This comment and subsequent thread were extremely interesting and presented a lot of information in the context of Chivalry, Feminism, and Male Privilege.
My aim here is to offer a rebuttal of some of the key points in defense of Chivalry and in opposition to both ‘feminism’ and the satirically styled ‘male privilege’.
First, let us establish the thesis to be rebutted:
Premise 1 – Courtly Love is how people understand Chivalry; both should be condemned.
Premise 2 – Chivalry, as it pertains to women, serves more to reinforce the false ideology of feminism than to detract it.
Premise 3 – Chivalry allows women, at times, to get away with murder, literally.
Thesis – Chivalry may once have had value, but does no more due to the linguistic evolution of the word and it’s use and conflation with related ideas. This new conception of chivalry may once have protected, but now it enables, a class of people who capitalize fully on the advantage.
Accuracy of Past or Present
The first challenge is to establish which has the most value: Contemporaneous usage of a word, or the original and historical usage of the word. For this we can find plenty of arguments for or against each side of the argument.
The word idiot is derived from the greek idiotes which means ‘Layman’. In essence, the word originally described someone who does not take up their civic responsibility. In a democratic society such as theirs, where they cast lots for lawmakers, one who shirked this duty was a liability to society. The condemnation of the civic class on the private man caused the word to assume it’s implied rhetorical meaning as the one we now know in our dictionaries. idiot is presently known to all as a mentally deficient person. If, based on my recent musing about elections, I described myself as an idiot, all would understand me to be referring to myself as mentally deficient, and none would consider (and fewer would know) that my intent was referring to myself as simply a non-civic layman.
A word more closely resembling the concept of Chivalry is virtue, derived from the latin virtus which retains nearly the same meaning, and some additional meanings, across time: Virtue is the body of values and traits that make the ideal man. The ideal man has changed only slightly over time, but many of the virtues have remained the same.
So this reduces us to two options: Has Chivalry, as a word and idea, retained it’s original meaning and gained additional ones, or has it’s meaning changed entirely from it’s original sense?
Chivalry derives from the latin Caballus (horse) and via french chevalier (knight, or person who rides a horse), to chevalerie (art of horse riding / art of knighthood), and then anglicized in its present form Chivalry (code of martial honor). The contemporary dictionary definition retains both the historical sense (“the medieval knightly system with its religious, moral, and social code.”) and the contemporary sense (“courteous behavior, especially that of a man toward women.”) This leads me to believe that Chivalry has acquired additional meanings, like Virtue; rather than changed entirely, like Idiot.
The Body of Meaning
Now that we know we are not dealing with simply one word and one definition, but rather the historical word and it’s broad collection of meanings, we must parse out what is relevant to our discussion or not. There are two primary concerns here. First: Is ‘Courtly Love’ contained within the body of meaning surrounding Chivalry? Second: Is ‘Courteous behavior (…) toward women’ distinct from other definitions or can it be subsumed into the greater idea?
Regarding Courtly Love: This idea is tangential to Chivalry, but was argued as the ‘cultural definition’ of the word. The dictionary definition reads as follows:
a highly conventionalized medieval tradition of love between a knight and a married noblewoman, first developed by the troubadours of southern France and extensively employed in European literature of the time. The love of the knight for his lady was regarded as an ennobling passion and the relationship was typically unconsummated.
The key idea here is that it is a literary device. After the crusades, Chivalry captured the cultural imagination of Europe, resulting in an astounding volume of work romanticizing Chivalry. These were almost all satirized in Cervantes’ work, Don Quixote, who depicted a man obsessed with books of chivalry and who rode off on a mad adventure typically involving hallucinating events differently than they actually played out. Courtly Love is also disputed as being an actual historical practice, and is instead regarded as exclusively a literary device. Chivalry then is a historical concept that predates Courtly Love, and it’s contemporary definition bears no resemblance to Courtly Love, other than, arguably, platonic deference to women. Therefore Courtly Love is a distinct idea that is only associated with Chivalry in fiction, and not in fact.
