Many men, especially those inclined towards advocating becoming a PUA as a strategy to combat feminism or those who practice it, think that chivalry should stay dead, since being chivalrous is self-defeating in the face of feminism. (See some of the commentators at The Spearhead and PUA blogs.) It is believed that male deference to women, when women fail to respect men, is what allowed feminism to take hold in the first place, and that continued chivalry only reinforces
Some believe that chivalry is caused by wrong ideas about women and their virtuousness. Those who are chivalrous are such because they think women are the superior sex when it comes to all of morality. Christians and others who believe in chivalry are accused of putting women on a pedestal when they are undeserving of this exaltation.
Actually, isn't chivalry first about showing respect to the physically weaker sex?
I understand chivalry to be rooted in what it means to be a Christian man and husband. It is not separated from patriarchal authority, but it does involve service to others. The chivalrous man recognizes his power over women, which is not to be abused. Instead he is to be humble in the service to others.
As for its link to courtly love/romance -- there probably is one, but maybe we can distinguish the Christian ideal from the romantic ideal. Even then, the romantic ideal may not be so misandrist as some would think. (I have to read Dennis De Rougement's Love in the Western World (GB).)
Is being chivalrous compatible with being or acting like an "alpha"? Perhaps, though I am not sure since I don't consider myself an alpha, like the PUA bloggers. If we think of alpha males as being detached, confident, assertive, steadfast, and so on -- it depends on the situation. How a gentleman treats women in general may differ from how he treats the object of his courtship. The chivalrous man may share some qualities in common with the alpha or the PUA, but not others. Being chivalrous does not mean that a man is passive or fails to take the initiative.
Despite their stated desire for a man to be chivalrous, do women perceive it as weakness? Or is it an indication to them that a man is willing to be their tool or "slave" (even if they are incorrect in this assessment)?
Being chivalrous may be appropriate (or required) in certain parts of the country (like the South) and easy; but what about in urban or suburban California? Some men might ask: even if one should show respect to a lady, who is to be considered a lady, when women in certain areas are more likely to not reciprocate that sort of respect and in fact are enemies of men and traditional morals? It would be more appropriate for men to be indifferent, or to treat them the same as men and expect them to "pull their weight"? At the very least by treating women no differently from men, women may learn not to take men for granted. (This is close to the extreme strategy adopted by some men of avoiding women entirely.)
I think those who wish to practice chivalry should continue doing so, as a witness to what society can be like and to be a complete gentleman. That is to say, it would be a part of showing the proper respect to others, particularly the old, the infirm, and so on. Just because he is a gentleman though, a Christian should not allow himself to be a doormat for women, nor should he accept any sort of abuse. There is a difference between being a gentleman and being needy or desperate for a relationship.
(If his politeness is not appreciated by women, should a gentleman take consolation in the fact that he has virtue and is doing what is correct?)
On the other hand, chivalry does not seem to be demanded by justice (in contrast with showing respect to the aged), nor is it required by charity. It seems to be more of a convention that aids men in the acquisition of other virtues and teaches them to treat women well.
However, chivalry may be required of men by distributive justice -- that is to say that since they are stronger women, then it is proper for them to have more of the burden with respect to physical labor. But, this is only one aspect of chivalry. What of the other aspects? Can they be distinguished from general politeness and consideration?
Started on 2/3/10.
Edit. 2/12/10
For the latest occasion of backlash against "chivalry," see this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment