Is Chivalry Dead?

[Pariah]

Recently, the word 'bigot' has turned up several times in reference to curtailing animosity toward women--not only on this board, mind you--and I wanted to hear what folks 'round here thought on the issue.

For example: a man states that he will not fight with a woman who obviously has no problem with wanting to clean his clock.

Reason: It is improper, he states, as women should not be treated in that manner.

Is 'chivalry' dead? Passé? Outdated?

Or is there still merit to be found in this behavior?

More of my own thoughts later--I'm almost out of here.

Thanks for your time.

[Freudian Slit]

IMHO? Yes. I tink a lot of this chivalry relies on the notion that women are weak, in need of protection. Throughout history, men probably liked the idea that women were weak, etc. In the Industrial Era, for example, middle class women were discouraged from working, because it was unladylike to do so...whereas the cruel reality was that many women were doing cruel, arduous work, in factories, mines, etc.

So the problem I have with chivalry is that its basis is basically incorrect. It is supported by a hopelessly outdated idea that women are fragile, frail creatures. Maybe I'm reading in too much, but that's my take.

[Albert Rose]

I like a little bit of the Chivalry idea. Giving absolute loving respect to my favorite princess of a woman sounds like fun!

Zoggie is right, though, about the "fragile/frail woman" aspect of Chivalry. We don't need that any more, and maybe didn't need it in the first place. I can't approve or disapprove much of the Code of Chivalry without actually knowing its ins & outs. So I won't do either. I don't want to get some knight's panties in a bundle.

The thing about the heavy armor seems a tad silly.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Well, Albert, here's one version of the code:
... never to do outrage nor murder, and always to flee treason, and to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy ... and always to do ladies, damsels, gentlewomen and widows succour; strengthen them in their rights, and never to enforce them, upon pain of death. Also that no man take any battles in a wrongful quarrel for any love, nor for any world's goods.
Works for me, though I'm not sure it's exactly what the OP had in mind.

[Jodi]

Um, FRET, I hate to point it out, but that doesn't entirely make sense.

... never to do outrage nor murder, and always to flee treason,

Okay, though it is unclear what "fleeing" treason means, as opposed to "never doing" it -- though it sounds so romantic.

. . . and to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy ...

But none to him that does not? And only to "him"?

. . . and always to do ladies, damsels, gentlewomen and widows succour; . . .

Herein lieth the problem. Why are gentlemen to be denied succor (or aid) if they are in need of it? Because they presumably can obtain it themselves, but women cannot? (Parenthetically, I would also quarrel with a pledge to "succour" gentility but not those women who cannot claim to be "ladies, damsels, gentlewomen or widows.")

. . . which strengthen them in their rights, and never to enforce them, upon pain of death.

This doesn't make sense. Never to enforce what? The rights, or the women? Or perhaps it should read "never to force" (ie, rape) them? In which case, again, why is it okay to force men?

Also that no man take any battles in a wrongful quarrel for any love, nor for any world's goods.

This boils down to "don't fight unless you think you have a good reason," and good reason (ie, "not wrongful") is of course subjective.

I have no problem with chivalry to the extent that it differentiates between the weak and the strong, the old and the young, and encourages those in power to help those who are in need. But I don't think it is any longer appropriate to extend chivalry based upon gender, as opposed to respect or need. The whole "men are equals while women are delicate flowers of beauty to be placed on pedestals and protected" thing is to me too obviously a possible means to disempower women -- for their own good, of course. No thanks.

[Freudian Slit]

Aww, Zoggie was right. This is going in my sig line, Albert. :)

It's not so much the idea of chivalry that I'm rejecting- I don't see what's wrong with protecting those who are in need, or with treating women respectfully. I'd rather like it if a guy did that. What turns me off is what chivalry implies...what you guys mentioned.

Anyway, another thing, does that code seem to imply that only upper class women get protected? It lists protecting for:


Ladies, damsels, gentlewomen and widows


In the dictionary, damsel is defined as a young woman, or one of noble birth. And gentlewoman and lady have the connotation of upper class/good breeding. Somehow, I can't exactly see our knights rushing off to the "succor" of the peasantry, but then, I didn't live back then and I don't purport to know their motives.

