Chivalry Must Die: On Women’s Expectations and Men’s Obligations

Like most women, I believe my male friends to be nice people.  They don’t catcall or sexually harass women on the street, they are thoughtful and sweet, and they believe in women’s equality and gender justice like good progressives.

And so I give them on break on chivalry, because I know that they don’t mean anything by it.  They aren’t intending to be disrespectful, to deny women their agency, or to make assumptions about our abilities.  They’ve just been trained in a social construct that devalues women, in the same way that we all have.

Even if you weren’t born and raised in the American South, chivalry is deeply ingrained in our behaviors.  It is exceptionally rare that a man will walk into or out of an elevator before me.  In fact, I’ve noticed that I’ve gotten used to it.  When the doors open, I immediately start walking in or out without a second’s thought as to why I am automatically, almost subconsciously, determining that I am the more important person and should have the right to go first.  Realizing this, I am actually starting to enjoy the very startled look on men’s faces as I don’t step forward first, or even (heaven help them), say “after you” and wait for them.  Just as I’ve become accustomed to receiving chivalry, men have become accustomed to extending it.

Why?  Because it’s what nice boys do.  What good men do.

Which is exactly why chivalry is dangerous.  Because it blankets itself as courtesy while concealing a dramatic assertion of inequality between the sexes.  There’s no way around it – chivalry is about viewing women as fragile, delicate creatures who need special protection, special consideration, and special treatment.  Chivalry sets women upon a pedestal.

As with most gender relations, the problem lies in the power differential.  The woman may be on the pedestal, having doors opened, chairs pulled out, and meals paid for. But actually it is patriarchy that is asserting its power.  How?  Simple.  The woman may be on the pedestal, but it is the privilege of men that has put her there.

And that’s why chivalry needs to die.  A horrible, painful, loud and dramatic death is what I’m envisioning here.  Something fiery.  With an explosion of some sort.  Something where people say: what on earth was that?!

Because here’s the thing: there is a difference between being chivalrous and being nice.  Being nice is expressing or demonstrating consideration for another person – something that I agree all people should do for all other people.  Holding doors open for people, for example, is being nice.  Allowing someone else to go in front of you in an elevator, picking up something someone has dropped – these are all nice things to do for others, regardless of gender.  Holding a door open for a woman because she’s a woman is not just being nice – it’s being chivalrous.  It means that for some reason you believe a woman deserves this extra courtesy.  That she is special.

Unfortunately, too many women push back at the idea that chivalry should die.  Why?  Because we’ve gotten used to it – even the subtler forms of it.  We like the special attention.  We appreciate that men offer us seats on a crowded bus, that doors seemingly magically open in front of us, that strangers are willing to help us with our luggage.  Because society has taught all of us that women are ladies – princesses even – and we shouldn’t have to do such things as manual labor.  We enjoy not having to pay a $10 cover at a club whilst our male friends pony up the dough, and we like that men will rush to help us if we are lost or seemingly unable to fend for ourselves.  Chivalry has many short term benefits for women.

The idea of chivalry being a behavioral pattern that is limited to men extending special courtesies to women is a fairly narrow and relatively modern definition of the word.  Originally, chivalry referred to a code of honor – an entire, much more complete and complex way of life to which knights in medieval England were bound.  Alex Davis, lecturer at University of St. Andrew and author on the subject of medieval chivalry, writes:

The Knight’s Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders. All knights needed to have the strength and skills to fight wars in the Middle Ages. Knights not only had to be strong but they were also extremely disciplined and were expected to use their power to protect the weak and defenceless. Knights vowed to be loyal, generous, and “noble bearing”. Knights were required to tell the truth at all times and always respect the honour of women. Knights not only vowed to protect the weak but also vowed to guard the honour of all fellow knights. They always had to obey those who were placed in authority and were never allowed to refuse a challenge from an equal. Knights lived by honor and for glory. Knights were to fear God and maintain His Church. Knights always kept their faith and never turned their back on a foe. Knights despised pecuniary reward. They persevered to the end in any enterprise begun. The main vow from the knights was that they shall fight for the welfare of all.

So yes, preserving a women’s honor was part of the code, but it certainly wasn’t the defining feature.  Chivalry was a code wherein a knight promised to defend and protect the weak, the helpless, and the vulnerable.  To act graciously, to be generous and truthful.  Frankly, these are traits that I think all honorable people should strive for – not just men.  And such behavior is certainly not mutually inclusive with special protection and courtesy for women.