Secondly, what can we say regarding that deferential idea? Chivalry, as noted previously, includes a religious and moral code which includes a set of virtues. Especially since Chivalry is associated with the Crusades, they were considered militant Holy Orders who were religiously obligated to conduct themselves in a way that would esteem the Church. As a celibate holy order (in structure, if not in practice), these Knights were obligated to not just defer to women but to defer to all people except their enemy. Conduct themselves virtuously, in other words. Polite deference to women is included in that idea.
Chivalry versus Feminism
The inception of this discussion was with a blogger somewhere renouncing chivalry. He claimed, in part, that Chivalry enables feminism and encourages poor behavior by women, by virtue of unwarranted deference. Rather than deferring to them, Men and Women should be treated as equals, with all the good and bad that that implies.
There are a number of points here that must be addressed in turn. First: Does Chivalry, in fact, offer dangerous deference to women? Second: Feminism is something that should not just be discouraged, but fought against, and chivalry is not the most effective means thereof. Third: Men and Women should be treated as equals.
Begin at the beginning: Does Chivalry offer dangerous deference to women? I answer: No. Chivalry, properly conceived in both it’s historical and contemporary sense, is centered around this idea of virtue. A chivalrous man is obligated, first and foremost, to treat all people with dignity and respect. If someone does not treat him with respect, he is obligated to love his enemy but not to his own detriment. Considering ad absurdem: Chivalry does not bar a man from defending himself if a woman is holding him at gunpoint, compared to a man holding him in the same situation. Chivalry does not bar a man from chastising a woman who is rude or aggressive towards him. Chivalry does not bar a man from encouraging the practice of virtue in those around him. Women who believe Chivalry requires deference, do not understand Chivalry. Men who believe the same suffer the same misconception.
Secondly, regarding Feminism. ‘Armchair Crusaders’ have a bizarre fascination with feminism, as if it is a force that needs to be fought. The best solution, in my mind, is to ignore it. Feminism, that toxic blend of toxic individuals, men and women alike, who are unable to self soothe when life doesn’t go easily for them, is being cultivated and encouraged by social forces outside of any individuals control. The best thing anyone can do is have lots of kids and raise them in virtue. So Feminism doesn’t merit a response, and Chivalry is not and never was a ‘tool’ for fighting feminism, and it is certainly not additive to the problem, unless someone who misunderstands chivalry waves the flag of chivalry to justify their behavior. Chivalry, properly conceived, is indifferent to the ravings of entitlement.
Thirdly, I will be brief: Men and women are not equals, and so should not be treated equally. The article this conversation was born in was about women being eligible for the draft. Women should not be eligible for the draft, not out of chivalry, but out of a sense of cultural preservation. When the men die in battle, women must heal a broken nation at home. If men and women die in battle, no one will be left. It is a practical matter. Equality is deleterious to social health.
Murder: A Woman’s Crime
There was another, more outlandish claim, that Chivalry literally allows women to get away with murder. In evidence: A stat that women commit about 10% of the murders, but make up less than 3% of the executions. Also, some articles from the early 20th century.
First, Men are evolutionary hardwired to be sympathetic to women. A woman crying has a powerful instinctive effect on men, and that has nothing to do with Chivalry. So some disparity should be allowed for that. Second, I don’t believe ‘committing murders’ and ‘executions’ are congruent statistics, since the death penalty is not universally legal. There are a number of variables between murder and execution that could easily reduce the proportion of women. Finally: Justice is, and should be, blind. Feminism or Chivalry should have no part in it, and I have not seen adequate evidence that the justice system is stacked favorably to women. Yes, men bear a heavy portion of incarcerations and penalties. However: Men also commit a heavy portion of the crimes which deserve it. This is not a hardship to men, this is inherent in our nature. A sufficient number of people will always have a greater portion of men committing crimes than women.
Chivalry is Dead, Long Live Chivalry
The premises on their own do not stand, and the Thesis itself is built on misconceptions about chivalry and feminism and what they mean and the consequences thereof. Chivalry, as a body of virtues, is still a force for good in the world, if it draws people to learn about the virtues it implies. It’s historical and contemporary definitions are not so out of sync as to be totally different from each other, and society would do well to cultivate more chivalry, rather than renounce it and decrease it.
I hope this has served as an effective rebuttal to the discussion about Chivalry.
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 