Anyway a little tie-in, going to take a huge tangent here...in English we were reading the poem, Ain't I A Woman, by Soujourner Truth, which as you guys probably know, speaks of the hardships that women endured under slavery. It also contrasted the arduous work she had to do, without the aid of a man, with the fine treatment many upper class, Southern belles received. The ante-bellum South did embrace the code of chivalry, yet most of it was devoted towards rich young women- not towards slaves, or those of the lower class. So the point I'm getting at is that chivalry really is more of a romantic notion, in which a guy idealizes the perfect woman, capalizes on her weakness, protecting her.

[Tristan]

I strive to live my life by a code of honor, one that I established myself and have never written down, but chivalry is part of that.

When I had time I used to help with the local food bank, and used to go door to door with a coffee can to raise funds for the Jerry Lewis telethon.

I hold doors for ladies and the elderly, try to be polite and repectful of all.

I used to say that I would never hit a woman.... even when my ex-girlfriend would ball up her hand and hit me during arguements. I would walk away, until I could calm down.



Most of this still applies, but I no longer hold on not hitting women. I will not hit a lady, nor will I strike a bitch I'm arguing with until she hits me first.... and even then, I'm fairly certain I can restrain her and knock her down without hitting her.

Women who resent men for being polite (holding doors, offering to help carry heavy things) are stupid, and are the leading cause of the "Death of chivalry".

[Mnementh]

I'm on the same level as Tristan. I used to follow all those olden codes, until one thing crossed my mind. What if I was getting attacked by one of those enormous, steroid ridden bodybuilder women? Even if I'm up against someone who could rip me apart, I still cant fight back? What the crack is that?

So I modified it, and basically removed gender differences. I changed from 'won't hit women' to 'won't hit people who arent capable of defending against me'. All the other codes, I altered in similar ways.

Now, if we're talking about individuals, yeah, there're a few people around keeping it alive (I find myself liking Tristan more all the time. But if we're talking about society at large, chivalry's going to hell. I notice impatience, dishonesty, and other such infractions on a daily basis, and I'm quite certain you all do as well. Kind of depressing, really.

[soulmurk]

originally posted by Jodi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . and always to do ladies, damsels, gentlewomen and widows succour; . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herein lieth the problem. Why are gentlemen to be denied succor (or aid) if they are in need of it? Because they presumably can obtain it themselves, but women cannot?

You are looking too hard into the verbiages.

This code was written for men during an era when men and women were not considered equals. However, the intention of the code is not to point out differences but to enforce common courtesy.

I will hold a door open for a woman carrying a baby, does that mean the succor I provide her denotes that I have beliefs that women are inferior and incapable? I would do the same if a man had his hands full.

(Parenthetically, I would also quarrel with a pledge to "succour" gentility but not those women who cannot claim to be "ladies, damsels, gentlewomen or widows.")

Though the paragraph specifies those of noble birth, it does not state that the named are exclusively eligible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . which strengthen them in their rights, and never to enforce them, upon pain of death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This doesn't make sense. Never to enforce what? The rights, or the women? Or perhaps it should read "never to force" (ie, rape) them?

An archaic and obsolete definition (remember the time this was written) of the word enforce is "to take by force", so your guess that it alludes to rape would be fair.

In which case, again, why is it okay to force men?

It does not say that it is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also that no man take any battles in a wrongful quarrel for any love, nor for any world's goods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This boils down to "don't fight unless you think you have a good reason," and good reason (ie, "not wrongful") is of course subjective.

What it means is that the followers of this code should remain honorable and just at all times. Do not fight fueled by a love for a person or object, nor for any type of material gain, but out of honor and fairness.

I'll have to agree with you on the subjectivity of that though.