This is a question that is posed often – that of special protection for women.  Not about opening doors, but instead, about diverting time and money and resources specifically to women.  Can we have it both ways?  Are women in need of special protection and therefore deserving of special privileges, or aren’t they?  Are women victims or agents?

The answer is – both and neither.  There are indubitably times when women need special consideration.  Why?  Because women are uniquely targeted or affected under specific circumstances.  Women are specifically targeted for rape and sexual assault and other forms of  gender based violence, most especially during times of war.  Women’s health needs globally are far greater than men’s as maternal death rates and reproductive health is rivaled by nothing that affects men at that breadth and scope.  And so there are times when women are special, and do need special consideration.

That said, if women are not especially affected, there is no reason for women to expect or be granted special protection or consideration.  The old idea of sending “women and children first” to safety is absurd and insulting.  A sinking cruise ship doesn’t target women anymore than it does Turks or redheads or musicians.  Children can be and should be deemed a special class of vulnerable peoples, just as the elderly and sick.  Women should not be.

And it isn’t just a vague notion of “society” or “pop culture” that encourages chivalrous behavior.  Men offer chivalry to women  as well because too many women expect, or even demand it.   Too many women are too harsh to too many men, who at this point don’t know what to do when it comes to the proper or most appropriate way to treat women.  Some women are downright offended when men don’t open doors for them, pull out chairs, offer their seats, or pay for meals.  Then again, some women accuse men of being sexist jerks when they are afforded such courtesies.  So it’s important to realize just how hard these gendered expectations are for all of us – men and women alike.

One way to conquer this challenge is for women to stop holding men to such absurd standards – most of them are doing the best they can (just like the rest of us) to navigate tricky waters.  There’s no need to throw the ‘sexist’ label on them, nor to berate them for not treating you with special respect.  But the second way is for all of us to stop expecting men to be exempt from needing special protection or consideration themselves.

What do I mean by this?  On a post about this same topic over at the Nerdy Feminist, one commenter noted that when he sees a woman struggling with groceries, he’ll offer to help.  When he sees a man struggling, he won’t.  Why not?  Because it would be almost offensive to him.  Men are supposed to be big and strong and capable.  Men are not supposed to need help or assistance.   I could relate to what he was saying, and even more so because I’m a woman.  I used to offer help to men all the time – not because I was trying to challenge their masculinity, but because they were struggling with something and frankly, two people are almost always more capable than one person is.  They would usually flush, embarrassed that I’d asked, or else laugh it off, brushing me aside with a “thanks, but I think I can handle it.”

I wasn’t offended by the rebuff – I knew what they were thinking.  It’s the same thing a lot of men think when I hold the door open for them, or pick up something they’ve dropped, or offer my seat to them on the bus.  It’s a challenge to their masculinity, and in public no less, it can be a tad embarrassing for a man.  So maybe that’s something we need to work on as well.  Encouraging men to ask for help or consideration when they need it.  Ensuring that men aren’t always expected to be completely independently capable no matter what.  Teaching men and women that it’s ok to need assistance or special consideration sometimes, so long as we’re all playing by the same rules and operating under the same expectations for one another.

We may say that common courtesy is something we should all strive for – being polite and helpful and respectful to each other just because it’s the nice thing to do.  But gender constructs and stereotypes – the ones that tell men they should never need help or women that they always deserve princess treatment – are getting in the way.  We all contribute, we’re all responsible, and we all need to be more aware.

The chivalric code was written at a time when women’s agency and equality and abilities were not even questioned – they simply didn’t exist.  We’ve come so far since then.  Isn’t it time we updated the meaning of the word chivalry to consider the autonomy and capabilities of women that we’ve fought for so long to be recognized?  Isn’t it time women gave up the benefits of chivalry for our right to be treated as capable beings?

 

 

Photo Credit: Maggierne

Facebook Twitter Email

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Peggy

    Don’t think they need to put the toilet seat down, either; though we all should (when flushing) because a bit of whatever is being flushed sprays across the room.  Yum.

