A Feminist Perspective on Chivalry

fgrsentinel · 2019-05-17T18:19:00+00:00

Is Chivalry dead? Yes, it is.

Did Feminism kill it? Yes, they did. The story of the Good Samaritan that got jailed for 1-2 weeks because a woman didn't like one thing he said when he was helping her fix her car for two hours was feminism forcing Chivalry to its knees, putting a pistol to the back of its head, killing it, and then burying it in an unmarked grave.

How many decent, upstanding, compassionate people have heard that story and swore to never again help a woman they don't know if they don't have to? How many refuse to even interact with women they don't know now?

I don't get why feminists can't understand that, but I'll make it clear: Chivalry and basic human compassion are dead and it's the feminists that killed them.

DJ-Roukan · 2019-05-17T18:30:43+00:00

Another feminist spewing about something she has not clue one about, but found on the internet.

...and the last thing we need in this world is a feminist trying to preach about taking responsibility, or being civil to others.

tenchineuro · 2019-05-17T20:38:16+00:00

I’m not sure if you have heard—but chivalry is dead. Or at least this is an often-voiced concern I hear from certain quadrants of the populace, perhaps as a distressed pushback to the alleged feminist agenda. So far as I understand the matter, there is a mounting concern that in the cultural wake of female advancement, feminism has swung the pendulum too far. There seems to be a concern (and underlying accusation) that as women develop more cultural self-sufficiency and take on more leadership roles, and as we put more regulations on male romantic advances, we are in fact conditioning men away from such noble ideals as being good leaders, taking initiative, or being manly men.

Definitely very feminist, it's not massive discrimination against men and for women that's the problem, it's men bellyaching about, idk, loss of privilege or something.

But for years, I thought this was what chivalry was. And while I was a feminist and pushed back against the more patronizing aspects of it, I could appreciate someone opening the door for me (and I still do, so please carry on with that.) However, a few years ago I came across a short essay that challenged my ideas about chivalry.

As it turns out, chivalry has nothing to do with women. In fact, it actually has everything to do with having a horse. (And lest you be confused, women are not horses.) For the etymology fans out there, you might have noticed the word chivalry comes from the French chevalier and if you’ll jump in your Delorean and follow that root word back into time, you’ll discover it originates from the Latin word for horse.

That’s right. Chivalry is literally just rules for having a horse.

Well, if chivalry is about horses, which almost no one has anymore, what's the problem if it's dead?

For 12th century knights this was a practical idea whose time had come. While not all horse owners were knights, knights did have horses, and in the age of the European Federal system, being a horse owner (and a knight) was a big deal. This advantage of being a knight gave you significant privileges over serfs and peasants, and where there is advantage, it is often a really good idea to have a code of conduct for the privileged. In fact Maurice Hugh Keen argued that chivalric codes should be thought of more like an international law of war.

So basically chivalry had nothing to do with women.

The Privileges of Knighthood

However, despite romanticizing chivalry into an unrecognizable thing, the real chivalric code was an important idea of its time. Knighthood was not an inherited position—you did have to work to become a knight.

She sure does use the word 'privilege' a lot, and yet she also claimed that knighthood was not inherited, you had to do the work. So I don't see from whence this privilege springs.

And I can’t help but think of many of the conversations happening the last few years around gender equality, race, wealth, and privilege. Obviously, there are some clear distinctions between knighthood and modern day privilege. As mentioned, knighthood was somewhat earned

Oh wait, she backpedaled on that.

In reality, this true chivalry shares many aspects in common with Christian virtues. As Cory O’Brien writes, “Chivalry boils down to three things: mercy, charity, and humility. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating other humans gently. Charity means giving without expecting anything in return. Humility means accepting your mistakes, and recognizing that those who don’t have your advantages aren’t your inferiors. Anybody can embody these traits – woman, man, or even horse.”

In this respect, as both a Christian and a feminist, I can hardly think of anything the world could use more of today than some good ol’ fashioned chivalry. To the men and women who, without patronizing, are already using your advantages to open doors—be those metaphorical doors or physical ones — you embody this life. Your chivalry is admirable, and may we all aspire to use our privileges, whatever they may be, in that same spirit.

I'm not sure what her message here, she believes in male privilege and given the context probably even patriarchy. So it looks like she thinks men should be at the service of women and expect nothing in return, what a deal she has for men.

fengpi · 2019-05-17T23:06:29+00:00

Haven't read the article, but my prediction:

"Chivalry is bad cuz it suggests women are feeble and men only do it to lord their power over us but, atee hee hee, I still like having heavy stuff lifted for me."

Title	A Feminist Perspective on Chivalry
Author	trot-trot
Upvotes	5
Comments	7
Date	May 17, 2019 6:02 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bpuk1b/a_feminist_perspective_on_chivalry/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-feminist-perspective-on-chivalry.1206792 https://theredarchive.com/post/1206792

Comments