Why is it then that the idea of the gentleman seems so stuck in time and stifled by an unrealistic and widespread view of how a man should act and the lifestyle he should embody?
—
What comes to mind when you think of the Modern Gentleman? Sturdy mahogany tables, perhaps? Whiskey cocktails? Leather satchels and perfectly-cuffed chino pants?
The Modern Gentleman glides through life with a permanent “Early Bird” Instagram filter enveloping every move he makes. He is the mysterious man at the end of the bar, yet the life of the party. He’s the strong, silent type, but is always willing to initiate conversation.
He is groomed, yet rugged. Sexually assertive, though consent-seeking. A world traveler, but always by your side. He has all the free time in the world, though he possesses the financial security needed to live worry-free.
In other words, the Modern Gentleman is a sensationalized paradox, and the thoughts of the women who think he exists might be described similarly.
While the idea of the gentleman has existed since the conception of courtship, courtship itself has progressed greatly over time.
The straight-forwardness of the mate-selecting pursuits that exist in Henry James novels and made-for-TV Jane Austen tales is no longer; however, the notion of men pursuing women for eventual marriage and reproduction remains alive and well.
The trend of more casual and recreational courtship, which we now call dating — or better yet, Tinder — became popular during the 1920s. This public, overtly self-aware and technology-fueled form of modern-day courtship is a clear sign of its natural evolution.
Why is it then that the idea of the gentleman seems so stuck in time and stifled by an unrealistic and widespread view of how a man should act and the lifestyle he should embody?
The issue stems from the contradictory fact that a Modern Gentleman is expected to epitomize the general habits and behaviors of the stylized, Hollywood versions of the men of decades past.
A large portion of single women use the term “Modern Gentleman” to describe an ideal man. Yet, the modern man they are looking for is held to standards not fit for contemporary times.
If women want this idea of a Modern Gentleman to exist, it’s crucial that they re-evaluate the values and standards they are holding men to.
Women want men to hold open doors for them, but more and more doors are becoming automatic.
We Are Not Our Grandfathers, And You Don’t Want Us To Be
They say there is no love like the love of our grandparents. This is a beautiful sentiment, but it should be noted that our grandparents lived in a generation in which the values of marriage were much less likely to be based off the belief of soulmates and love alone.
While the worsening divorce rate is alarming, it does present a sense of growth that perhaps demonstrates that we are beginning to understand the importance of our own independence and needs when it comes commitment. The increased divorce rate may also point to an improving economy.
This is crucial as women continue the fight to further themselves from the resistant attitudes and underlying misogyny of our grandparents’ time, and find consistency in women’s rights.
While more women are CEOs than ever, the highest paid female CEOs still make less than half of the highest paid male CEOs.
As the roles and statuses of women continue to evolve, the role of a man as a potential spouse and companion will also evolve. The gentlemen of the old days are not the gentlemen of today.
Communication Has Evolved
It’s easy to agree that technology has sadly altered the way we communicate with one another. Face-to-face communication is selective and phone calls feel like as much work as compiling your taxes.
Yet, men are often held to a standard that requires them to deny the most modern and efficient forms of communication by reverting back to the less-popular and more time-consuming methods.
The idea behind calling instead of texting or taking the time to compose a letter makes sense as a metaphor for men “going above and beyond” for a woman.
However, for men to ditch the practicalities of technology and mainstream approaches to communication as a sign of being a true gentleman is simply unfair.
Men are not lazy or rude if they text instead of call. They are people, and people send text messages instead of calling.
Rape Culture Affects Men, Too
Rape culture is very real. According to the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, one in five women have survived rape or attempted rape.
This statistic is especially disturbing when paired with the RAINN analysis that shows 97 out of every 100 rapists receive absolutely no punishment.
Recently, the issue of rape and the question of what constitutes sexual assault has been brought to the surface across several college campuses throughout the United States.
Approaching women with confidence is difficult enough for men. For men who understand the effects the frequency of rape and sexual assault has on women’s general relationship with strangers, playing the part of the smooth-talking, straight-shooting alpha male proves even more difficult.
“Modern Gentleman” Makes More Sense As A Style Trend
A quick Google image search of “modern gentleman” reveals a steady stream of expensive, fitted suits and professionally maintained beards. There are no signs of respect for women, sexual consent, marriage or child raising.
While the “Mad Men” era of men who have a penchant for scotch and Italian wool fedoras is understandably attractive, is it fair to base a man’s values on a delusory and hyperbolic aesthetic from a much more misogynistic time?
The term “Modern Gentleman” correlates more with an overall appearance and style. Women who pair this visual of a man with the characteristics of a desirable partner and potential husband are unlikely to find the full package.