I don't think that chivalry is dead but it has been quelched. It can easily be seen that the code of chivalry is outdated and obsolete in the modern world, however the basic tenets of the code still stand and are still practiced. It's all about common courtesy and politeness.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Actually, I'm afraid Jodi has probably hit the nail on the head about the social class thing, but I think we should still give Malory a break -- he did live in the fifteenth century, after all. (And yes, "enforce" does mean rape. I'm not sure the possibility of homosexual rape was something one talked about back then.)

[Slithy Tove]

I see this GD might soon turn into a Chivalry Vs Feminism debate, which need not be so. Well, its a free board, so post as you please, but if one more person uses the phrase "put up on a pedestal," I shall accord him or her the same respect in which I hold the average sitcom writer.

To examine Chivalry, we must divorce it from Feudalism. Maybe you can do that, but I can't. When the men at arms who espoused Chivalry invaded each other's lands, the first thing they did was to hack down every man, woman and child of the peasantry who hadn't made it into the shelter of the defender's castle. This was done because in those simpler times labor was capitol, and it's always a good idea to neutralize your opponent's assets.

I can't separate that behavior from its ideal, but I am no saint. Francis of Assisi was. He saw in Chivalry the extension of the Christian ideal of obligation to one's fellow man, regardless of his or her station. To Francis, it was ungentlemanly bad manners to ride by in warm clothes on the same road as beggars in rags, so he dismounted and offered them his clothes. (Ultimately, Chivalry demanded that one get off one's Cheval). St. Francis was both so Christian and so Chivalric that, after his death, the forces of both Christianity and Chivalry suppressed the movement he began.*

I'd say that Chivalry is indeed dead, because St. Francis showed long a go how it should have progressed, and society refused to follow his lead. A man will think himself Chivalric when he opens a door for a woman, and she will rebuke him for his patronization. He will feel righteously wronged as the last Chevalier, and she self-righteous as the last Feminist. They will both be Chivalric in the literal sense of climbing onto their high horses.


*I got this St. Francis-Chivalry connection from Kenneth Clark's "Civilization," the same book that raised the question I've long been meaning to post: how come psychiatrists have such a high rate of suicide and priests such a low rate, when they both do pretty much the same job?

[Manda JO]

It can easily be seen that the code of chivalry is outdated and obsolete in the modern world, however the basic tenets of the code still stand and are still practiced. It's all about common courtesy and politeness.

I think that chivilary and common courtesy are totally different: chivilary is not opening a door for someone with thier hands full--it is a man rushing ahead of a woman to open a door before she gets there, and a woman stoping, expectantly waiting for him to do so. Chivilary is by definition about gender differences, and as such i don't think it is any great virtue.

[Kallessa]

A problem comes from thinking of chivalry as an inflexible concept. Taking a code from the past and analyzing it in terms of individual words (gentlewomen, succor, enforce, etc.) sets it in historical context, but has nothing to do with the question of whether the concept of chivalry has merit in today's world.

The concept of chivalry rests in the concept of honor, an attribute few seem to value today. Chivalry is treating others with respect, using your strength, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual, to help those who, at this time, are not equal to you in strength. In the middle ages, strength (power) was often seen in terms of gender or class. That is less true today. I, as a lady, am acting with honor and chivalry when I help a young father, encumbered by two children and several packages, by opening and holding the door for him. He, as a gentleman, may have a chance to act with chivalry towards me in the future, perhaps by lending a sympathetic ear when I tell him of my trouble at work, or by helping me put snow chains on my tires (I could learn to do it, but I don't want to, I want to depend on the kindness of strangers). Chivalry is beyond simple courtesy in that it is proactive--a lady or gentleman should go out of their way to provide a kindness for another, even when it creates a difficulty for themselves (as with the Knights of the Round Table seeking out wrongs to right).

The moral and ethic principles behind the concept of chivalry--treating others with respect, fighting for what is right, helping those who are in need, being honest, playing/fighting fair, being kind and merciful, to name a few--aren't unneeded in the world today, nor are they completely missing. Many people are closely following the code of chivalry without ever knowing it. But I think that having an awareness of this code is valuable, it is a way to indicate some of the characteristics that our society prizes. It is a shorthand way of passing on these values to children.

