Discussion: Modern Chivalry Dead?

[Sir Christopher Warren]

Greetings all,

It has been a little while since I have posted anything here but I think I would come back around and pick your brains about something I found the other day on the topic of Modern Chivalry or the lack thereof in society and why.

Here is the article I found: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-chivalry-is-dead.html

The Author raises some interesting points and some situations in the replies that I was flabbergasted to read about and yet they took place. I thought it would be interesting to hear some of your takes on the situation(s) to compare.

Very Respectfully,
Sir Christopher

[ECOX]

As far as holding doors and such. I still do and will do it. Never have had a bad word said against it. Mostly smiles, surprised looks and sometimes indifference. I will cling to this last shred of chivalry and enjoy it. As far as the Guy Ritchie thing, a simple hand up would not have hurt for a male for female that had fallen in such close proximity.

[Thorsteinn]

Equal rights does means equal responsibility.

Women can't have it both ways.

However, one can be the same level of descent to all folks you meet.

[Sir Christopher Warren]

Good points I agree. I think on the issue of how women can't have it both ways makes a good argument on how women view men and how distorted and unfair that predisposed view can be.

In the case of Guy Ritchie not helping the woman who had fallen is indeed a gross lack of humanity much less politeness. The author of the article goes on to almost justify the action by explaining how women who have moved away from the traditional role of homemaker and the keys to our progeny to being a success in a occupation or being more self made and so on. Thereby the necessity for a man to act Chivalrous has all but fallen to the wayside.

The author then goes on to say "My habit is to treat women as they wish to be treated. If a woman insists that she is equal to me, then I will show her no more favor or mercy than I would show a man. Pay for yourself, defend yourself, and get your own damn door. If, on the other hand, a woman indicates that she subscribes to traditional and unequal standards, I am pleased to show her with all the conventional courtesy that was previously provided to all the members of the erstwhile "fair sex"." Which is to say he will be chivalrous when it suits the situation.

Which in my view is rather contradictory to the spirit of chivalry. I would argue that Chivalry is not something to be switched on and off like a light switch. Rather it is a method by which one lives life and how and why one responds to any given situation.

So in light of what a woman would say or how they would respond in kind should have little or even no bearing on whether or not one should be chivalrous. Indeed the idea of chivalry being founded on not only principles of honor, courage, self sacrifice but also prowess, self reliance, and fortitude among other things. Chivalry in a time of convenience or when it is at the pleasure of women is not chivalrous at all. To lower yourself and to not do what you know and feel is right based on how someone may respond is a weakness of character and a lack of prowess and confidence.

Simply because a woman does not wish a door opened for her or does not wish a hand up is besides the point. Indeed it should not matter that the person is male or female. The simple fact that a fellow human being is in distress or even in need of civility in day to day life should be a call to chivalric action despite the response.

[Leganoth]

I understand some points if a woman thinks she can do things for herself and she is getting angry about you even holding a door open saying she doesnt need help from anyone, then and i say bluntly screw her. But. Anyone else man or woman if I was to see somone fall or somthing like that I would help them up unles theyre like some huge person where my help wouldnt matter, I cant lift a 500 lb man or woman, but im getting off topic. Aside from that its just human nature to help out and be kind

[SirNathanQ]

I think that while being kind isn't human nature, it is the nature of chivalry.
I will not compromise my chivalry because a woman might say it's demeaning. Chivalry isn't gender specific. It applies to all. Am I any less chivalrous to a person simply because they don't need my immediate help, regardless of gender? I think I should not be. 

[Sir Christopher Warren]

Indeed Chivalry is not gender specific. In the case where a woman feels it is demeaning for a male to be chivalrous is a woman who likely subscribes to the gender equality ideal where women can do anything a man can do.
Which is all well and good but in the case where a woman is disgusted and scorns a man for being polite or being "old fashioned" is in effect being uneqaul by demanding a man NOT be chivalrous.
Where the concept of equality is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The demand to not follow one's belief to act in good nature to fellow humans be they male or female is a form of oppression and certainly not equal...even if it is formed and done so in ignorance.

[Sir Rodney]

The basis for this article was the "Guy Ritchie incident".  Plainly said, he acted like a cad.   