  • http://twitter.com/carge77 Seth Cargiuolo

    Great article, Abigail! Very interesting take on the situation. There is a distinct difference between “being nice” (or courteous, or respectful, etc) and the modern context of “chivalry”. 

    One aspect of all this that I think gets lost in this debate is the “primal” reasoning behind the behavior. One reason men may be ingrained to help women but not men is out of a deep-down level of competition – male helps female in effort to increase likelihood of being seen as a suitable breeding partner; male doesn’t help male in effort to decrease likelihood of that male being a viable competitor. I’m not saying it’s right, or that maybe we shouldn’t have progressed beyond that by now, BUT, you know, that sort of stuff still lurks deep-down in our minds. (Same thing with “women and children first” – save the kids, because they are the future; save the women because they are the producers and primary caregivers of our future).

    All that said, I’d love to hear what you think we can do about this in a business setting. A lot has been said recently about the fact that there’s a real lack of females at the senior and executive leadership levels of our businesses. I personally believe (and there is lots of research out there about it) having a male-centric leadership corps is less effective than having a better mix (or balance, even) of male-female members in the corps.

    I’ve written a bit about how we can “change the rules” to increase the likelihood of females rising to the top levels of our institutions (http://ow.ly/cuPTS) but I’m always on the lookout for people’s ideas on other ways to do this, especially at the tactical or line-management level. Would love to hear your ideas on that. Again, great job on this article!

  • Erin BG

    I’m a feminist who has really struggled with the concept of chivalry for all of the reasons you mentioned above. However, I think you left out an important factor. A factor that has made me not only come to terms with chivalrous acts, but also has made me expect chivalry. This factor is that there are indeed concrete differences between men and women, both physical and societal. I think that chivalrous acts demonstrate that a man understands these differences and is thinking about someone other than himself. 

    Men don’t clomp around all day wearing high-heels or other uncomfortable shoes. When an able bodied man sees a woman on a bus or train without a seat, he should offer her his seat because she is probably more worn out than him.

    Women make only 68 cents on the dollar. Men should pick up the tab or buy the women their socializing with a drink every once and a while. A little wealth distribution can be a good thing.

    Men are physically stronger than women. Doors can be heavy. Some doors can be extremely heavy. Stronger people should give a hand to the less strong. (Same goes for carrying things, etc.)

    Skirts and dresses can make discretely bending over difficult. Offering to pick something up for a woman, makes it less likely that she’ll accidentally flash someone while bending over.

    It is actually easier to continue a conversation with the smaller person walking ahead of the larger person. Men are generally larger. 

    I could go on and on with this list. What all of these examples show is that when men make chivalrous acts, it shows that they recognize differences and additional struggles or burdens placed on women. They’re not taking away a woman’s agency. I believe they’re doing the opposite: improving women’s agency by knocking out the oh so irksome differences that make it just a little more difficult to be a woman. Until we come to a day in which men in our society wear heels or women earn the same wages as men, I will continue to appreciate offered seats and free drinks. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10400006 Abigail Collazo

      Erin – I think you make some interesting points here, particularly about the wage gap.  But I think this is taken beyond its reasonable extension when you claim that men are stronger than women and doors can be heavy.  That is, I think, taking it way too far in terms of everyone doing what they’re best at.  I never work out and have very little arm strength and yet I find myself perfectly capable of opening every door in my path dozens of times a day.  So yes, there are things about the way women interact with society (wearing heels, short dresses, etc.) that make it arguably harder for them to stand on a bus, but also, that has nothing to do with inherently being a women.  Women choose to wear heels, women choose to wear tight clothing.  If that makes it more difficult to stand on the bus, I have to say I think this is their choice.  On the other hand, women aren’t choosing to make less money than men, which is why I think that point is very valid.

      • simonmd341

        Yes. Abigail is correct.

      • Tony

        I’m gonna split the difference here: some doors *are* quite heavy, so I agree with Erin on that score. I agree with you, however, that uncomfortable shoes and revealing clothing are a construct of society, rather than being inherent to womanhood, so nix the (reflexively) chivalrous behavior on that score.