[Jodi]

SOULMURK --

This code was written for men during an era when men and women were not considered equals. However, the intention of the code is not to point out differences but to enforce common courtesy.

I realize this. But that particular code was posted by FRETFUL as an example of a chivalriac code that "works for her." It doesn't work for me, and I was attempting to explain why. (And, interestingly, FRET agrees that I have a point. She's so smart. ;) ) Moreover, it is not as important what the intention of the code is, IMO, as it is what the effect of the code is -- and its effect would be to treat women and men differently based on gender. This seems far too clear from the very wording of it to even argue about.

Though the paragraph specifies those of noble birth, it does not state that the named are exclusively eligible.

Oh, c'mon. That's just semantics. A list is deemed to include the items on the list and no others. If you are asked to go to the supply room and bring back a box of pens, a package of paper, and two erasers, those are the exact items you are expected to bring back, and no others. You might bring back others as well, but you are not required to.

I would also note that SLITHY TOVE and KALLESSA seem to be working under totally different definitions of "chivalry," so maybe it would be best to define the term. If we are talking about chivalry in the sense of treating everyone with respect, acting honorably, and helping the unfortunate, I would say it is a good thing and ought to be sought after, even in modern times. If we are talking about chivalry in the sense of treating some people better than others on the basis of gender and class, and of disempowering people in the name of "protecting" them, then I would say it has little relevance in the modern world and if it is in fact gone, good riddance.






I will hold a door open for a woman carrying a baby, does that mean the succor I provide her denotes that I have beliefs that women are inferior and incapable? I would do the same if a man had his hands full.

[Tsugumo]

I will hold a door open for a woman, and if you take offense to it, then I'm sorry, but it's not an insult. I'm not saying "Well since you're helpless, I'll have to open the door for you." I mean, duh. You HAVE two arms, I can SEE that. And I'm pretty sure that having lived X amount of years, you've probably opened doors on more than one occasion. In fact, what if I'M offended that you would think I was stupid and pig-headed enough to believe you couldn't open a door for yourself?

It's like if someone says Merry Christmas to you, and you don't celebrate Christmas...Do you go, "Hey, Jackass! You're insulting my beliefs!"? You just thank them and wish them the same, because they're not trying to poke jabs at you...the INTENTION behind it is "have a good day", and the intention behind holding the door for a woman is the same as smiling at a stranger, or saying "good afternoon" as you pass. You CAN take it as some sort of hostile threat, but really, lighten up, heh...

I wouldn't hit a woman, unless she hit me (and I'd probably just wrestle her arms to keep her from hitting me again, rather than say, kick her in the head, heh), but I wouldn't hit anyone unless they hit me. And I hold doors for anyone who's behind me or looks like they need it (holding a package, pushing a stroller, etc.).

I think chivalry is basically dead though...And I agree that it's because of people being so defensive like that. I mean, if I'm having a bad day, and someone tells me "Have a nice day!", I should take that as an insult that I'm not having the type of day they assume I SHOULD be having...I'm less human than them because I'm not having a nice day like they are! How insulting, right? No one should do anything for other people, ESPECIALLY other people who look like they're having a bad day, or having trouble with something...Then we can avoid all this.

I, however, am still going to hold doors because it's polite. Sorry, heh.

- Tsugumo

[soulmurk]

Alright then, we'll just rewrite the code to fit into todays modern day PC and laymans standards, so as not to offend anyone by it's targetting of nobleborn women or with it's use of outdated verbiage.

...to never express overt rage nor commit an act of murder, and avoid betraying a trust held in you, and to show mercy unto all...
Give your aid to all requiring or asking aid, stand up for their rights to be themselves, and never force a person to do a deed against their will, upon pain of death. Also that no person partake in a battle unjustified by local laws or ordinances, or for material gain.

