Chivalry

[MobBoss]

Let's just hope you're not reborn as an unattractive lesbian with individual ambitions, then, eh?

We already have a Rosie O'Donnel thank you very much....

 

[Cheetah]

Having spent some time in places where chivalry is still very common I've personally found that societies which still rely on chivalry are also places where women on average have less power.

It really makes sense. What do men get out of chivalry? Obviously you're expecting something from the woman, she has to uphold some part of the bargain. Otherwise are women just better than men? Are they more deserving of special treatment?

Actually, biologically speaking, women are way more valuable than men. Or perhaps not the women and men as such, but women's eggs and ability to bear a child as opposed to men's sperm. Each egg is invaluable compared to each sperm.

To take a small example: If you have a tribe with a hundred men and a hundred women, but only food enough for 120 people, who must go without food and starve to death? In all rational culture, we would probably see something like, say, 20 women and 60 men starve to death. Why not fifty-fifty? Because a lack of women would be a population bottleneck far more than a lack of men would be, as each man, needing only minutes to procreate, could father children with multiple women (while the opposite is rarer, each woman needs about a year to bring about one child). So each individual woman is more valuable for the survival of the tribe than each individual man.

Of course, as women then have higher inherent value than men, families and tribes are less likely to let women go and do whatever they want than they are men, simply because if they lose a woman, it could be a small tragedy, and if they lose a man - well, he can always be replaced.

But this quickly leads to men being able to do stuff that gives them recognition as men, while women aren't able to do much. This again leads to the idea that daughters are only valuable to their parents when they can be traded to a man in return for allegiance, favors or goods. Which again continues with the woman - now being the man's wife (hopefully...) - is only good for making children and taking care of the house. And not to forget: No man wants to raise another man's offspring, and the only sure way of knowing that a child is his is to make sure that the woman doesn't have sex with any other man. Hence the value of virginity and of trying to avoid women having contact with unrelated men.

And so it continues.

Chivalry then, actually comes in at the beginning of this story as well, as rational rules of conduct: Since women are more valuable than men, men should go out of their way to protect and provide for the women. Of course, nobody spends time and resources or risks their health or life for something that has no value, and since women didn't have any value except as virgins until they become some guy's wife and produce children, women who broke these rules would find themselves without the protection from chivalry. And a lone woman without anyone to help or protect her doesn't stand much of a chance in this world. Not that this 'being alone and vulnerable' wouldn't be true for all/most men as well: Being exiled from your tribe/country has never been an easy way out.

So to answer your questions:
In theory, from chivalry, men get wifes who will bear their children, and their children only. Women are not generally "better" than men, nor are men generally "better" than women, though - with men being statistically stronger than women - in more primitive societies, men would be more useful at many hard physical tasks (not that women didn't have to contribute to such tasks anyway, especially if the family/group was poor). However, men have always been more expendable than women, so they're the ones most - all - societies use for waging wars. Women are for the most part not put in the most dangerous situations, specifically because their eggs are more valuable than mens sperm.

And finally, is chivalry useful today? Both yes and no? Some points:

• It's a generally nice thing, and it would be really good if all people could be courteous, polite and helpful to one another.
• The reasons for why chivalry exists are not eradicated. They are simply hidden behind all the layers of modern civilization, where we have the rule of law, where the state holds the monopoly on violence and where our technology and resources allow us so many greater freedoms and opportunities then before. However, as soon as aspects of the modern civilization diminish (in a war torn country, in a crime-ridden back street, far away from other people, etc.), the reasons for chivalry will surface again. This is something to have in mind.
• Chivalry does not help in seducing a woman. It worked in older times, because then it wasn't the woman one needed to seduce, but the woman's father, who wanted to know his valuable daughter would marry a good man. Chivalry in itself is not a point of initial attraction.*
• However, being chivalrous (to anyone), shows that one is a nice person, which will at least make other people (both men and women) think of you as a nice person.* And in all social interactions, that is always the first step.

* True, a select few women will of course get offended by chivalry. But hey, you can always find some stupid human who gets offended by something.

 

[NovaKart]

That's a great explanation for why chivalry exists and certainly valuable to the discussion. If we're talking about modern times and particularly in a world where overpopulation is a big problem then chivalry just becomes a burdensome anachronism. In most cultures people are at least expected to be monogamous so a man and a woman's fertility is put on an equal footing as well. Still you certainly have some good points that were brought up which is chivalrous of me to point out is it not?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Chivalry is a concept that has no relevance to today's culture. It is based on the notion of a man deferring to a woman's prerogative in a society in which men were supreme, and women had few if any rights. Since we are supposed to be living in an egalitarian society, this concept has no bearing. Even if you disagree that we live in an egalitarian society, you must believe that as we are striving for one, we should not regress by resorting to a practice from an earlier one.

