Is Chivalry Dead?

[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)

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)