The Google image Modern Gentleman is a pre-meditated, constructed idea, made to grace the pages of GQ and sweet-talk us through 30-second liquor commercials.
Chivalry Is Not Modern
Merriam-Webster defines chivalry as “the system and values (such as loyalty and honor) that knights in the middle ages were expected to follow.”
Sure, chivalry has the ability to transcend generations and cultures, but many women still perpetuate the idea that men should physically fight over their love. This made sense when women were considered the property of men, and a real gentleman wouldn’t let that happen again.
—
by Greg Dybec
This post originally appeared at Elite Daily. Reprinted with permission.
—
Greg Dybec is Managing Editor of Elite Daily, the leading voice of Generation-Y. At Elite Daily, Greg oversees the site’s content creation and daily publishing while managing a team of talented writers. Prior to joining Elite Daily, Greg worked with a range of digital publications and led editorial operations projects for the Google Play website and app. He is a New York native and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in English from St. John’s University. Keep up with his work at www.gregorydybec.com and follow him on Twitter and Instagram @gregdybec.
—
Photo: *Passenger*/Flickrf
@ Richard Aubrey “Unfortunately, because of the lack of reliable statistics the number of humans that were residents of the Americas in 1492 can only be estimated. Thus, over the eons, using various methods, experts have made estimates that vary widely – a few million to a hundred million. However, I believe, due to the fact that the vast land mass was populated from the Arctic to the tip of South America, including deserts, islands, swamps, Jungles, and mountains, that a total population estimate of 100 million would not be far of. ” It doesn’t matter if disease killed 90%… Read more »
Forgot the link.
http://www.danielnpaul.com/AmericanIndiansGenocide.html
The problem with the title is this:
As long as a man or woman believes the other gender has the power to LET them be who they want to be, they are totally screwed.
Every man has the capacity to be exactly who he wants to be for himself and for those he wants in his life. All he has to do is choose to do so without regard for what others think, say, or do. We all have barriers that keep us from this reality. Deal with those barriers and you will do just fine.
That’s livin’.
The title is not really the main argument of the article, but it is connected indirectly. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow women are *preventing* men from being gentlemen. Or that women have ruined the whole gentleman thing, and it’s their fault. Women don’t want a gentleman, so that’s why there aren’t any? Poppycock. Even _IF_ it were true that women do not want gentlemen anymore, that is not a decisive reason to not be a gentleman. Even if every woman in the world hated you for being a gentleman, that is no reason to give up being one.… Read more »
Wes Carr, Problem with your point. First, women need to be protected from organized bad guys and if they think men are not doing enough to protect them, they’ll be the–I think it was Steven Vincent Benet in his John Brown’s Body, iron fist in a velvet glove who sent the gentlemen out to war. If you buy ev psych, you’ll see the possibilities. Whether you and the ladies involved agree as to their threat level is irrelevant. Of course, the guys in charge are probably too old to go to war. But, due to the fact that, as younger… Read more »
@ Richard Aubrey
I think some of what is being missed is that much of today’s “privilege” is rooted in past male violence. Many peoples descendents have probably profited / gained social status by their genocide of the American Indian for example. Many wars are fought over resources. Women and female descendants share in the spoils. Why wouldn’t women especially those whose sons didn’t need to die in it not support a war that would benefit them?
“Women need to be protected from organized bad guys.” Really? Last time I checked, a gun does not care if a man or woman pulls the trigger. Reducing women to helpless victims is really condescending.
As for the “gentlemen show up for wars”, that kind of nonsense needs to be abolished once and for all. There is a big difference between defending yourself or someone else from attack, and marching off to war for the benefit of a politician or CEO.
Wes Carr. In the West, up through WW II, probably, gentlemen were expected to show up for the war. Some of that had to do with younger sons and primogeniture, but gentlemen were expected to show up. Is that good or bad?
The problem is that the “gentlemen” who start the wars are not the ones doing the bleeding and dying.
In WWI there was a group of upper-class British women who passed out white feathers to any man not in uniform as a sign of cowardice to shame them into enlisting. Some of them were boys as young as 15 who lied about their age so they could enlist. The irony was that these women could vote while the working-class men who enlisted could not.
Sorry, just wanted to point out that ‘these British women’ couldn’t vote – British women only got the vote at the end of WW1 – and even then it was only women over 30, married with households. Also the government ran cowardice shaming campaigns far more widely spread than the feathers, I don’t think the boys went to war purely to impress the women folk. The atmosphere of cowardice shaming was government led – a few upper class women really can’t be blamed for the number of young men being sent to war by a male lead government that the… Read more »
@ Being Caballero – Well said. Women are smart enough to realise what kind of man we are after getting to know us. Early perceptions of any kind will wear off!