    • Lisa M. Lilly

      Erin,

      I particularly like your comment on the wage gap.  My view is as soon as women on the average make the same as men, I will pay for myself on a date.  Until then, my feeling is that most of the time, men should pay when taking a woman out.  As to opening doors, Abigail notes below that she never runs into a door she has trouble opening.  This may depend where you live and work.  I work in downtown Chicago, and I do struggle with doors either when the winds are high and slamming against the door or building or simply in some buildings where the doors are heavily weighted.  (I am at a loss as to why businesses allow that to happen.  I wouldn’t want to make it hard for customers to get in or out.)  There are times I can barely get the door open even pushing my whole body against it, and I appreciate any assistance, whether from a man or woman.

      • http://www.facebook.com/cara.profaci Cara Mia Profaci

        Speaking for myself, I always pay my own way on a date. I’ve had experiences in the past where it was expected that I “return the favor” of being bought a steak dinner. In the instance I speak of, I was kidnapped and raped all night long because of it. It just makes me feel more comfortable and much more equal when I pay my own way. And recently, I had a man refuse to let me pay my own way, grabbing the check before I could and slapping his credit card down and declaring, ‘No, I’m the man, I’m paying’. Guess what – his lack of respect for my feelings about the situation did not get him a second date or even a return phonecall. I don’t need any macho cavemen in my life.

        • Tony

          Do you honestly believe a man who “kidnapped and raped you all night long” would not have done so had he not been so incensed by your failure to *offer* sex in exchange for a steak dinner? This is a patently absurd claim – this man intended to have sex with you. Period. He would have done so (clearly) whether you were on board with the idea or not. He raped you because he’s a rapist; not because you offended his sense of propriety by failing to jump his bones in return for picking up the check. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

    • O P

      If it is true that men on average make more than women on average for the same job, then that is a thing to consider when challenging businesses to pay their female employees equally for the same work, but it does not apply to two individuals on a date unless you have already discussed who gets paid more than the other.  

      It is quite possible that a woman makes more than her date, in which case, do you suggest that she pays for the date?  Or do you feel that because on average women make less, all men should pay for dates?  I dont see how that makes any sense, unless you wish to be sexist yourself and treat an individual male as if he were a stereotype.

      And of course, according to research, single, childless women actually make more on average than single, childless men.  And if two people are on a date–well, I suspect they are single right?  So according to your logic, if you are single, women should pay for men.  

      I have friends who make more than me.  I have friends who make less than me.  But when we hang out, when go to dinner, when we go to the movies, we pay for ourselves.  Unless my friends are in desperate need for money, I will not pay for them; and vice versa.  Or, sometimes my friends will pay, but then I will reciprocate later.  Women are not entitled for a free lunch simply because they are women; and men certainly arent responsible for providing it.  

      As for heavy objects and high heels–if a person is weak, whether male or female, and it is not because of illness, then they should probably lift *more* heavy objects to increase their strength.  We should not enable feebleness.  As for high heels and dresses?  Dont wear them.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/cara.profaci Cara Mia Profaci

        Ok, we won’t wear ‘em. Then, we’ll have to listen to men yap about how un-sexy we look because we haven’t decorated ourselves enough to please them.

        • Tony

          Ridiculous. No man would say such things, especially in a work or educational context, because he’d be immediately dragged out of the room in chains and labeled a sexual harasser if he did so. I understand that women experience social pressure to emphasize their desirability rather than their competence and what have you, but I don’t believe that everyday men on the street are going to openly berate a woman for not dressing sluttily enough to please him.

          • missdk

            No, we just get sexually harassed for being female in public. Sometimes that includes being called ugly.

    • Knatx

      In short you want your pie and eat it too. And this is one of my main issues with feminists. They want to be equal to men, yet you also want things like chivarly because well your female and nothing more. Sorry if you want to be equal to men I am going to treat you equally and that means you open the door yourself. Its not my problem you are wearing heels or wearing a dress/skirt that makes it hard to bend over that’s on you and your poor choice of clothing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/cara.profaci Cara Mia Profaci

        Don’t lump us all together. I’m a feminist and I would be insulted if a man held a door for me simply because I have a vagina. I don’t need a man to be “gentlemanly”, I need him to vote to keep Roe v. Wade legal. And what is it with you guys coming onto a feminist website just to insult us?

      • http://www.facebook.com/steven.p.sperling Steven Posts Twice Sperling

        This is stupid. Really stupid. I for one am going to come out and say it: I love to see a woman wearing a nice pair of heels, I love women wearing skirts. I don’t think they *have* to, but I do appreciate the effort that goes into the presentation. Call me a sexist or Misogynist all you want, but I like attractive women, it arouses a primal essence in my being.

