?
May 8th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Thanks for your comments, John. If you find yourself in a personal situation with an ‘I can have it all’ female, you simply tell her that she can’t have her cake and eat it too, and to grow up. IN THOSE EXACT WORDS. And don’t be mean, but don’t be too nice about it either. (In other words, talk to her like you would talk to a man
On a societal level, we won’t get anywhere until we eliminate the Cultural Studies/Professional Victim/Leftist/Marxist paradigm and get back to Self Sufficiency, Individualism, Responsibility, and all the other qualities that originally made Western Civilization great. We’ve fallen into a lazy quagmire of intellectual and moral laziness, self-hatred and nihilism brought on by the left’s watery concept of ‘multi-culturalism.’ Feminism is only one part of that.
As it stands, there are many ‘feminists,’ but there are only a handful of ‘Radical Feminists.’ Unfortunately, it’s the Radical Feminists (particularly in universities) who call the shots and set the agenda for the entire movement. Most of these nut-jobs are avowed Marxists whose goal is to eliminate the ‘traditional family’ and replace it with some form of ill-defined utopian socialism. In that sense, radical feminists are looking for THE REALLY BIG CHIVALRY - that which is bestowed upon them by Big Daddy Government. It’s no wonder that the residue of this mind-set seeps down into personal relationships between otherwise normal men and women. The best you can do in personal situations is to tell these women - in no short terms - to TAKE A HIKE. The upside of this is that said ‘women’ will instinctively respect you more because you have a pair, unlike most men today, who are simpering doormats.
May 16th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Terrific site. Thanks. We need more honest discussions about the myths.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Thanks monty.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
People nowadays make the mistake of assuming that chivalry ONLY applies to how a man relates to a woman. However, anyone that has ever looked into chivalry at all will realize that there are many more aspects to this ancient and venerable code.
For example, one of the codes of chivalry I’ve found calls for men to “Protect the weak and defenseless.” Doesn’t this mean to step in and defend anyone, regardless of gender?
How about to “At all times speak the truth?” Not really directly related to man-to-woman interactions, I think. And yet for people nowadays, chivalry only applies when it comes to relationships between men and women. Chivalry was more just a code of life, one that directs a man to lead an honorable life, in which they deal morally and justly towards men, women and the world around them.
August 5th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Jhan… very well put
I am a woman working a white collar job and in love with the idea of traditional social roles. Work is great but it does not define me; I do it as a means of sustenance and support. So yes, it may seem that I benefit from ‘feminism’ but to the degree that all women today are free to function in society.
On chivalry, chivalry is beautiful and admirable and all we are doing with equality is blocking it out. This feminist stuff needs to step down a notch and let women who want to be treated as women (and not simply a non-gendered social counterpart) be treated as such.
metalman, I couldn’t agree more with ‘The best you can do in personal situations is to tell these women - in no short terms - to TAKE A HIKE. The upside of this is that said ‘women’ will instinctively respect you more because you have a pair, unlike most men today, who are simpering doormats.’
… and if they are looking for a doormat, there are plenty of those lying around