"My ideal at least is fixed; for it was fixed before the foundations of the world. My vision of perfection assuredly cannot be altered; for it is called Eden. You may alter the place to which you are going; but you cannot alter the place from which you have come. To the orthodox there must always be a case for revolution; for in the hearts of men God has been put under the feet of Satan. In the upper world hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration." -G.K. Chesterton
In Eden, God created them male and female. Before the fall, each was who they were created to be. They were their fullest selves. They were complementary. After the fall, the "war of the sexes" began, the competition, the misunderstanding, the finger pointing. It was much more subtle at first, but now the effects are blatant: abortion, contraception, gay sex, gay "marriage", and a loss of chivalry to name a few. The first four have been discussed at great length. It is the last that I want to discuss here. Let us take up a revolution, the restoration of chivalry. Initially, I was going to curse the darkness and ask where all the good men have gone. However, I realized there are enough good men out there; they are under-appreciated. So, let me praise the candles, so to say. Here's to the men who open doors, who carry heavy things. Here's to the men who keep their shirts on, who refuse to be crude in front of a woman. Here's to the men who let a woman eat first, who offer their seat to a woman. Here's to the men who provide, who pay when they take a woman out. Here's to the men who take the initiative, ask women out, and pursue women in relationships. There are plenty of other chivalrous actions and I could go on forever, but I will end with: here's to the men who truly respect women, here's to the men who are willing to be men.
Edey
Comments 12
Strange thing:
One of the reasons I married Nancy was because she got my car door when she was driving. If she arrived at a door first, she held it for me. Sometimes she paid for meals. She'd send me roses, just to let me know she loved me. She'd help me on with my coat, just as I would help her on with hers.
When we raced, it was "Do your best." To deliberately lose to her would be an insult, to have her let me win would be the same.
Of course, she saw nothing wrong with me taking my shirt off. Now that we're married, around the house, we both might!
If this means chivalry is dead, then good ridance.
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2006 at 8:01 pm ¶I'm considered by many people, including all past girlfriends, current fiancee, etc., to be a chivalrous person. I do open car doors and house doors for my fiancee, carry heavy things, do the noxious chores, and act in general around women as though I were in "polite society". I'm not saying that to toot my own horn, but to put this reply in context.
Chivalry is the antithesis of women's rights. Chivalry is part of an unspoken social contract between men and women where the men (in the context of this contract) are supposed to be the superior of the sexes, in strength, in intelligence, in social value (in some cases, even in spiritual value). Because they are understood to be a priori inferior, women and children are expected to be obedient and submissive. Because women and children accept that men are superior and will be obedient and submissive, men can cease trying to dominate them and instead offer protection - not only from physical danger but from the vulgarities of real life (like having to open their own door, stepping in mud, doing physical labor, etc.) Women and children can, in fact, be cherished because they have accepted domination without a struggle.
Despite my leanings toward chivalry, I don't in fact think it's a great idea, because I think the women's movement has more to offer. I don't suppose I'll stop opening doors or carrying heavy things, because that attituded was ingrained in me by my parents, and in any case it is socially useful. But women who are the equal of men (which is how I am more philosophically inclined to consider them) should open doors for men as frequently as the opposite, should be as willing to spend money as the men they date, and should not, in short, expect any privelege they are not willing to return or equal in some other way.
Consider the chivalry you describe as one half of an equation. From the women's point of view, men's chivalrous behavior is a net gain; from the male point of view it is a cost, in time, effort, and money. In order for the behaviour to be maintainable, the equation will have to balance. What are women willing to give up in return? What is chivalry worth?
+0
Posted 26 Aug 2006 at 9:10 pm ¶Why do we need chivalry? Just treat everyone (each other) in a loving manner: open doors, treat to meals, lift heavy objects.
Much of the world has the notion that women are given in marriage. I like the notion that women and men give their whole selves to each other.
It used to be that in Catholic weddings, the man and women would go up together. Unfortunately (I'm one of them), most Catholics use the old style protestant wedding ritual of the father giving the daughter away.
So much for equality. At least it is mentioned in the mass liturgy that the two coming together are equals.
(I'll be writing a post on a related subject soon.)
—
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2006 at 3:15 pm ¶Note: I'm writing about marriage since much of chivalry is part of courting for marriage (not always of course).
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2006 at 3:18 pm ¶I am trying to convince my fiance that we should use the traditional Catholic ritual instead of the Protestantized "giving away" ritual. After I convince him of that, I'll have to convince my father. That's not going to be an easy task; I'm his only daughter and I think he's always expected to walk down the aisle with me.
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2006 at 7:01 pm ¶Fight the good fight! (I lost it.)
Ritual is suppost to support belief.
–
+0
Posted 28 Aug 2006 at 9:23 pm ¶I processed in with both of my parents, as did my wife with hers. I thought it was a nice comprimise.
+0
Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 9:33 am ¶"I’m writing about marriage since much of chivalry is part of courting for marriage (not always of course)"
see, i would say it is and it isn't. it is because you're right, it's part of courting. however, it isn't because i dont' think a man should only open the door (etc) for only the girl he is dating, but all women. it isn't because he is interested in marrying her that he should do it but because she is a woman if that makes sense.
+0
Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 4:15 pm ¶just because women are the *equal* of men doesn't mean women are the *same* as men. as a result, i don't see how chivalry and equality for women are mutually exclusive. there are things that men are better at (in general), for example physical strength. there are things that woman (in general) are better at (that are under-appreciated) such as nurturing.
what things that the women's movement has to offer do you believe are incompatible with chivalry?
+0
Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 4:30 pm ¶Edey said:
That is very true! But I think that the women's movement has, in part, established that as the equal of men, women have the capacity for independence, and men shouldn't have the expectation that their offers of help are themselves expected, or even will be well-received. I would return you to my previous question: If men are to be chivalrous to all women, not just those they are courting, what is the reciprocal in that relationship?
+0
Posted 29 Aug 2006 at 7:40 pm ¶does there have to be a reciprocal?
if there needs to be one, the reciprocal would be women's strengths to men's strengths. men's strengths are physical and natural whereas women's tend to be more spiritual and supernatural, such as nurturing, patience, humility, etc. men do the brute force while women smooth out the rough edges if that makes sense.
+0
Posted 30 Aug 2006 at 1:01 pm ¶Yes, I think there does have to be a reciprocal, if the behavior is not natural or repaid in some other way (like men believing it will get them into heaven or save them money on tax returns). Of course, some people are more altruistic than others, and chivalry tends to fall pretty close in line with male altruism.
But to request this behavior of men in general, without offering anything in return, is kind of like asking that the street light will always turn green for your car and be red for for anyone going the opposite way. Unless everyone has the expectation that the traffic lights will treat them fairly, people are going to start running the lights.
+0
Posted 30 Aug 2006 at 8:16 pm ¶Post a Comment