Chivalry
- Thread starter spryllino
- Start date
That led me to "litter" on wiki, under which I found the term I was trying to think of. "Sedan Chair", so thanks
Only because we other men are mostly chivalrous enough not to abuse you.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I disagree; I think that ultimately infantilises women by treating them as in need of male assistance and "protection". It frames them as reliant on men, which, although true in some societies, is not true in ours, and thus robs them of a certain degree of agency. People, ultimately, are individuals, so reducing them to homogenous blocs based on gender- even with the sort of individual caveats mentioned elsewhere- robs them of full personhood, and so is not something which I, at least, am able to endorse as an absolute.
Let's not forget, after all, that chivalry doesn't simply mean door-holding and date-paying, but exists within a broader context of expected gender-appropriate behaviour, that expects not merely "chivalry" on the part of men, but a reciprocal demureness on the part of women. (It's really more accurate to describe the above as an expression and re-enforcement of that, rather than its creation.)
Noting, of course, that subscription to a misogynistic concept doesn't necessarily make one a misogynist; as I mentioned previously, most men who subscribe to are sincerely attempting to show respect within the limits of the limited cultural toolset they have for doing so. In fact, those more traditionalist posters who do advocate chivalry- VRCWAgent and MobBoss are often far more respectful of women-as-people than some of their younger, non-chivalrous co-posters. It's certainly a black and white issue.
Fair enough...
The last is the pertinent definition, but the others rather succinctly describe the historical background of the concept, don't you think?
However, you seem to be suggest that chivalry is not innately gendered, but simply represents compassion and courtesy on an individual basis, which is actually what I'm advocating we replace traditional chivalry with, so I'm not sure if we differ as much as we may think.
My point was that I do not consider chivalry a necessary precaution against misogynistic violence in modern society, as Spyrillino (with some justification) does, and that the associated baggage only serves to complicate individual relationships by dictating narrow gender roles. It reduces people to two monolithic blocks, rather than recognising them as complicated individuals, and thus attempts to force inter-individual relationships down the strict avenue of a pre-determined set of gendered interactions (which, aside from anything else, kinda screws over queers).
Also, on the door thing: I am not against door-holding itself, simply against the stand-and-wait-for-the-pat-on-the-head variety that is traditionally aimed at women. Simply holding a door behind you, or for somebody who is in someway impaired or burdened, is just good manners.
But we don't really understand the extent to which either of those are innate or the result of socialisation, so it's hard to make any proclamations to the effect of "it just is". On the other hand, we do know that, in both groups, there is a great deal of variation, and that making the sort of generalisations encouraged by the essentialist view of gender which traditional chivalry is a part of denies people a not insignificant degree of individuality.
I'm not really sure what point you're making; how do we define "feminism", in this context? Are we talking into account Third Wave and Pro-Sex Feminism? And why is "feminism" so readily acquainted with women-in-general, despite the fact that most women are not feminist (whatever sympathies they may have for historical feminism or so-called "post-feminism"). I think you may be veering into a rather complicated discussion about the feminist movement itself, rather than the principles involved, or about society at large. What you primarily seem to be saying is that Second Wave Feminism, for various reasons including a certain social conservatism among women within and outside of the movement, didn't achieve what it would like to have achieved, which is... Entirely true? Hence the Third Wave?
See, now, I actually agree with all this, because it's ultimately individualistic- you're not gendering those involved beyond the realities of a particular event (which was actually quite a touching story). It could just have easily been the reverse, as you suggested, or it could have been a queer couple, and everything you say would've been correct. It is, in fact, exactly what I think we should strive for. So, well done!I emphasized the "on a date" above. This is a bit tricky as it is totally subjective what qualifies as a date and what doesn't and what a "date" is anyways.
At an undaty get together where the other person happens to be female i would once again go with the courtesy of the strong helping the weak. So i'd pay when i have significantly more money than she has and expect her to pay the whole bill if the opposite is true. On a date on the other hand people can do all the idiosyncratic things that strike their fancy.
To me a date would have to be as spontaneous, informal and cheap as possible in the first place. A dinner in a posh restaurant is about pretense and vanity not about understanding or commitment. So my last full fledged date had a meal phase consisting of us sitting in the city park between a bunch of peacocks sharing a subway sandwich and laughing at the birds greedily swallowing crums that almost choke them. Come to think of it: That included the use of a coupon.