Sounds alot like the ten commandments. The basic message is to be nice to your fellow man (or woman), and I can't see anything wrong with that.

Moreover, it is not as important what the intention of the code is, IMO, as it is what the effect of the code is

The intention of the code is all that matters.

There are people that commit heinous acts because they believe that what they read in their bible sanctioned their actions. Do we then burn all the bibles because of the effect it can have?

No, because the intent of the bible is not to sanction crimes against humanity but to help make the world a better place.

Perhaps the code of chivalry as it was originally written is, and should be, dead due to its outdated gender specific concepts. Its basic tenets of moral decency, common courtesy, and politeness should be, and still are practiced, as indicated by some of the responses in this thread.

Perhaps some wo/men resent having a door held open for them, but that speaks of personal issues more than anything.

[SpyderA48]

???????????????

There is Chivalry from the Romantic era and Chivalry of the Industrial Age.

In the early 1900s, Chivalry became basically courtesy and politeness. By the 1950s, it had been modified to polite preferential treatment towards women, who were living under a different set of social rules then. Like, after WW2, few women worked if they were married. In fact, when the war ended, there was a major campaign by the government to 'put the ladies in their places', that is, the home in order to open up jobs for the men.

By then, Chivalry had been reduced to preferential treatment i.e.: opening car doors, holding out chairs for them at restaurants, allowing them to precede on when going into a building, giving them one's seat on a crowded bus and more.

In the late 1960s, the Woman's Rights movement took hold and got nearly fanatical, rejecting almost all forms of courtesy and preferential treatment as they worked towards equal rights. Men got castigated if they opened a door for a woman, stopped to assist her with heavy loads, held out her chair or stood until she was seated. For a time, guys didn't know how to act because the old concept of being polite was being angrily thrown back in their faces.

Women wanted to be treated like equals. Even to attempting to eliminate separate bathrooms.

Now, a modified form of chivalry is slowly returning as the old, militant woman's rights activists are dropping out and the new women are modifying the strict demands. Like many enjoy preferential treatment, don't want to share a public bathroom with men and quite a few don't like putting their kids in day care to go work all day.

So, Chivalry is not dead, but modified.

[Jodi]

SOULMURK --

Alright then, we'll just rewrite the code to fit into todays modern day PC and laymans standards, so as not to offend anyone by it's targetting of nobleborn women or with it's use of outdated verbiage.

As I have already said, the problem with that particular code, as written, is that it extends protections upon gender and class lines. I have no problem with its "outdated verbiage" except to the extent it might render it hard to read; I have a problem with differentiating in treatment based on gender or class -- as I have already said. This is far more than making the code "PC;" it is changing its entire meaning: i.e., what was formerly only extended to a certain gender (female) and a certain class (the highborn) is now extended to all who need it, regardless of gender and class. That is what you have done by undating it -- and rightly so -- but surely you see that this is far more than a cosmetic change.

The intention of the code is all that matters.

No, it is not, as your very example proves.

There are people that commit heinous acts because they believe that what they read in their bible sanctioned their actions. Do we then burn all the bibles because of the effect it can have?

Do we let them off the hook for their heinous acts because their intentions are good, or do we punish them anyway, properly recognizing that good intentions are not as important as bad effects? It doesn't matter if something is intended to do good -- a code, a law, a personal resolution, whatever -- if it does not do good, if instead it does bad (has a bad effect), all the good intentions in the world are worthless.

[soulmurk]

Do we let them off the hook for their heinous acts because their intentions are good, or do we punish them anyway, properly recognizing that good intentions are not as important as bad effects?

Of course we would punish them, that is not the issue at hand. A person is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of their intentions, breaking a law is still breaking a law.

That does not demonstrate that good intentions are any less important than bad effects, but rather that misinterpretation can lead to troubling events. In a court, a sentence could be reduced or negated under certain circumstances if it can be proved that the intent was good and the crime was inadvertant. It doesn't lessen the effect of the crime, but it could be the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

It doesn't matter if something is intended to do good -- a code, a law, a personal resolution, whatever -- if it does not do good, if instead it does bad (has a bad effect), all the good intentions in the world are worthless.

