One man tries to make sense of our modern version of chivalry.
—
Years ago, in trying to put together a parenting class for our church, I was more or less wandering from one social service agency to another. Eventually, I was talking to the director of the appropriate agency. After about ten minutes, she asked me why I hadn’t sat down. “You haven’t asked me,” I said.
I don’t know what she thought of that. But after some administrative issues, she began talking about how she was traumatized by her recent divorce due to abuse. She was clearly still upset and having trouble dealing. Later, I figured the fact that a large, hard-faced guy she’d just met who wouldn’t even sit down without her express permission might have helped rebuild her confidence. Just a bit. Don’t know. Couldn’t have hurt.
Indeed, the symbol of the gentleman—who had to be of this fighting class—was a sword.
|
Which brings me to a hypothesis about the origin of chivalry. Note that a minor rank in France is “chevalier”, which is no doubt connected to “cheval”, or horse. In Spanish, it’s caballero from caballo—horse. Don’t know about Portuguese or Italian and I don’t think there’s an English equivalent.
These guys were fighting men from the time the Legions left. They fought local bandits, raiders from further away and each other. The horse was what gave them the advantage over the lesser classes. They intimidated peasants and extorted whatever was available. They fought in their own or their overlords’ wars. A contemporary writer referred to them as “a terrible worm in an iron cocoon.” A historian said that those centuries resembled the world of The Godfather [minus the sappy sentimentality] rather than the world of Prince Charming.
Indeed, the symbol of the gentleman—who had to be of this fighting class—was a sword. There were court swords and small swords. Cavalry sabres were too big to be hauling around the furniture so you had a ceremonial sword for evening wear. At Colonial Williamsburg, I saw the court costume of one of the Founding Fathers when he was in Europe (not Ben Franklin). Hanging from his left side was a dinky little item not much bigger than your average letter opener. But it was a still a sword, symbolizing the presumption that the wearer was a gentleman, which meant, at least symbolically, a fighting man. And, as a gentleman, presuming to be willing and at least somewhat able to get to it Right The Freak Now, if necessary in defense of the Right. You have more effective weapons in your kitchen. But the cultural norms had to be obeyed and they always mean something, even if it’s not immediately obvious.
It was chivalry because it was gender-specific manners. It was chivalry because it took into account gender specific characteristics and obligations..
|
So, to chivalry: Is it possible that the exaggerated deference built into manners directed toward women was an evolution of an effort to assure the woman in question that these bloody-handed, bloody-minded warriors were no threat? Like the attenuated influence that led me not to sit down until asked? After all, I did not take over her office and her space by sitting myself down without anybody’s say-so.
◊♦◊
We have a niece who lives about a hundred and fifty miles away. When she’s in our area on business, she bunks in with us and we have some fun family time. About a year-and-a-half ago, she brought her new boss with her to learn the territory. They were both women in their late thirties. It was high summer so between the grill and the paddle board and the blender we had a great time. I told my niece that we’d sure locked down her job, but she was going to play hell getting a motel allowance.
Some time after everybody else had gone to bed, our guest came upstairs mostly ready for bed. I asked as a host will, whether there was something I could do. No, she said, she was going to the car for a book. We live out in the country and beyond the driveway lights, it’s dark.
They come from a town small enough that a sensation a couple of years ago was a mature black bear in a tree a block from downtown. And it’s not worth remarking when somebody sees coyotes trotting through the riverbank park in what is known generically in towns in the Upper Midwest as the “lumber baron district.” Coyotes are generally not a threat to adults but a dog mix is bigger, stronger, and not as prudent, so you don’t actually know. We can frequently hear them though rarely see them. But you don’t know and it was dark. So I walked out to the car with her, asking about the subject of the book and for all I know that’s all she thought. That would be best, I suppose.
I don’t see doors having anything to do with chivalry.
|
It was chivalry because it was gender-specific manners. It was chivalry because it took into account gender specific characteristics and obligations. It had to do with sexual dimorphism—I’m a foot taller and twice her weight—and presumed combat training as a soldier, or on your own dime, or perhaps informally during the adolescent-hormone years. It was chivalry because it was expected that, should some kind of trouble actually show up, I would attempt to deal with it while she fled.
