|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Speak your peace
Ladies and Gents | from Moshu - Thursday, November 04, 2004
accessed 1416 times Is Chivalry Dead? Women are always complaining saying that there aren’t any gentlemen any more and that chivalry is dead. Too which men love to reply “that’s because women killed it with women’s lib and the feminist movement”.
My argument is chivalry is neither dead nor alive it just doesn’t exist and never has. For example if I have just fallen out of bed and look like my fashion sense was stolen from Consuelo’s ugly step sister it wouldn’t matter if I was carrying a 100lb’s of groceries I’m lucky that the door doesn’t get slammed in my face much less held open.
However, if I am dressed to the nines, stilettos on, and my ass is shaking just right---I could be carrying nothing but my push-up-bra and the door is not only held open but the men on the other side are standing at attention (I have been very tempted to salute them and say “at ease solider”). So as far as I am concerned ---Ladies and Gentlemen--- you are all wrong chivalry isn’t dead it doesn’t exist and never has it is a legend just like Camelot.
Moshu |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Sonderval
Monday, March 14, 2005 - 02:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was walking home on Friday and I passed an old bloke who'd slipped in the snow and cut his head and couldn't get up, he reeked of whisky and had obviously seen better years. I helped him up, when he refused an ambulance I half-carried him half a mile back to where he lived, I guarantee you I had no interest in shagging him and I would have helped an ugly bird just as readily as that derelict old man.
Just cause you have man-issues doesn't mean that chivalry is dead, if you go through life expecting to be treated as nothing but a sex-object then you will be, good luck with that.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Jasper
Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I disagree with your assessment. Chivalry still exists, but is rarely encountered nowadays, along with basic civility. This is all part of the 'brave new world' our plutocrats have created for us and for themselves.
(reply to this comment)
| from moon beam
Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 14:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
No way is it dead. I see it around me all the time, I think its about politness and empathy and basic, good manners. I notice it when someone opens a door or lights your cigarete, or goes out of their way for you. It' about eye contact and interacting, which is much easier to dissasociate from in more crowded situations.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From Moshu
Monday, November 08, 2004, 21:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry this took so long just finished another double at work----But no I don’t think chivalry means or meant “ehhh --- umm lets not rape the women prisoners ---it’s giving us a bad rap”…simplifying a little too much don’t you think? We are talking about an ere that produced Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Dunn just to mention a few--- high ideals were very much possible however, that is just what they were---and are-- ideals. The way they—we—would like to be thought of as--- not necessarily the way we are. Chivalry is a nice idea (actually I could turn this into a discussion about chivalry just being another way to control women---but I’m not even going to go there) it gives you a warm feeling all over but I am faced with a harsher reality every day. We are selfish that is our human nature---what more can I say. ---By the way go read Gents and Ladies and then maybe you won't take me so seriously.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 08:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
There are obvious reasons why the feminist movement evolved to take on this daunting task in the first place. There were legitimate reasons why women objected to the ways in which gender stereotypes created a grossly unjust situation for women in our society. It is absolutely unacceptable that, due to the dynamics of gender-role definition, women were considered inferior, second-class citizens with less desert of basic rights than men. The problem is, in our effort to eliminate these standards, we failed to consider to what extent they would be necessary. Arguably, mainstream acceptance of gendered behaviors such as chivalry can lend themselves to the basic, internalized tendency to assume that "different" means "inferior," but we should be able to get beyond this. We should be able to circumvent the oppression of women without eliminating the differences that exist between the sexes.
Now, from training in Women's Studies, I could outline for you in great detail how we ended up with this ideology that tells women to be offended by male attempts at chivalry; that a man holding a door for her or pulling out a chair for her somehow speaks to his belief that she is unable to care for herself, is very delicate, and that he must step in on her behalf.
We began by merely taking offense at gender-based claims of female inability to do certain tasks, which, at the time, was quite an appropriate reaction, especially since these "tasks" usually brought the biggest rewards and were unfairly reserved for men. But then we started reacting with the same offense to everything else, everything that contained even a trace of gender-based distinction at all. And this is where we began to fail.
As long as women throughout the world continue (even subconsciously) to acknowledge the importance men place on appearance, they will continue to take steps to "dress" themselves up whether it be through big gold hoops through the nose or $50 and an hour's worth of cosmetics application. Likewise, as long as men continue to subconsciously understand the traits that females seek in a mate, they will continue to strive to possess and demonstrate them.
These things are such an integral part of our nature, we cannot even fathom their elimination. Now, when feminism comes along and suddenly decides that women don't want (or need) to be "cared for," all of the things that males throughout our evolution have practiced suddenly become taboo.
It is suddenly disrespectful for a man to suggest, through words or actions, that he wishes to be a woman's protector and provider. Historically, succeeding in these demonstrations is what gave him cause to feel proud, and important, and happy with these smallest of achievements. This new behavioral gender "standard" has stripped him of these things.