A code, a law, or a personal resolution can not do good, or bad. They are only guidelines for behavior.

Most, if not all, laws in the US have been broken at least once. Their intent is to help keep order. By your logic, because the laws are broken, or can have a bad effect, they are worthless.

As for the code only extending protection based on gender and class lines, I find it hard to believe that an honorable knight that lived by this code (a knight, which was a man sworn to a royal family, or it's women in particular) would not extend the code to a peasant or commoner if he found himself in such a situation as to warrant it.

The knights that lived by this code were not the adventuring, dragon slaying men of myth, but were generally men at arms stationed in or near the castle of the family they served, or in a remote family holding to keep the peace. They were glorified guards and their main priority was to keep the royal family safe.

In comparison, I'd be curious to see what the Secret Service's oath to the President and his family is. I imagine it would be pretty biased towards a specific gender and certain class lines as well.

[Manda JO]

Soulmurk said:

As for the code only extending protection based on gender and class lines, I find it hard to believe that an honorable knight that lived by this code (a knight, which was a man sworn to a royal family, or it's women in particular) would not extend the code to a peasant or commoner if he found himself in such a situation as to warrant it.

Soulmurk, to the medival mind hte constraints of honor had little or nothing to do with the peasant/serf classes. As Slithy Tove pointed out above, peasants were not people, they were capital. The various chilvaric codes stressed gentlewomen because that is who they strove to protect--other women were fair game, should they ever even be noticed.

I also want to echo Jodi a bit--if you take the gender/class difference out of chivilary, it isn't chivilary anymore. It's like saying that Nazism wouldn't be so bad if you got rid of the racial superiority and the genocide, or the only problem wiht Christianity is that Jesus fellow. (Note: I am [b]not[/n] comparing being chivarous to being a nazi by any streach of the imagination--I am just looking for another social system with well established charecteristics).


Third, I want to say that what I feel truly offensive about "chivalry" is not how it effects men, but how it effects women. You can't be chivalrous towards a woman who hasn't been trained to it--she has to know to hang back and let you do what she could do herself. So a girl raised by fathers, brothers, uncles who are "chivalrous" learns to stop two feet in front of a door and wait for the man to catch up, they learn that if there are two suitcases and they are with one man not to pick up either, they learn that if someone has to go out in the cold and start the car, it is gonna be the person with a penis. I can't stand girls like this, and I can't stand any system that creates them.

[Jodi]

SOULMURK --

Of course we would punish them, that is not the issue at hand. A person is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of their intentions, breaking a law is still breaking a law.

And following a code is still following a code, even one with both good intentions and a bad effect -- such as one that posits that women should be treated better, when the very idea of treating women "better" than men, well-intentioned or not, reinforces disparate standards between the genders.

That does not demonstrate that good intentions are any less important than bad effects, but rather that misinterpretation can lead to troubling events.

That is proven by any law you might choose to look at, and by the fact that we do not excuse bad actions based on good intent. We may mitigate the punishment (i.e., lessen it) based on good intent (or, more probably, lack of bad intent) but we do not wholly excuse the negative effect -- we still punish the action. That itself shows that good intentions are "less important" than bad effects -- if they were not, the good intention would serve to wholly excuse the bad effect.

In a court, a sentence could be reduced or negated under certain circumstances if it can be proved that the intent was good and the crime was inadvertant. It doesn't lessen the effect of the crime, but it could be the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

This is mitigation; it does not have anything to do with whether the good intention is more important than the bad effect, which it clearly is not, for the reason given above.

A code, a law, or a personal resolution can not do good, or bad. They are only guidelines for behavior.

Surely you can see that code, law, or personal resolution can have a specific and predictable effect. This is what I was talking about when I spoke of what the law "does," and I said as much. No one is arguing that a law/resolution/whatever -- or any idea -- "does" anything active by itself.