        That said, some men do the chivalry thing for different reasons, and not entirely bad ones. I was raised by a single mother, who worked multiple jobs to keep my fed, warm and with a roof over my head. I’ve seen her knock grown men out with her fists, I’ve helped her do all sorts of things. She’s the most amazing woman in my life, and out of respect for her, I try to be a gentleman, like she raised me. So why is that a bad thing?

    • http://www.facebook.com/cara.profaci Cara Mia Profaci

      If a woman wears high heels or a short skirt, that is her own choice. Just because she does so, why should the burden fall on a man to “protect” her from her own choices? Although I do agree that if someone – anyone, male or female – sees another person struggling with a door or packages, they SHOULD help because it is the right thing to do. But not simply because you are a woman and have chosen to make wardrobe choices that you don’t have to.

  • Kate McGuinness

    A fascinating topic. Did chivalry play a role in the decisions 3 men made to save their dates by shielding them with their own bodies in the Auroroa shooting? Their quick decisions seem reflexive. Did their actions have a hard-wired basis? 

    • DC

       Absolutely Kate . Yes to all your questions.

      Most men ( 70- 80% ) would quickly make these type of decisions without a milliseconds hesitation. It is absolutely reflexive and hard-wired into ( most of ) us to protect the weaker potential victims, or perhaps more specifically our woman. It’s pure instinct and it’s rarely, if ever, something we get any credit for.

      I wish more women would consider this the next time they’re complaining how their boyfriend/husband doesn’t help with housework. Or the long litany of other complaints women so often make.

      Would it kill you ladies to say “thanks” once in while?

       

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10400006 Abigail Collazo

        I agree with you, DC, about how reflexive it is now for men to protect women in that context.  But I don’t agree with your insinuation that the flip side is that women shouldn’t expect men to do their fair share of the housework, or that women don’t say thank you, or that women have a “long litany of complaints that we like to make.”  

      • http://www.facebook.com/cara.profaci Cara Mia Profaci

        I love how you refer to us women as “weaker” and “victims”. Shows where you really are in this debate.

      • Nicole

        Thank him for hypothetically protecting me from a nonexistant gunman? I will absolutely, positively be incredibly thankful to any person, man or woman, who saved my life, but I will not overlook current issues because of some protective instinct that you claim all men have.

        • Tony

          Nah, thank him for working twice as many hours, keeping a roof over your head and food on the table, and then *selfishly* not offering to do half your job as well. If you worked outside the home, would you expect him to show up and offer a helping hand waiting tables?

  • Elisabeth

    I would add too that I think “chivalry” can get confusing in ways that can put women (and also men) in rather difficult, and potentially dangerous situations.  Namely, sometimes a man is just being nice, but sometimes that same man in a different situation, or a different man in the same situation, may really expect more a quid pro quo.  I’m thinking of my first months in college, where I quickly learned that if someone held the door open, they were probably just being nice, but if someone offered to walk me home late at night, it probably wasn’t just to see me safely home.  Eventually I came to realize that I should not take a guy up on an offer to walk me home unless I was planning to invite him in, because he would inevitably make a pass at me once we got to my dorm.  In retrospect that even seems obvious.  But  the unspoken rule of “I walk you home and you invite me in” was not obvious to me at first because it hid under the cover of “chivalry.”   Some girls may get taken advantage of because they  believe a guy is being nice.  Plus, there were probably many guys who really did just mean to be nice, and have no idea how the behavior of other men makes a woman interpret their own gesture. Then as a girl, if you recognize the pattern and refuse to accept someone’s “just trying to be nice,” you end up coming across as a b***.    

    • Tony

      There’s also another side to this issue, I think: that a genuinely nice man might be taken advantage of by a woman who [claims to] dismiss his obvious gestures of courtship as ‘mere’ chivalry. I’ve had several dates with women, paid for dinner, bought romantic gifts, talked about things we could do together in the future and so on; only to go for the kiss on the third date or so and get that shocked, deer-in-the-headlights look and a declaration of ‘Oh, I didn’t know you felt that way.’