So, come on, ladies, do we really need to be this threatened by such simple, natural, harmless demonstrations? Must we allow so much of our feelings of self-worth to rest upon this?
If we keep going at this rate, we're going to eradicate every trait among our men that has historically attracted us to them. Not that we aren't replacing them with other, more abstract concerns, but let me tell you, we've got to relax a bit. Enjoy the little things.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me expound; The idea of Chivalry was coined in the twelth century, without steps to keep in check the lawless power of the feuding chiefs, the rights of the humbler classes of society were at the mercey of every assailant. Hence sprang Chivalry practised by knights (The word derived from, Cheval=horse in French.)
"Chivalry may be defined as the moral and social law and custom of the noble and gentle class in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and the results of that law and custom in action. It applies, strictly speaking, to gentlemen only. Its three principal factors are war, religion and love of ladies: its merits and faults spring from those three heads, and all the side influences which attend its growth and decay may be summed up under these.
Mounted horsemen who defended the borders after the battle of Tours seem to have merged into knights. However, it is difficult to tell how early the spirit of chivalry honor of women and respect for them, accompanied with the attentions of courtesy-became allied with knight errantry. It must be granted that it was this spirit of chivalry, toward women, that exalted knighthood and gave it dignity.
In their relations with each other knights showed remarkable delicacy of feeling and respect. The law of gallantry, we are told, was equal, if not superior, to the law of military honor as a guide to conduct.
Gradually knight-errantry died out in Europe as a distinct estate and occupation of men, and yet it is safe to say that to this day, to whatever extent the spirit of chivalry still dominates men, to whatever extent they spring to the aid of the weak and espouse the cause of the oppressed, however proudly they prize their pledged word and their honor, next to the teachings of Christianity, this is the result of the teachings and ideals of mediaeval knighthood.
Unworthy knights there certainly were-knights who were selfish, quarrelsome and false to their vows. Unchivalric men there certainly are today; but both in the Middle Ages and at the present time such men have existed, not because of knighthood and its ideals, but in spite of them.
During the past century society has undergone such social revolutions that bewilderment has resulted and no longer are the duties of the chivalrous clearly defined as they once were. Nevertheless, so widely has a chivalric spirit become diffused among the nations that we scarcely realize how different the world would be were it suddenly eliminated.
Chivalry taught the world the duty of noble service willingly rendered. It upheld courage and enterprise in obedience to rule, glorified the virtues of liberality, good faith, unselfishness and courtesy, and above all, courtesy to women.
Against these may be set the vices of pride, ostentation, love of bloodshed, contempt of inferiors, and loose manners.
Chivalry was an imperfect discipline, but it was a discipline, and one fit for the times. It may have existed in the world too long: it did not come into existence too early, and with all its shortcomings it exercised a great and wholesome influence in raising the mediaeval world from barbarism to civilization."
Chivalry, published in 1913 (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From moon beam
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 14:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I can only speak for me but I do, do things like give up my seat, open doors for people, help with pushchairs, say thanks to the bus driver, help someone accross the road, etc.. and the enjoyment I get is the interaction and "do unto others.." I guess the doing things now to get something later is not something I would consider at the time but I am sure that the way I treat people is mirrored by the way I am treated for most of the time.
You are right of course that a lot of people do, do things with an alterior motive but thats the fine line that is trust! And there are those who wouldn't lift a finger to help or go out of their way to be civil but those are usually down to predjudes or the social orders concept of respect.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from frmrjoyish
Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 10:15
 (Agree/Disagree?)
If your definition of chivalry includes men acting like gentlemen and treating ladies with courtesy and respect, I can assure you that it is not dead. The progressive men of this day and age are man enough to realize that just because a man pays for dinner or opens a door for a woman doesn't make him better or superior. Of course there are the men who are too insecure and threatened by the growing equality of women to treat a lady well but I wouldn't say that they make up the majority. So, no chivalry isn't dead but maybe it just came down with a bad case of the flu! ; )
(reply to this comment)
| From Moshu
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 13:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very cute. To me chivalry is an idea or an ideal----a way we like to think of ourselves as being--ie: I love the idea of having a beautiful garden---the reality I hate yard work---so do I have a garden?--No! Would I like one? Yes (on the condition that someone else is doing the work)! I think we would love to say that there was---once-upon-a-time (and maybe even a little still) chivalry---but I think in reality--like my imaginary garden---that chivalry remains in the idea or the ideal.
Alright I 'm sure my little garden ie: could be better---but I'm on my way to work so that's the best I can do for now. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 02:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
The easiest way to disprove your theory is to point to those of a generation or two ago, who are true gentlemen and ladies. They are the ones you will find giving up their seat on the busy Tube, opening doors for ladies regardless of their age or looks, and behaving in an all-round well-mannered way. They are most certainly few and far between these days, and in my observation getting fewer by the day.
So yes, chivalry (in that sense of the word) IS dying out, and in the current cultural environment will continue to do so until only the faintest trace remains.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]