Most, if not all, laws in the US have been broken at least once. Their intent is to help keep order. By your logic, because the laws are broken, or can have a bad effect, they are worthless.

This does not follow and frankly makes no sense. The fact that the law is broken does not mean it has a bad effect; once it is broken, you are not discussing the effect of the law but rather the effect of having broken it. The effect of the law is what results when the law is followed. For example, say a very bad car wreck occurs at a very busy intersection, so the city counsel passes an ordinance lowering the speed limit to 15 m.p.h. The intent of that law would be to reduce accidents. But the intersection is so busy that the lower speed causes congestion and visibility problems and the result is more accidents. That is a bad result that occurs in spite of the intent of the law, which was exactly the opposite. The same with the Code of Chivalry under discussion: The intent is to extend protections to females and improve their place in society, but by implicitly making them unequal and less capable (in need of "succour" and protection), the Code arguably makes the position of women worse. You do not have to agree with this, but that is the argument.

As for the code only extending protection based on gender and class lines, I find it hard to believe that an honorable knight that lived by this code (a knight, which was a man sworn to a royal family, or it's women in particular) would not extend the code to a peasant or commoner if he found himself in such a situation as to warrant it.

I'm sure we can agree that we can only evaluate the code based on what it does say and not on what it doesn't. I hope a knight would act as you predict, but there's nothing in the code to mandate it. In fact, as you may know, the adjective "surly" comes from a man acting "sir-ly," i.e., like a knight or lord, and "surly" is not a compliment.

The knights that lived by this code were not the adventuring, dragon slaying men of myth, but were generally men at arms stationed in or near the castle of the family they served, or in a remote family holding to keep the peace. They were glorified guards and their main priority was to keep the royal family safe.

Actually, knights who owed particular service to their lord made that service at a given time of year and otherwise lived with their families, subject to being called for extraordinary duty at any time. They were more than "glorified guards," since any person with eyes could keep a lookout, but only certain men could aspire to be knighted.

[Pariah]

When I was five, my father once took me aside to instruct me on proper chivalrous behavior:

“Jas,” he admonished. “When a woman is staying in the house, if you use the toilet in the middle of the night—put the seat down.”

When I was a youngster, my father’s girlfriend took me aside to instruct me on proper chivalrous behavior:

“Jason,” she reassured. “When you use the toilet in the middle of the night, put the seat up.”

When I awoke in the middle of the night, I’d pee off the deck.

----

Of course, both were valid. I just didn’t know that each referred to separate stages of the act. Put the seat up to pee, put it back down when done. Simple.

One called it chivalry. The other, etiquette.

Both words sounded conceptual and somehow unattainable, GROWN UP concepts—etiquette playing yin to chivalry’s yang.

Recently an older woman was quite shocked when I stood to offer her my seat in a crowded conference room. “Are you sure?” she said as though I were offering my last pint of blood.

In the same room, later, different assembly, I did the same thing for a 19 year-old woman who took the seat without giving it a second thought—and without so much as a glance.

She took it, nonetheless.

And then there is the instance where a cold refusal meets the effort, or a rolling of the eyes as though I possessed some ulterior motive.

(Sure, I’m NAKED at the time, but…)

I ask the opening question to this thread because of my seemingly innate (though I could dimestore-psychoanalyze the true origin) desire to place the needs of a woman before my own—and the suspicion I often meet when doing so.

I observe, often, a reticence to even accept an offer of courtesy that, to me, is second nature. And I usually reserve it for a woman—even though I know, in general, women have a higher pain threshold than men and often a higher stamina. Why? I’m not really sure, to be totally honest.

I grew up with conflicting emotions.

On the one hand, Sean Connery’s James Bond was really cool—but many pinned the slippery word “misogynist” on his hairy chesht. Dang, I thought, after looking up the word, half the women he meets want to kill him! What’s he supposed to do?!? I guess I’d be called a misogynist, too, if I failed to accommodate a woman who desired my head on a platter! Gosh!