The point was to make her less apprehensive when she was outside. The obligations and expectations were a shield or…a reassurance. You don’t have to have a specific threat to be concerned in the dark in or near the woods. In fact, I have no idea if she would have been more apprehensive without me, or apprehensive at all. But it’s what you do. It’s manners and it’s gender-specific manners and presumed obligations.
It’s a normal guy thing.
◊♦◊
I don’t see doors having anything to do with chivalry. In public buildings, doors are frequently automatic and open as you approach. You can’t actually open a revolving door. Most buildings have two sets of doors for climate control, so if you open one for a woman, she’s ahead of you at the next. So she either waits for you to catch up and scoot around her, which women generally don’t do, or she goes ahead. I’m tall enough that, if the second door is tough to move, I can reach over the woman and pull on it for her. But that’s generic consideration and helpfulness.
Women help with doors as much as men do.
Chivalry is gender-specific manners based on the differences between men and women.
|
My son-in-law and I were in a building and a bunch of guys came in, not connected to each other as far as I could tell, one at a time. One guy slipped in behind one who’d held the door and did not deign to hold if for the guy behind him. My son-in-law remarked the guy was probably from New York.
Later, going into an Interstate rest area in Georgia, I held the door for…somebody. Nothing happened. I looked around and saw four people holding doors and waiting for somebody else to go through. We smiled at each other and started moving again. Doors are consideration, not chivalry.
Chivalry is gender-specific manners based on the differences between men and women and, I suggest, is an evolution of the desire to reassure women that the guy in question is not a threat, no matter what he does for a living.
◊♦◊
Don’t think women don’t know it. Decades ago, in a field project, three women went—let’s say—into town, to an establishment they were warned not to go to. Their Plan B was to find out in advance where I was going to be and get the phone number and even what I was wearing so they could direct the waitress to the correct person, the Plan B person. Sure enough, they called. I and the two guys with me were bound with the iron chains of chivalry and went to fetch them. We had some tense moments but we got away clean. We did express our opinion of their thoughtlessness.
I’ll be seventy-one next month. About two weeks ago, I had a heart valve repair. When the visiting nurse was here last, I was quizzing her about what kinds of exertion were safe. You never know about emergencies, which is probably why they’re called emergencies. I figured if I blow my incisions, that’s okay because it’s just stitches. If I blow my heart valve, that’s different. I was assured that, although the holes were small, the work inside was big and I should remain a useless lump for at least a month.
This is a guy thing; checking that the equipment for dealing was available and, if necessary, disposable. Depending. Flat tire…no. Assault…yes and see what happens later.
You can do without chivalry…until you can’t.
Photo: Getty Images
j walter.
I get both. Nice guys and chivalry aren’t opposites. The fuss about “nice guys” is about doormats. Not about men who observe gender-specific manners. A guy can exhibit gender-specific manners and still not be a doormat, a wimp.
Good men, confident men, guys who exhibit, among other things, gender specific manners and observe their gender-specific obligations, are not “nice guys”.
I’m sorry Sir, I don’t understand your reply.
Females don’t want nice guys anymore. Chivalry is sexist.
I can provide links to published papers.
J. Walter. Yeah, I get that. As I concluded my piece, you can do without chivalry. Until you can’t. To put another way, sort of the negative image, as was said about but not, I believe, in the book, “Lucifer’s Hammer”, feminism died one millisecond after impact. It also died, had it existed in those high and far-off days ,in a bar in a nasty area of town when my colleagues got themselves into trouble and called me. Or perhaps, they having prepared for the eventuality, it was temporarily put on a shelf for the occasion. I still haven’t heard… Read more »
Chivalry has been deemed benevolent sexism. Sexism is wrong. Therefore Chivalry is wrong.
