Even though biology might not be destiny, Hugo Schwyzer writes, there’s nothing wrong with a man being chivalrous.
Two weeks ago, we hosted a PTA meeting at our house. (I’m heading into my second term as president of the parent-teacher association for my daughter’s school.) After the other board members had left, our dear friend (and PTA vice-president) Sheva stayed to chat. As my wife and I stood with the veep in the kitchen, noshing on hummus and crackers, the conversation turned to gender roles.
Though Sheva is in many ways a thorough progressive, she takes the position that men and women are fundamentally different and that those differences have significant meaning in terms of how we function in public and private spaces. At least to some extent, she believes that biology is destiny; I tend to reject that claim as unreasonable straitjacketing of individual potential. (For more on Sheva, visit her Grown Up Girl blog.) In my courses and in my writing, I take the stance that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary. Men and women may be different, but the differences between members of the “same” sex are so vast that it’s unreasonable to extrapolate any universal truths about how “men” and “women” should behave.
When you teach gender studies for a living, this is the sort of argument you expect to have on a weekly basis with friends and family. When I’m debating in good faith with good friends, I enjoy these discussions immensely. At least some of the time, they generate more light than heat.
And when it was time for Sheva to leave, I walked her to her car.
We don’t live in a particularly dangerous neighborhood, but this is Los Angeles, and it was rather late on a Wednesday night. Sheva didn’t ask me to walk her; I volunteered and she accepted. We strolled to her car, continuing our animated but friendly debate all the way. As she unlocked and opened the door, I said good night—and then we both laughed at what seemed like a potential contradiction between my words and my actions.
My wife is a first-rate kickboxer; she spars with guys and has a thundering left hook. If it came to fending off a mugger, I suspect that she’d provide more protection for Sheva than I would. But what led me out the door with our friend while my wife stayed inside had little to do with hard-headed insight into the practicalities of protection. Instead, it had everything to do with a clear-headed embrace of the pleasure in performing certain traditional gender roles, particularly those that revolve around “chivalry” or “common courtesy.” (Both terms are rooted in medieval notions of how aristocratic men and women ought to treat one another.)
♦◊♦
One of the common misconceptions that a lot of people have about feminism is that it requires its adherents to act as if they are blind to gender. For example, it’s remarkable how many young women, convinced that a fondness for playing traditional gender roles is at odds with egalitarian ideology, cite a fondness for “being treated like a lady” (or a “girl,”or a “woman”) as a primary reason for rejecting the feminist label. There’s an enduring false assumption that taking pleasure in playing certain traditional roles cancels out one’s right to demand equality.
It’s not just women who buy into this canard. As one young man in one of my women’s studies classes once sulkily put it, “Women can either expect me to be a ‘gentleman’ or they can expect to be treated as equals. But they can’t have both.”
This false choice doesn’t just misrepresent feminism. It robs all of us—men and women, gay and straight alike—of the chance to create something pleasurable and workable out of our complicated, inherited beliefs about men and women.
The key, as feminists have pointed out for decades, is seeing gender as something we choose to perform for pleasure. Perfomance isn’t an academic theory; it’s how most of us live, whether we know it or not. A woman who says, “I like wearing heels because it makes me feel more feminine,” is surely aware that she doesn’t become more biologically female by putting on stilettos—or less so by putting on Crocs. She knows she’s playing a part. Sometimes that part may be burdensome (like having to wear heels because of work); sometimes it may be pure fun (like putting them on to go on a hot date); sometimes it may be a mix of both.
♦◊♦
So when I walked Sheva to the car, I was performing a traditionally masculine role. I knew Sheva well enough to know that my escorting her would be appreciated; frankly, I enjoyed her appreciation. Playing that part didn’t undercut my contention that men and women are fundamentally equal with (a tiny number of biological limitations aside) essentially interchangeable roles. We all knew that if there had been a more serious danger, my delightful but potentially lethal wife would have made a far better escort for Sheva. If necessary, that would have been a subversion of traditional expectations. But it wasn’t necessary.
That little performance from our house to her car made me feel good. Because I know her well, I knew the gesture would be appreciated. If I hadn’t known Sheva as well as I do, I would have been far more cautious about the offer to escort her. We don’t get to play parts that make us feel good at the expense of others. A “gentleman” shouldn’t foist his manners on to others; to use another example, if a woman doesn’t want a man to race ahead and open doors for her, he shouldn’t be miffed if she doesn’t thank him profusely every time he does so. The performance of traditional roles is about mutual pleasure, not about mutual obligation.
Even for those of us who don’t think biology is destiny, there’s still something comforting about playing out an old and familiar script. And while it’s worthwhile to analyze the source of that comfort, it’s not worth letting that analysis block us from the simple pleasure of performing a role we enjoy.
♦◊♦
The conversation continues with Aaron Gouveia’s article.
♦◊♦
—Photo pasukaru76/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
You know, why not just be kind to people regardless of what gender they are? And when dating or in a relationship, spreading the kindness through simple acts of support like holding doors, helping move heavy items, etc. should just be natural – and coming from whomever is in position to do them in the relationship.
The grab-bag narrative around “chivalry” (part made up fantasy, part medieval gender script, part early-mid 20th century gender script) that we operate on these days is just causing a lot of confusion, irritation, and misunderstanding. I’d rather chuck the idea that men are supposed to do X and women Y, and just be kind and supportive to people, including whomever I am dating.