I paid. Not out of condescense but because i could pay and she was completely broke to a point that she literally coundn't pay a sandwich until the end of the month.
Call that chivalry if you want to. As i said you'd have to give a definition anyway.
Honestly, I don't mean to sound like I'm preaching, because I'm far from perfect myself, and when you go through the socialisation that men do, you resort to a lot of the trappings of chivalry because that's just what you know. I suppose the trick is in self-examination, in checking yourself and your privilege, and making sure that what you're doing is appropriate to you as individuals, rather than just some script handed down from on high. There's nothing in itself wrong with a relationship between two individuals who are traditionally gendered, and relate in a traditional way; what's important is that this is all true because that is what works for them, and not because they feel obliged to act or to be in any particular way. It's about individuality, at it's core, and that's the thing to remember.
Straight from the horses mouth!
...And that actually provides an example of internalised "chivalry", because after I wrote that, I thought "Wait, you can't call a girl a horse! She might take it as an insult!" Which is, as we're all aware, a complete nonsense for about half a dozen reasons, and a condescending one at that. So, again, chivalry: not always up to snuff!
...Which is actually a very grim and unfortunate truth, if you look at history. Part of chivalry's nature was the formation of a contract by which party was bound to certain gender-normative behaviours. If "real men don't hit girls", then women have to act like "girls", or they can be in a bit of trouble...Only because we other men are mostly chivalrous enough not to abuse you.
Where do you all keep getting this from? How does "honor and respect" in any way translate to something that infantilises women and imply they need our protection? It simply does not. I appreciate the mentioning later, but still, I don't see how one implies or suggests the other.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I like to hold the door for people who are just too far away to warrant holding the door. Like 20 meters or so. Often they'll try to walk those 20 really fast but still as casual as possible, some will even run.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, as I said, you're certainly among those who seem to genuinely respect women as people, I would just suggest that your expression of it is in traditional terms because we, as a gender, inherit a relatively limited vocabulary with which to do so.
When I say that chivalry is infantilising, I'm talking about the institution in itself, particularly in regards to it's place within the traditional model of gender, rather than any personal implementation of it. It's part of a view of gender which holds men to be active and productive, and women to be passive and supplementary. As I said, it's far from a black and white issue, and I don't mean to preach.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
NO, it's more like "I honor you, woman, because you are a woman." Like how kings and queens got toted around in ancient days by four or eight dudes carrying their ...crap, what are those called... luxury move-about boxes
but you know, we should be showing all humans the same respect anyway, regardless of gender.. unless you are trying to sleep with one, in which case go ahead and give her/him preferential treatment
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?
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?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Depends on how you define power...
I would feel fairly empowered if people fell all overthemselves to open doors and stuff for me....
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That's because your already empowered, so this would just be a cherry on the cake. If that came hand in with lessened civil and social liberties, less access to employment and education, and other such elements of traditional gender roles, you may not be as enthusiastic.
Sure, but women today don't have lessened civil and social liberties today in civilized (western) society - gender roles still exist, and there are still gendered expectations of women, but there is nothing legally limiting them.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Sure, but with chivalry intact, if I am a good lookin babe, I don't need at that crap...
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
You have a ginger beard, I think we can rule that out.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
True enough, but my point was that strict codes of chivalry, as NovaKart suggested, tend to come hand-in-hand with certain more obviously repressive customs, which may or not be enshrined in law. And, if we're quite honest, we still have elements of both in our own society.
Let's just hope you're not reborn as an unattractive lesbian with individual ambitions, then, eh?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not anymore...last couple of years its gone steel grey.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
I don't really care if someone else that I run into still wants to adhere to some kind of chivalric code regarding women. I have a few issues with the intent of chivalrous actions, that is, to be good to women just because they're women, but I think that the proliferation of good actions is preferable to a void of good actions and much more preferable than the proliferation of bad actions.
(In my own life, I don't run into an abundance of genuinely good human beings. When I do, there's roughly the same number of men and women; I would not hesitate to do the little things for these people whenever I see them, because they're deserving of it just for being good. But hey, the more good actions the better.)
(In my own life, I don't run into an abundance of genuinely good human beings. When I do, there's roughly the same number of men and women; I would not hesitate to do the little things for these people whenever I see them, because they're deserving of it just for being good. But hey, the more good actions the better.)
Similar threads