      Don’t get me wrong; obviously intentions can be misunderstood, and going on a couple dates with someone doesn’t guarantee that things are going to work out. It’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to sit a guy down and say, ‘Look, I don’t think this is going anywhere; I think we should stop seeing each other.’ But it seems that women have grown so pathologically disinclined to do this that they will accept nearly unlimited amounts of time, attention – and yes, money – from a man, then act clueless when he (inevitably) makes his romantic intentions explicit. This seems incredibly disingenuous to me, and I believe this type of behavior leads to a lot of misunderstandings, on both sides of the coin.

    • http://www.facebook.com/steven.p.sperling Steven Posts Twice Sperling

      The problem I have here is where these men are doing something “nice” as a way to lower someone’s defenses. It’s similar to another man asking if he can come hang out, and then he steals my collector’s edition Firefly DVDs. It’s wrong, and it needs to stop.

      On the other hand, there are considerate men out there who have a genuine concern for a woman walking alone at night(or a man, for that matter), and those men get shafted in this circumstance. If they try to do what they consider right(i.e. offering to walk someone home to make sure they’re safe) they risk appearing to be “creeps”.

  • Pingback: Why Chivalry Must Die

  • Karen71048

    And let’s analyze why, in a room with 10 men and 1 woman, if 1 of these men has a bad temper, he feels very free to yell at the 1 woman rather than any of the other men in the room, because he knows he’s not likely to get his nose broken by the woman! This has happened to me a few times, even though I was doing NOTHING to provoke such a verbal attack! Does this man yell at anyone else in the room; of course NOT! Many of these arguments about chivalry can be explained simply by physical strength, just as abuse against women and children can be explained. Some men are cowards and women and children are easy targets. My position on chivalry would be to presume people are being polite and when they are polite, say THANK YOU! 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10400006 Abigail Collazo

      Karen – I have to disagree with you here.  The question of the verbal (and otherwise) abuse of women is, I think, not really related to chivalry in the way you claim.  Unless you are making a broader point overall about the seemingly incongruous way men treat women (both encouraged to protect and be nice to them, but also supported when they use and abuse them), then I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying about men yelling at you.  

      • Tony

        Men yell at each other all the time. Karen wants the freedom to engage men as equals in more polite discourse, yet also the (female) privilege of being protected from such unseemly things as rudeness or displays of anger.

        I don’t know if this problem can be fairly laid at the feet of either men or women. I think it’s “society,” for want of a word less vague. In our society, men experience pressure both to be (especially) courteous toward and solicitous of women, and yet also to treat them, and indeed look upon them as equals; there’s also the fact that, as you said, many women have come to expect this type of treatment, and will vilify a man for failing to offer it. Finally, men are programmed to feel a warm rush of manly validation at the displays of gratitude we often receive in return for such behavior; and of course, lest we not acknowledge the elephant in the room, men are always looking for an excuse to approach or try to impress an attractive woman, and offering help is an easy way to break the ice.

  • Tim

    The truth is that sex is – at its most fundamental – a power play. Courtship and sex are fueled by inborn desires to overpower and be overpowered by. As a straight male, I understand that I have an inborn desire to possess a woman sexually, just as she wishes to be possessed. Similarly, a woman wishes to overpower a man with desire, the same way a man wishes to be overpowered. In today’s (supposedly) egalitarian society , people might cringe to hear sex described so, but (most of the time) the power play is consensual.

    As Seth Cargiuolo comments below, these sexual “instincts” are engrained within us, and they can bubble to the surface amongst friends, acquaintances, and even strangers. Chivalry is a manifestation of male sexuality. The “beneficiary” of the chivalrous gesture may be the object of the male’s affection, or simply an opportunity for a male to display his sexual appeal.

    This helps us to understand why certain behaviors such as chivalry play out, but of course simply having a primal urge isn’t any justification and in and of itself to give into that urge. There is a time and place for chivalry. A man waiting for a female stranger to get out of an elevator first is laughable to me. Just exit the elevator in the reverse order you came in, people. At the same time, it’s totally acceptable for a man to hold a door for his date. He is courting her, and she may want him to, and in that context she should not have to accept his advances with self-conscious air of guilt, as if she is perpetuating some kind of female inferiority.
    …As with most things, chivalry shouldn’t be taken as a black and white issue. Everything in context.

    • Erin BG

      Beautifully said.