Chivalry is not dead in modern American society, and I'm a pessimist.  I've viewed simple acts such as holding an elevator for someone, holding a door for a lady and assisting the less fortunate among us on a daily basis.  The "political correctness" craze in the first decade of this century has created a form of backlash in my opinion.  I'm encountering more "plain talk" and "honest action" than I did 10 years ago.

Take my opinion for what's worth. I am an Eagle Scout, SCA member, aspiring European martial artist and a Yeoman in the Order of the Marshal.  My glasses may have a bit of a rose colored tint.   

[Sir William]

Well said, all around.  Chivalry is not dead, it isn't a light switch- you either live it or don't, although for my part, I do struggle at times...if only because there are so many who lack the ability or upbringing to appreciate such.

But chivalry is about more than just polite words and kind gestures...it really is about caring for your fellow man, even though there may be no such definition written down, that is all it really is.  Whether or not a particular person subscribes to the notion, derides it or has no idea of it- it still exists for me and in me and so long as that is the case and I still draw breath- chivalry lives.

[SirNathanQ]

Well said, Sir William! 

[Sir Brian]

Hear hear! Well said by all! I consider it a great honor to be associated with such stalwart and chivalrous comrades! 

[Sir Christopher Warren]

Indeed well said all.

As Sir William said the chivalrous life is a struggle. That is the point I think though. A chivalrous person I feel is one who constantly seeks improvement and is constantly growing.

The other side of the struggle is that in a modern society it is not the popular thing to do. It is the truly chivalrous person who can look at society and say "So what?!" and do the proper thing and act the proper way even if it is not well received.

[Joshua Santana]

The article does get the facts right.  However, I see Chivalry as a Warrior Code of Moral Principles and Virtues that are never gender based or biased.  It is a Code that speaks to all people that are willing to listen and believe. 

In terms of women stating that Chivalry is demeaning or biased.  They are blind from their false notions of Chivalry and take that to be the truth (this also applies to men sadly).  Does this mean that I reject my sense of Honor or Moral Nobility?  Never.

Often the notion of Chivalry as demeaning or dead does come from their self-centeredness  and egoism.  This is the result of popular culture getting into the head of a generation. 

But there is hope, we are that hope that Chivalry lives on.  We are the people that says "No, you are wrong and we can prove why you are wrong" (with as much Civility and Chivalry as possible).

[Sir Patrick]

I agree with everyone that chivalry is not dead (we're here aren't we?).  Yes, we live in an egocentric society, but at what point in history was that not the case?  I think the problem for us is that the Victorians distilled chivalry down to manners.  While courtsey is important, it is but one facet of a much larger ideal.  If courtesy alone is our yardstick of chivalry, then every James Bond bad guy would be considered chivalrous!  We must remember that chivalry is an ideal, and to walk the path requires continual self-evaluation and adjustment.  There are many facets to the ideal, and the parts that come easy to me may be a struggle for someone else (and vice versa).  So yes, we encounter rude people out there, but are they truely unchivalrous, or just struggling at that moment with one element of chivalry?  Sure there are bad apples out there, but there must also be more chivalry than we realize, too.

[Sir James A]

Should a lady fall, it's both chivalrous and common courtesy to offer assistance; whether they accept it or not is their choice. And counterpoint, should a gentleman fall, a "modern" lady should likewise offer assistance as well. This has nothing to do with the lady's choice to have children or not, to have a career or not, or to have self esteem or not; I believe that as humans we are all created equal at birth, as man or woman, and the only thing that sets our "worth" as greater or lesser between one another is the actions we take throughout life. The world would be a far better place if everyone simply showed one another the common courtesy and respect that seems to have nearly dissolved from existence in modern society.

I have one grievous disagreement with that article, in that the author says

Each woman must be judged worthy or unworthy of such treatment on her own merits, and in the absence of any information, the assumption must be that she is unworthy.

Bollocks, to put it politely. If we go forth assuming every woman is unworthy of being treated as an equal, and that they aren't entitled to chivalrous actions (and even common courtesy) simply because they have an interest in being independent and/or having a career, then we, as a society, have truly failed beyond words.