I'm vexed. Aside from the general vexation of being counter-culture and polyamorous while still trying to be a gentleman, I've lately been studying traditional and modern codes of chivalry, and the problem is this:
How is a man to be chivalrous and gentlemanly AND STILL be sensitive to issues of gender equality?
Many of the traditional examples of 'chivalrous' behavior (opening and holding doors, walking on the street side, giving up one's seat and moving the chair under a lady who is about to sit, etc.) are based on the premise that women are naturally weaker creatures and that this 'fact' needs to be catored to.
Some ladies are flattered by such actions. A smaller percentage are offended. It is certainly true that women can open doors themselves, seat themselves, etc.
Often the modern man leaves much to be desired, and I have to feel that it's at least partially because he is unsure of his role in relation to women because of issues like this.
Is chivalry dead? SHOULD it be? Is there a middle ground that is both ethically and socially more satisfying than "just act in a case-by-case basis"?
What do you all think?
Later I might ask about women in the SCA and martial arts and how this adds another level of intensity to this issue, as it seems a good man should neither give a woman a sound drubbing just because he can (in situations WHERE he can, which is not always the case, of course), and neither should he do her the offense of patronizingly NOT fighting her at the level he would against another man...but perhaps we should save that for later...
How is a man to be chivalrous and gentlemanly AND STILL be sensitive to issues of gender equality?
Many of the traditional examples of 'chivalrous' behavior (opening and holding doors, walking on the street side, giving up one's seat and moving the chair under a lady who is about to sit, etc.) are based on the premise that women are naturally weaker creatures and that this 'fact' needs to be catored to.
Some ladies are flattered by such actions. A smaller percentage are offended. It is certainly true that women can open doors themselves, seat themselves, etc.
Often the modern man leaves much to be desired, and I have to feel that it's at least partially because he is unsure of his role in relation to women because of issues like this.
Is chivalry dead? SHOULD it be? Is there a middle ground that is both ethically and socially more satisfying than "just act in a case-by-case basis"?
What do you all think?
Later I might ask about women in the SCA and martial arts and how this adds another level of intensity to this issue, as it seems a good man should neither give a woman a sound drubbing just because he can (in situations WHERE he can, which is not always the case, of course), and neither should he do her the offense of patronizingly NOT fighting her at the level he would against another man...but perhaps we should save that for later...
posted by:
|
Washington, D.C.
|
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:21 AMChivalry by strict definition must die if women are going to be accepted as equal to men. Just the way it is. There is no way to have a code that women need special treatment BECAUSE WE ARE WOMEN.
What i think we need is to focus on a code that you do not use your greater force against those who are weaker than you are, ever, regardless of the sex organs either of you do or do not have. You fight the woman who is your equal as an equal just as you would a man who was your equal....you do NOT beat to a pulp the less skilled and weaker man any more than you do a less skilled and weaker woman. Just take the gender issue out of it. Just the same as it is not more okay for a man to be beaten by his lover, male or female, than it is for a woman to be beaten by her lover, male or female. Why does it have to be about gender...it's as simple as you don't pick on the weak. And women ARE NOT as a rule weak. -
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:11 PMWord. Objectively your argument is intuitively obvious, and I have to agree that that is the way things should be. The fact remains, though, that I just won't fistfight a woman for the same reasons I'd fistfight a man, regardless of size and strength, and I don't know many good men who would. I can't help but feel (and maybe it's only the product of socialization) that this is ALSO the way things should be.
I once heard a man say to a woman: "Well, do you want me to treat you like a man, or do you want me to treat you like a woman?"
She replied: "I want you to treat me like an equal."
He answered: "Then I'll treat you like a woman, for women are equal to men."
Is there a place we can come to where we can acknowledge gender differences while at the same time maintaining equality and equal treatment? This is the core of the issue.
We ARE different. We ARE equal. What are we to do?
-
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 1:10 PMWonderful topic Burzurkir, thanks for starting it!
It's difficult to find a good balance. You are completely right, we are different and equal. There is no reason that we can't celebrate our differences as long as we don't look at them as weaknesses. Both men and woman have good and bad aspects to their genders, and as thinking feeling beings it is our job to rise above those. No, in our society you still don't hit a woman. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe someday it will be wrong to hit a man as well!
I am chivalrous with everyone, be they woman or man. It isn't about opening doors, it is about being polite, and respectful. Words, and concepts change as societies change. The basic concept is still there, chivalry is being kind to everybody and helping those who are in need. That is still completely possible in our society. I open and hold the door when I am the first one in, no matter who I am with. I also give to the poor when I can. I don't judge people I don't know, and try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately the Victorians corrupted chivalry for a while. We can bring it back to it's original meaning. -
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 1:08 AM"Maybe someday it will be wrong to hit a man as well!"
Okay, I should probably read other responses before replying. ;) -
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 8:49 AM"Okay, I should probably read other responses before replying. ;)"
Naw, you brought up some good points, and things that I completely glossed over! The more the merrier I always say!
-
-
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 1:06 AMThe societal conditioning that makes a "good man" not hit a woman no matter what the situation stems from the same place that makes a "bad man" hit a woman to "keep her in line." The idea that women are NOT physically equal to men, therefore vulnerable to men...either needing protection or easy prey depending on "what sort of man" you are. Either way women are viewed a chattel even if the "good men" claim they don't...they're still reinforcing the view to the "bad men." And to all the women who are still getting the message that we're not as physically capable as men and therefore need protection.
Now one thing, what reason might you fight a man that you wouldn't a woman? Maybe these are, in fact, NOT good reasons to fight with a man either. I would assume that if your life or the life of a loved one were endangered by a woman you WOULD fight her, just as you would a man. Short of that....why would you be fighting anyone?
-
-
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 9:40 AMI showed a friend of mine this thread who I respect much on the ways of Chivalry he isn't on tribe, but had this to say about the topic.
**********
Chivalry exists regardless of sex, sexual orientation or social status. It is a system of guiding principles, and social standards which helped to refine men of that time, and now help to refine young people of our time in our treatment of others, and treatment of ourselves. Respect for ones self must come before respect of others, because if it does not, then all acts following are shallow means of self service.
-
Re: Chivalry and Egalitarianism
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:27 PMTo be respectful and commit small (and large) kindnesses for a companion does not require gender specific rules nor rigid equality.
If you do kindnesses for another based on what you know about their individual character (not what you assume based on stereotypes) and you accept and enjoy the similar kindnesses that they do for you then you will have what I believe you are pursuing with your question. A motivation of joy and caring, and avoiding the tyranny of expectation, is important to making it truly work.
To my mind this is the fundamental process that builds deep sustained connection. It is the concrete proof of your respect, understanding, and caring for another person. It builds trust and appreciation, without dependance.
Willy