A wonderful article. I was raised with good manners which included chivalry. I have also considered myself a feminist since the late 70′s believing women are equal to men and deserve respect for who they are and what they do. As I have gotten older I am finding that I really like chivalry. Being polite to women and older people. I hold the door open, let an woman go first, offer to carry something. I don’t expect anything for these little courtesies. But generally get a thank you or a smile. It make the world a nicer place to live in and puts a some joy in my heart. I also don’t think chivalry is strictly men doing the courtesy. Many times it is logical for a woman or another man to hold the door for me. I think that these days chivalry is about politeness and making people feel special. The fact that it is more often a man doing something for a woman does not demean either as long as both enjoy it.
I agree this is mostly about good manners and being caring about others. I am also a woman who is all for equality but I like when men treat me with respect, open doors for me, and treat me like a lady. To me it shows manners. The problem I see is that many men think just like Hugo’s student, if you want equality then forget about chivalry, which takes them into behaving rude with women even with their own significant others. I remember opening once a door for a pregnant woman who was carrying a toddler and a whole bunch of bags and was struggling to open and carry everything at the same time to discover to my surprise that the husband was standing right outside looking at her struggling without moving one finger. I did actually ask why you don’t help her, gosh, just to get the response she has two arms and two legs, she can do it by herself. That is being mean and have no love for the people you are supposed to love.
“Treating you like a lady” isn’t common respect, it’s a complement, a gift, and it’s NOT one that all women (or people for that matter) deserve by default. If my goal is to impress or please you (for instance, on a date), I might choose to pay for everything, open all the doors, help you in and out of the car as well as drive you around, etc.. because I’m being “extra nice”. That doesn’t mean if I’m not bending over backwards to please some random woman off the street I’m being “rude”. For the most part, men don’t have a problem with chivalry being desired, they have a problem with it being considered a complement and instead being told they are RUDE for not handing it out to women as a pre requisite to intimacy or even common friendship, and that expectation IS misandry.
appreciating it If a woman chooses to make me dinner, clean my apartment or do my laundry simply makes me grateful, EXPECTING these things as a matter of of respect makes me a misogynist.
So, we can pick the gender-based inequalities we prefer to perform and have performed for us and still claim equality? That must be why we like me being the head of the family and bringing home the bacon while my wife is at home caring for the family otherwise. Are we equal? Yes, just filling different roles (or playing different parts – if you want to put it that way).
Discussions of chivalry usually are restricted to opening doors. This is inadequate for two reasons; the motivation may be unclear or one of several not connected with chivalry and there’s no way to tell, there is no cost to the man to open or hold a door for anyone.
Let’s discuss other possibilities. The gender disparity on the Titanic is noted but passed over, although I believe some feminists consider mentioning the Titanic a really Bad Thing. For some reason.
The expectation–not the personal choice–that Farrell calls the “unpaid bodyguard”. Women, do you want to argue your date/partner ought not be expected to risk his life to save yours? And, having said so on the net, how many people do you think would expect you to hold to that if the fit hit the shan?
Paying for some dates? The PUA guys say men should do the planning, since women like guys with a plan and don’t like guys who say, “I dunno. What do you want to do?” Some planning is simple. Time and place, especially when you can expect the restaurant to be open at normal restaurant hours. Others are more involved. Skydiving? Lazy river tubing? Chivalry or something else, it’s an expectation.
If you see a news clip of a kid who may have drowned, you’ll sympathize with the grieving women. If the men are not wet, you’ll wonder what’s wrong with them. Nobody wonders what’s wrong with the dry women. Nobody. If a woman makes a valiant rescue attempt, then GREAT for her. A guy…? What he’s supposed to do.
Some years ago, film–or whatever they call it–of a little girl caught in a tree during a Texas flash flood. A Texas Guardsman was in the tree with her, no explanation of how that happened. A chopper came along and lowered a harness. The Guardsman got the kid into the harness, the chopper pulled away, reeling in the kid. The Guardsman gave a triumphant fist pump and was seen no more. We were informed the little girl was okay. I suppose the guy got out of the tree some way. Nobody was interested in telling us. Gender based expectations so firmly fixed that nobody even thought about it? Or was it that soldiers and cops and firefighters are of the lower orders and mean nothing once they’ve fulfilled their function for the higher orders? Me, I go back and forth. Another reason?
I submit that discussions of chivalry can be more interesting if we abandon the door opening piece.
We feminists overcorrect past wrongs by throwing modern-day chivalry under the heading of gender-based oppression. Come on, now. I’m from Texas, and I can’t recall one time a man opened my door, called me ma’am, ceased cursing in my presence or gave up his seat for me in a crowded room where I felt the intention was patronization. I always feel a sense of humility and honor from the man performing these acts, which in turn causes me to feel honored yet humble, myself. That’s a beautiful, unspoken exchange to occur between two strangers, and why in the world we’d want to label it the same as true oppressions like the inability to work for an equal wage is beyond me. Do these taught-behaviors make logical sense? No. I can physically get my own door, and the source of a woman’s honor has nothing to do with external acts from others. But gender-based kindnesses are just that — kindnesses. And a kindness from another human being has never once straightjacketed my individual potential.
The problem is that it’s gender-roled inequality based on tradition. Once you open the gender-role unequal door, there is no argument to be made against other gender-role unequal traditions. If that tradition is valid because women enjoy it, so are the other gender-role unequal traditions, such as the woman showing her kindness by being the one to cook. Not that he can’t do it himself but it’s nicer if she does it for him, and brings him his plate. Once you open the gender-role unequal door, there is no argument to be made against other gender-role unequal traditions.
I think one of the misconceptions about Chivalry is that the guy is doing it to get into a girl’s pants or has other motives of “I do this for you, you do this for me.”
Chivalry has nothing to do with that. Chivalry is simply about being polite and honorable, it also draws from an older warrior mentality of a protector and supporter. That’s it, it’s not about expecting anything back. Never has been.