Why must a modern gentleman be interested in marriage or child raising?
Ironically, all those situations portrayed in the article are EXACTLY why the Modern Gentleman movement is growing. Men are learning that you can grow as a man while being proud of your masculinity, men placing higher ideals over their own petty interests.
Chivalry and the term Gentleman are evolving concepts that have changed several times during history. I find it amusing how this evolution is constantly ignored every time that people want to say how both are antiquated concepts.
“Placing higher ideals over their own petty interests.” It’s interesting you should use that phrase, since both Christianity and Communism use that same basic tenet. That the individual should be sublimated and/or sacrificed for the interests of the group.
Amen Caballero. Wes, first, what’s wrong with Christian principals? Second, you disagree with the notion of putting others before ourselves? When you respect, care for and love, it’s very easy to put others before yourself. My best friend had a limiting diet. I use to let her pick the place we were going to eat no matter what I felt like eating because I loved her. I use to iron my Dad’s dress shirts even though no one asked me to..and washed his truck even though no asked me too..picked up his favorite ice tea when no one asked me… Read more »
Erin, That is beautiful.
I agree that it should be a voluntary choice. I just have a problem with people who insist that it MUST be done. When I was in college there was a Fundamentalist preacher called Brother Jed Smock who came to our campus with his wife Sister Cindy. They would tell us we were all sinners and fornicators who were going straight to hell. It was actually pretty entertaining to watch, especially when the frat guys came out to heckle them. My point is that people like Smock insist that their way is the only way, and must never be questioned.
Thank you Caballero. Wes, so you’re okay with putting others first as long as no one tells you how important it is to do? So we can put others first as long as we don’t actually talk about putting others first? You totally get to decide your own actions. You don’t have to put anyone first you don’t want to. But don’t act like talking about how we should put other’s first is denying you some kind of personal rights. Jed Smock and Sister Cindy sound like a real trip. Can’t blame them for getting heckled. But even if they… Read more »
4+5=9, but so does 3+6=9. there are many paths for the same end.
Yes, a gentleman does place the needs of the group, and even of other individuals over his own, specially if the other person needs it more.
Not everyman needs to be a Gentleman. Not every man should. This has to be a voluntary choice for voluntary actions.
I do have to admit, I love the opening description. And it was that description that made me realize the one key aspect of a Gentleman. “Having your sh@Tom Sprague together.”
You understand that you no longer need to impress anyone, so when you dress up, it’s only to impress yourself, because you enjoy it.
You no longer run the horrid survival rat race, so you understand the importance of Charity work and being there for others.
You realize that world travel, knowledge, and personal company is more important than “likes”, “shares” and even work.
16 years ago I was 16… and all the boys from my class were held up to unrealistic standards by the girls of our class. They showed little restraint in openly exclaiming their disappointment in “men”. I wasn’t interested in partnering up with them, nor ever expressed such interest. Nor did any other boy in my class express anything else than the desire to more than remote friends (as far as I know). Yet for some reason they deemed it appropriate -and necessary- to judge us by their standards and expectations, even claims that we had to compensate for this… Read more »
It depends on the definition. Acting with integrity is crucial. Looking after the weak is required. Standing up for your people is required. Saw an old definition which was sort of made up to make a point. “Carruthers was from an old Sussex family. He attended Eton and then went up to Oxford where he read history until the Second World War which he won.” Courtesy, manners, consideration were all presumed. “He’s no gentleman,” could apply to anybody, no matter his station in society. Where this has to do with pursuing women is unclear. Separate issue. “but many women still… Read more »
I very much liked what you had to say here Richard and mostly agree.
Plus 1 million on “standing up for people is required” and “looking after the weak is required.”
@ Richard Aubrey “It depends on the definition. Acting with integrity is crucial. Looking after the weak is required. Standing up for your people is required.” I agree that it’s about definition, but that’s a Symantec argument. Everything is framed by the way it is defined. What you said, I believe are traits of a “good” man. I’ve never known why a man has to be financially and socially successful or well read and educated to be a good man. I’m half Asian and grew up in a white neighborhood. Many people were hostile to us. A few were aggressive… Read more »
“This is crucial as women continue the fight to further themselves from the resistant attitudes and underlying misogyny of our grandparents’ time, and find consistency in women’s rights.”
Yet, part of the idea of a “gentleman” is based on misandry. He must act a certain way, but men too are struggling against gender norms so why does this topic keep coming up? What is the purpose of being a gentleman if you’re doing this for someone else or because it makes you feel that you’re superior to other men? Isn’t being a man enough? It should be.