 

[Lillefix]

I think women deserve better than to be patronised by men, by giving them special treatment.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I consider the view that women deserve any special privileges obsolete. The women themselves want to be equals, and so I shall treat them as such. "Equality" does not mean I treat you any differently, for better or worse.

This going up to violence. Which is why I at a friend of mine who seems so anti-violence against women but would happily be violent towards men. Way to miss the point...

The only people I make any special exceptions for are children and the elderly.

Let's not forget women can be quite a menace if well-trained. Just as men can be a non-issue if not well-versed in combat. If there's any honor system, it should be not to fight someone who can't fight you, which should go beyond sex.

 

[stormerne]

It's interesting that most posters seem to be taking for granted that chivalry implies a way that men treat women. That's a narrow view, one that was only encompassed by the original meaning.

Historically, chivalry was a warrior code that had many effects, and one of those effects was how men treated women. But the ethics of civility, courtesy and honor could apply towards anyone, men and women alike. How you behaved reflected and defined what you were, and what you were was important no matter who you were dealing with.

Many people dislike being treated specially. They want to be treated like everyone else. They are understandably suspicious if you treat one group of people one way and another group another way, whether those groups are gender related or not. Consistency of behavior is the important thing here. Anything that strays from egalitarianism may be a problem. And after all, being equally civil, courteous, gracious and honorable towards all people is far easier than making divisions between them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not anymore...last couple of years its gone steel grey.

Do you also don a robe and walk around with a big staff?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You know, I seem to remember Chivalry being more about the obeying royal commands, and governing the ransom of fellow nobles taken (as obviously, being of the third estate, Chivalry doesn't apply to any of us), rather than holding doors open.

 

[bhsup]

It's interesting that most posters seem to be taking for granted that chivalry implies a way that men treat women. That's a narrow view, one that was only encompassed by the original meaning.

Fair point. But I'll counter with rubbers and gay. They used to mean winter galoshes and happy, respectively. Meanings change with time. You're not likely to hear a 3rd grade teacher say "Okay boys, don't forget to put on your rubbers before you go outside and play" in this day and age.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Phew, I read the 2nd sentence and thought VRWC had gone all rubber gay bondage on us all.

 

[Ramius75]

Chivalry increases the chance to get in their pants, so that's way better than misogyny.

Spoiler :

agree... thats what im thinking too...

 

[Quackers]

After reading this thread I will never, NEVER open a door for a woman.

Clearly the white male power structure brainwashed me into believing this was a kind act, but in fact it was evil and misorgynistic!

 

[spryllino]

After reading this thread I will never, NEVER open a door for a woman.

Clearly the white male power structure brainwashed me into believing this was a kind act, but in fact it was evil and misorgynistic!

^ @ Traitorfish: What Quackers said exemplifies my original point. If people take that attitude, chivalry is probably beneficial for such people.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you also don a robe and walk around with a big staff?

Always have.

 

[dusters]

Chivaly has to die. If they treat me like this, I challange them to wrestling match.

On other news - men fight men. When men are being compassionate towards other men, not agressive, then I could see them as chivalrous.

 

[C~G]

Chivalry has absolutely no meaning what so ever in modern days unless you're considering mating with the one you're being chivalrious to.
Just remember to wait same kind of attitude from that woman when it comes to the "payment" of your services/your behaviour towards them.
Otherwise they will eventually fall into princess-syndrome which is when women wait equality with men in all issues but at the same time want "something extra" just being women.

Being considerate and polite towards all people is different thing altogether.
Example opening or holding a door open for them.

 

[Formaldehyde]

From some of these posts there does appear to be a great deal of misogyny, at least more than I expected there to be.

"Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world." Kenelm Henry Digby

RIP

 

[Lone Wolf]

Russian national culture has men being chivalrous to the women, but the women being very strong and brave. Our heroic women played a part in defending our homeland from invaders, every time. But now, the We$t, eager to corrupt Russia's morals, has introduced We$tern values to Russia, and now the men are slowly becoming sissies, who can't defend our homeland at all, and I even don't want to talk about the women

That's pretty much the only thing I can say on the subject which brings a new perspective to the question.

 

[C~G]

From some of these posts there does appear to be a great deal of misogyny, at least more than I expected there to be.

I guess for you then absent of chivarly is misogyny?