It’s only ‘benevolent sexism’ if you truly believe women are less then you. But simply doing something nice for a woman alone is not ‘benevolent sexism” by itself. Therefore no, ‘chivalry’ is not ‘wrong’. Now if you don’t want to participate in ‘chivalry’, you are certainly free not to. You shouldn’t be forced to do things you have no interest in doing. But other people should be free to choose what’s right for them as well. And if other people want to be ‘chivalrous’, that should be their choice to make just like you’ve made the choice that’s right for… Read more »
elissa. What you say you saw was manners and consideration. Chivalry is gender-specific manners and gender-specific obligations. I’ve intervened in two assaults on women. In one case, the guys wouldn’t fight me. Guys who hassle women have maxed out their combat capacity. In the other case, I forced butthead out of the building. I have walked up to three or four confrontations which didn’t get any worse, whether because they weren’t going to get worse or because I placed myself in butthead’s field of vision I have no idea. I know women can change their own tires except if the… Read more »
Richard – stating something is gender specific is not an explanation, it is a conclusion. We give birth – therefore we need a ride to the hospital when in labor. Giving a woman a ride to the hospital is gender specific behavior, and the reason for it is rational. Chivalry is not rational. There is no reason, beyond ornamental customs, for a man to open a door for a woman. We don’t have heavy castle doors. Most doors can be opened easily by a 10 year old. As I mentioned, most folks who do need help opening doors are couriers… Read more »
The issue with chivalry, and more specifically and to simplify, chivalrous behavior aimed at strangers, is that the nature of the act is counter-reality as well as counter-effective. The few times I’ve been present and noted that a stranger required some level of assistance, it has typically been a man. In the most simple and relatively non-important scenario, it is some man carrying boxes, delivery, in and out of buildings, elevators or whatever the case may be. In more dire scenarios, it is some man being picked on for a variety of stupid reasons. The most frequent deliberate acts I’ve… Read more »
John Anderson. Gender specific manners cannot be symmetrical, of course. What the women’s response, or responsibility, might be is unclear to me. Clearly, it can’t be the same thing. That being the case, or not, does not relieve me of employing chivalry…gender specific manners. Where we used to live, in a town, I had a four-mile walk figured out to do in an hour–knees weren’t what they had been when I was running–and I could, due to streetlights, make that hike any time of evening. And I would cross the street if I were overtaking a woman. Or coming toward,… Read more »
I do chivalrous acts almost unthinking about them. Doors, giving space, escorting to locations if necessary standing up for them If I see they can’t defend themselves, and yes it’s gender specific. It so deeply ingrained in me. Is it rational? Probably not but it also doesn’t bother me to do it either, so I do. I will do the same for a male, but it changes in my thinking a bit to just good manners. Sometimes the idea is self preservation in those types of environments. Manners and respect go a long way as I’ve found out many times.
Let’s back this up a bit. The girls go out to a club that you said was dangerous sketchy and not a good choice because you know the situational realities of the joint – it is not a place you frequent…..but girls off for a night of adventure head specifically there and then need to be bailed out by you and two friends? F – that. Had this been me and it has been a couple of times, I warned you for a reason – my responsibility and concern ended when you marginalized that warning. I am not coming to… Read more »
I get what you’re saying, but let’s say you ask the same thing of the ladies. What gender specific behaviors are lady like? I suspect that whatever you come up with would be rejected as gender neutral behaviors, condemned as sexist behaviors, or dismissed as unnecessary. Without a corresponding set of behaviors for the women, I’m not going out of my way. There is a difference between women you know and strangers. I have little issue with protecting those I love, women or men. I don’t believe I owe women special consideration though. People have suggested that when I’m walking… Read more »
Dean. That’s why chivalry is gender-specific. The young ladies I mentioned getting themselves into trouble with Plan B being calling a guy would not think, instead, of calling their girlfriends, nor would the girlfriends be likely to show up, nor be sufficiently powerful relative to the threat as to solve the problem. Women simply can’t do that for you.
But, if you buy into chivalry, reciprocity is not required. It would be nice, of course, to get a certain level of respect, for example, but it’s irrelevant.
Chivalry is ridiculous. I’m not going to do anything for a woman that she will not do for me.