Chivalry And Why We're Bloody Confused By It

The idea of chivalry has been misconstrued. The version that is so often bemoaned about in relationship circles, is a mythicised version of something else entirely. For the sake of forming healthy relationships, we must note the difference between; being a considerate thoughtful person and being chivalrous.

CHIVALRY 101 - A CODE FOR KNIGHTS...AND NOT YOUR EVERYDAY PERSON

That's right, chivalry was a code for one group of people; high ranking professional soldiers from the Medieval period. The original definition of the word is from old French, meaning 'horsemanship' or 'horse soldiery'. And as you might have already noticed, the word Chivalry is not that far away from that of Cavalry. ​So you'd be right in thinking that the concept has even older roots. The use of the word 'Calvary' was first deployed by the military horseman of the Roman Empire, but by the time we reach 1170AD, the newer definition intermixes a knight's warrior code, with Christian principles and the behavioural protocol for royal courts. It was around this time, that writers and musicians began using the chivalrous knight as a character, a force for good, who went around doing noble and romantic deeds. It is from their writings and songs, that the first false notions of chivalry emerge.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF A KNIGHT

There are 3 areas that influenced the chivalric code - the military, the nobility and religion. And although the following commandments were actually created in 1883 by historian Leon Gautier, these are pretty much a collection of what was expected of a knight.

​1. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.
2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
4. Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
5. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
6. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
7. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
8. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
9. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
10. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

CHIVALRY VS POLITENESS & RESPECT

The contention that some people have with the idea of chivalry, is that it has been mistakenly replaced with a general sense of good manners and respect. First off, the knights code wasn't gender specific; you were supposed to look out for everybody's interests. As for modern day reasoning, the following is not an example of chivalry. As I am walking through a door, I see someone coming up, right behind me. I hold the door open for them to walk through or hold the door ajar, for them to grab the handle and enter in their own time. This quick and painless motion is an act of politeness and I would do it for anyone without much thought. The last time I was sitting on the London tube, I gave up my space for an elderly man who walked with a cane. I consider this compassionate, not chivalrous law number 3. In simply seeing someone in need, I did what I could to help. Anyone else seeing the same thing and not caring enough to act, well yes, it is annoying, but compassion is not a virtue given out at birth. 

WHAT IS POLITE FOR YOU, MIGHT NOT BE FOR THEM.

"Some people really don't recognise the need others have, hence the priority notices having to be put up on buses and the Underground."

Respect, politeness, manners and even that code of chivalry are all elements of behaviour that are taught, they are not wholly natural responses. Some people really don't recognise the need others have, hence the priority notices having to be put up on buses and the Underground. Our natural instincts are to find safety, comfort and pleasure for ourselves. However, once we are made aware of our social responsibilities, then some of us start to act accordingly. Admittedly, I do practice some of the acts that fall under the banner of traditional chivalry and yes I realise it is because I am dealing with a woman. But I do have my limits. Being a woman is not enough for me to offer you my seat. You can stand in front of me, huffing and puffing, rolling your eyes at me until they fall out their sockets, but can you, yourself qualify why being a woman automatically entitles you to my seat? Give me a single, valid reason and it's yours...but be careful, as surely this is dangerous ground!

And by 'dangerous ground' I mean are we about to re-open this doorway, that infers that women need some sort of special treatment, because they are what? Weaker? More dainty? The fairer sex? Then everything that is associated with that particular sexist framing is subject to being re-opened and brought back. We'd be setting women back a good 50+ years and no one could complain. ​​

DID FEMINISM REALLY KILL CHIVALRY?

I am not an anti-feminist. Equality on all fronts ultimately balances the universe and we could all do with some peace, love and happiness. But part of the consequence of equality, is to take on all the burdens you were protected from before. Yes, first and foremost there is the receiving of perks and rewards you were unfairly denied. But there is also the ugly stuff too, the things that men themselves don't even want to deal with. As far as I know, there were no female knights in the middle ages, but circa 20th century until present day, there have been and continue to be female soldiers. They have witnessed the same ugly things in battle that men have seen for centuries. But could you imagine a sexist framing, for treating PTS victims. "O well they're men, so they should be able to deal with blood, guts and death. But the women are weaker and less emotionally built for war, they need extra counselling..."

You See The Problem? How can you have a 'Benevolent Sexist'. By its definition, there is no benefit to sexism! And how can you have a 'Hostile Sexist" by its definition, sexism is hostile! But can you blame them for being confused by the interwoven chivalrous duality, which produces the double standard.