  • Sherwinflt

    “Teaching men and women that it’s ok to need assistance or special consideration sometimes, so long as we’re all playing by the same rules and operating under the same expectations for one another.” 

    Unfortunately this is just the point!  We are not still operating under the same expectations……playing by the same rules.   And there will not be equity until we manage to have income equity and women and men have equal and fair status worldwide under all circumstances (marriage, divorce, child rearing, food preparation, reproductive rights, property ownership, as well as the traditional masculine jobs)   We have a long way to go!

  • fiz64

    Abigail I created a username for this site just so I could comment and tell you that this is the best article I’ve ever read on this topic. I follow gender issues frequently and I’ve become entirely fed up with the apparent one-sidedness of sites like Jezebel, so it is refreshing to see a feminist blogger who includes men’s emotions and experiences when it comes to feminist issues, rather than using language that implies that men can only fit into roles of oppressors or perpetrators. I also like that you engage with your commenters :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10400006 Abigail Collazo

      Thanks for the very kind words, Louis. I appreciate your thoughts and hope you’ll come back and visit us often :)

  • Cody Hayward-Morrison

    Very interesting article Abigail, it was intelligent and enjoyable to read. I think this is very important in modern society – especially in developing gender equality. I am also a firm believer in doing nice things and being polite to people – not just women because they are women (girls, ladies, preferred noun etc) – but to everyone, for the sake of being polite. One of my good friends at work is a strong believer in women’s rights and gender equality – quite often I’ll hold the door open for her as we walk into the office and she’ll tell me she doesn’t need me to do that for her, to which I’ll often retort I’m not holding it for her because she’s female, just that she’s my friend. It’s turned into a bit of an in-joke for us (obviously it’s better in context, and at the time, instead of being typed as an anecdote)
    Anyway, thanks for the article, it was an interesting and enjoyable read.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steven.p.sperling Steven Posts Twice Sperling

    I would like to say something though: historically, the Middle-ages were not nearly as sexually divided as most people commonly think, with women occupying numerous positions of power, leading armies and fighting wars. Women had the right to divorce men under numerous countries(Scandinavia and England, especially), lower class women were expected to work in the fields beside their husbands, fathers and brothers.

    A great example is Sakagaita, the second wife of Robert Guiscard,, who is describedi n multiple period sources as riding to war in the manner of a Comes(Comes is latin for “companion”, and in this case refers to a mounted horseman wearing mail with sword, shield and lance), and was instrumental for the victory at Dyrrhachium due to rallying the collapsing Norman right flank. She was willful and powerful enough to ensure that her son Roger Borsa inherited after his father.

    Empress Matilda of england is another good example. She was the first female rule of England(though briefly), and she managed, through considerable force of will and open war, to have her son crowned as Henry II of England. She showed considerable acumen as a Feudal Lord, she held considerable diplomatic clout, and she overshadowed both her Husbands in the annuals of history.

    The “Damsel in Distress” idea we have of Medieval women largely comes from later eras, rather than from the actual time itself. Chivalry is also a poorly misunderstood concept, with much of our concept of chivalry stemming from a time period when the mounted knight was becoming increasingly irrelevant in a martial context. Chivalry originally related almost purely to the martial prowess of a knight, and was not a code for protecting the weak, church or anything. As the role of the Knight shifted from a Soldier to an Aristocrat, the term was forced to be redefined.

  • Pat Phillips

    Well said. thanks for articulating so clearly arguments that explain my own discomfort with chivalrous acts and the discomfort I have observed in men and boys when I have extended courtesies to them, usually afforded only women and girls. We in Jamaica have a loong way to go. When I refused to change my surname to my husbands in my first marriage I got cussing from not just men but so many women. Now in my second marriage 2 decades later, I have changed my surname as a symbolic gesture of removing the name of my stepfather who sexually abused me as a child. I use the gesture tobreak the silence and repeatedly share it with others when tehy want ot knwo why I am so different with this marriage. I have not escaped the wrath of my male and female connections tho as I refuse to use Mrs , retaining my usual title of Ms to denote just gender and not marital status. But O I have strayed..this was on chivalry. May it indeed die and be reborn as we all become courteous and respectful, helpful and considerate to all human beings of all genders , ages, abilities,ethniciteis, socio-economic levels according to our means. Selah!