The Atlantic posted an article last week by Acculturated’s own
Emily Esfahani Smith entitled “Let’s
Give Chivalry Another Chance,” a reconsideration of the old-fashioned medieval
ideal. The piece has garnered, as of this writing, an astonishing 590 comments
which devolved into heated debate about everything from the origins of chivalry
to lifeboat etiquette on the Titanic.
But most interestingly, they reveal a seething anger about the topic from both women
and men. Why such a visceral reaction,
especially from men?
The commenters largely dismiss chivalry
as an outmoded term loaded with sexist and classist baggage. They confuse it
with politeness and point out that courtesy knows no gender. “BOTH sexes should
be chivalrous,” wrote one woman. But chivalry is more than merely opening a
door for someone. It used to be understood as the expression of the noblest and
most honorable qualities of manhood. Edmund
Burke called it the “nurse of manly sentiment and heroick enterprise”; Irish
writer Kenelm Digby called it the “spirit which disposes men to heroic and
generous actions.”
And yes, that heroick, manly
sentiment includes a gallant, respectful deference toward women and a devotion
to protect them if necessary, because that’s what a real man does. Only cads
and cowards do otherwise. A chivalrous man doesn’t shove women and children aside
to flee danger like a
panicked George on Seinfeld.
Baker’s contempt is indicative of
decades of cultural and academic indoctrination that have demonized chivalry
into near-obsolescence. Young people have been pumped so full of politically
correct theory about “gender power structures” and the like that they consider
gentlemanly behavior oppressive and “immoral,” as at least one Atlantic commenter put it. A woman now believes
that a male who holds a door for her is trumping her in some kind of demeaning,
patriarchal power play. And so today we have a culture in which young women
proudly call
themselves sluts but bristle at being called ladies (Baker’s reaction to that
word was “BARF”). They have been taught to imitate the coarsest behavior of men
while showing contempt for men who behave decently and honorably.
The result is twofold: one, women like
Baker mistakenly believe they are liberated when they are nothing more than
parodies of frat boys; two, men end up feeling emasculated and defensive, so
they simply adopt the attitude of the Atlantic
commenters who said “We'll start
acting like gentlemen when modern females start acting like ladies” and “I was raised to respect women… but now I
treat them like the guy next door.”
Being a lady and allowing yourself
to be treated like one isn’t about being a helpless prude – it’s about
respecting yourself and embracing your authentic nature. Being a chivalrous man
isn’t about condescension or oppression – it’s about embracing the duties of
manhood, including being prepared to defend women in a world that’s no less
violent than it ever was (despite our self-delusion otherwise), whether they
need it or not. Women today claim, “We can take care of ourselves!” Perhaps so;
nearly every female friend of mine has mad gun skills. But that doesn’t absolve
a man of his responsibility.
Equality is good. Equal pay for
equal work? Absolutely. Equal rights under the law? Unquestionably. Those are
the positive, hard-won legacies of the feminist movement. But where feminism went
off the rails was in its relentless assault on manhood and its obliteration of
traditional gender roles. Denying age-old, hard-wired differences between men
and women isn’t equality, except insofar as it makes men and women equally resentful,
confused and polarized.
Rather than redefine chivalry as
unisex civility for a post-feminist era, both sexes would benefit if young men
embraced it once again as an intrinsically masculine ideal, and if women
welcomed it as such. A modern renaissance of chivalry will produce more men of
exemplary character, and fewer cads and cowards.
(This article originally appeared here on Acculturated, 12/14/12)