What kind of irresponsible rationale is that for treatment! For the men, it increases their chance of falling into mental health problems and for the women, it's patronising as hell.

Revolutions often lead to a lengthy, played out evolution. And in this current slow period where we are re-working the finer points in sexual politics, I see women's desires becoming more and more individualised. I mean, worldwide, we can all stand as a group and say we oppose sexism, but when we are dealing with personal desires and also factoring in our cultural norms too, what is chivalrous to you, certainly isn't to another. If I asked you to classify what you see as chivalrous behaviour, amongst a group of 200 random women, I imagine that some women would fully agree with your points, some only in part and the rest would be like no to it all! So, how can men and women have equal positions in life as an ethos, but then think we have to treat each other unequally in other aspects, without any real reason.  

"It is noteworthy, that these precepts and principles can be practiced forever. Chivalry on the other hand, often dies when familiarity rises."

A woman who works on a construction site, might wonder why you as a man are treating her in a certain way, when she (unknowingly to you) has been hauling around building materials all day, equal to her own body weight. This is why I place an emphasis on being polite, respectful and gracious, each of which are universal concepts in positive interaction. It is noteworthy, that these precepts and principles can be practiced forever. Chivalry on the other hand, often dies when familiarity rises. There is also the additional problem that many men can no longer see the difference between chivalry, condescension and sexism. How is a man suppose to know what you want him to aspire to, in his treatment of you in the 21st Century. These days everyone has mildly to wildly different expectations. Some want the full gamut of what is considered chivalrous, someone else wants a jambalaya of practices that stem from the 1800s to present day and someone else wants a complete break from tradition. If you're a young adult or a teenager heading into adulthood, circa 2017, some of the ideas of romantic chivalry might confuse the hell out of you, because you are of the generation that has seen the most impactful results, regarding female empowerment, which doesn't promote chivalry - it promotes equality.

WHO PAYS FOR THE DATE?

The following minefield comes courtesy of the askmen website, it is from an article written by Tom Fordy. All I did was take the subheading from each contributor, after the question of Who Pays For The Date was posed. The reason that I put this up, is that it shows you, that we all have different expectations of how we want to be treated or what we think is expected of us. So rather than demanding that chivalry should be some blanket expression, how about finding a man who was brought up in a manner, where his sense of decency and energy match yours. 
​
The Dating Coach: "Modern men should do things old school."
The Journalist: "You ask ‘em out, you pay out."
The Sex Blogger: "Go 50/50 every time."
The Stand-Up Comic: "Don’t forget who earns 19.7% more."
The Glamour Girl: "A man’s gotta spend to impress a girl."
The Academic: "Don’t try to buy a woman."
The Athlete: "It’s up to the guy to make a gesture."
The Showbiz Reporter: "Pay for the right reasons."
The Feminist Pundit: "It shouldn’t matter."
The Porn Star: "Insist on going all the way, fellas."

If you disagree with everything I have said, take this example and see if we can meet each other half way. A man and a woman have worked an equal amount of hours, for an equal amount of pay. They are both tired as they make their way home. On the way, the man boards a tube 4 stops before the woman. By the time the woman gets on the tube, all seats are taken. The woman is not ill, disabled, pregnant or in anyway mentally or physically impaired and stands in front of the said man. Why is her tiredness more valid than his? Now reverse the situation and have the man more visibly tired than the woman. Would you give up the seat for the man? 

Then let us be truthful. What we have to nervously admit, is that we are all clinging to notions of what a man is and what a woman is and how each gender is suppose to act. That is the crux of the problem and there isn't a solution to it because we are individuals, with varying shades of desire. In the end, we are not talking about chivalry or even equality, we are talking about your personal idea of a relationship and that is something you are going to have to scout out on your own. No man that is a stranger to you, is going to know all your expectations. Either he has been brought up in a way that agrees with you or you have to tell him how to be...and that kinda kills the knight in shining armour scenario, because part of the allure of the knight fantasy, is that he knows everything you like, without having to be told - a ridiculous expectation. No one goes into a restaurant and expects the waiter to know what they want to eat without being told, but in a relationship, you have to know every single thing about a person in advance?! 

CHIVALRY OR A GOOD UPBRINGING?

The concept of dating is to find out about a person, to see if you're compatible or even adaptable. Not to entertain yourselves into a relationship. Someone once asked; "If men owe women chivalry, what do women owe men?" I would say the relating etiquette and that also requires training, because not all women are well mannered, polite or respectful.

​PS. It's my mum and dad's 45th wedding anniversary today, I'm wondering if they have contributed to my view?

ADVICE