And Han Solo, that scoundrel, was the ultimate—but he’s mouthing off to the Princess and calling her names and she’s cutting him down right back and OH MY GOD THEY’RE KISSING?!?!? BUT THEY HATE EACHOTHER!!!

And my dad felt I was plenty mature enough to viddy “A Clockwork Orange” at eleven; needless to say, not much chivalry on display there—unless we count the swift placement of his cane across Dim’s thighs to stifle an unwarranted critique of the opera singer in the Korova Milk Bar.

Here was my father, who spoke constantly of honor and integrity, of treating a woman with the utmost of respect—

Never mind the fact my mother left him when I was two.

It was he who had never been so disappointed in me as when I struck a girl at 9 years old. She had erased my drawing of Snoopy on the blackboard, so I whacked her on the arm. (Hey, I’d written ‘SAVE’ around it until the board was nearly full, okay?!?)

Little did I know that we would be ‘dating’ the next year. Yeah, the ‘Snowball’ at Skate World saw us paired off and reveling in our mutual appreciation for the movie ‘Xanadu’ as we rolled along and fancied ourselves as Michael Beck/Olivia Newton John archetypes.

All sorts of disgusting implications to be drawn from that relationship, I know, but I beg for clemency on account of the slobbering misplaced affections of youth.

I struck a girl only once after that—she became hysterical at the sight of a stray dog, and in the movies you were supposed to slap hysterical people—and though it made her really mad, it snapped her out of her lock-legged hysteria, and after I apologized profusely she forgave me.

(And I do not count the women I taught in martial arts, who paid me to fight them on a regular basis) :D

I grew older, and my own idealism took shape.

Even through the haphazard obstacle course of attempting to cull some consistency between my father’s idealism and his example, I continued to find myself opening doors, deferring seats, bowing my head slightly (as I wore no hat) and pulling out the chairs for all members of the opposite sex.

Perhaps it was due to the books I read or the films I saw in which I found exemplary behavior that seemed right to me. Perhaps it was observing the giving of birth, from conception to delivery and beyond into the nurturing awe of motherhood. Or it might have been the number of times a woman held sway over the raging chaos of my mind with a simple look, calming everything into placid objectivity—and there was the wanton obsession, too, but that’s a different subject.

It is unfortunate that, in this day, chivalry/etiquette/common decency is often greeted with suspicion and doubt, or fear for personal safety. Or homophobia, for that matter—men who smile out of the blue at other men are often regarded with a sudden baleful paranoia, an aversion of the eyes and a steeling of muscles as though struck.

I suppose I may even be duplicitous in this area; I open the door for other men, but I’ll rarely give up my seat unless they’re older or much younger. Why? Dunno. Hadn’t really thought about it until I started this thread. If a man offered me his seat out of the blue, I’d probably think Lord, do I look that sickly? or Uh ohhhh…what’s wrong with the people he’s sitting by?

Thanks for your insights so far and for your time in reading; I’ll be continuing along with interest.

[Tristan]

Pariah- I think you're cool, regardless of what the others say about you.... heheheh.....


I try to remember to do the same sorts of things, and the only ones that seem to appreciate it is older women, and a handful of older men.

I'm never sure how to act when a young lady refuses to take the seat I've offered, or just glares at me when I hold a door.

I know that modern society is working on making sure that we as a whole don't trust each other, and I suppose that is a good thing, but it sucks for those of us who would try to add a bit of courtesy to the world.

I will admit to being biased towards women. I like women, I think they smell good and are worth fighting for. To be called an outdated sexist oaf for holding doors and hoping to teach my daughter to expect the same sorts of respect (while also teaching her self-reliance) then so be it.

If my behavior makes me look odd, I could care less. I have put up with verbal assaults because of what I do, and I will continue doing so.

It makes me happy to act in a chivalrous way, and I can only hope that it will catch on.

I doubt it, but I can always hope!

[Esprix]

As to the OP, not according to the SCA... ;)

Esprix (Lord Joshua MacDonald the Imperfekt, Clan Blue Feather, Barony of Calafia, the Kingdom of Caid)