15 January 2011

On Chivalry

Ever since Dalrock blew this subject up, the manosphere (there has to be a better term than this) has happily discussed this subject. After reading Hestia’s post at A Voice for Men, I thought I would weigh in.  Hestia’s thoughts first:

The code of chivalry was never meant to apply to the male population at large but rather a small subset who were the tough warriors of their day. These warrior ethos did not mean male servitude to women but called for a brotherhood between knights, courage during times that conjure up great fear, and dedication to king and cause. Part of the code did address taking care of the widow and orphan and being courteous to women but this was hardly the end all be all of this knightly code of honor. And back then, just as today, not all women were ladies; this was a title reserved for those of a certain social class not women who behave with a healthy heaping of decorum and propriety as the term is used today.

Women in general need to understand two things about chivalry.  First, chivalry is a voluntary behavior.  No man is required to behave chivalrously.  If a man wants to be chivalrous, he can do so, and do so on his terms.  Chivalry is a code freely chosen, a gift freely given.  No one can command it, else it ceases to be chivalry, and is instead nothing more than cruel slavery.

Second, chivalry can only come from a position of superiority.  Chivalrous acts are not granted to one’s equals.  These acts are not bestowed on those who have no lack.  They are given to those who lack, to those who need, to those who are inferior, whether in circumstance or standing.  To demand that men behave chivalrously towards women implies that women are, in some way, lower or inferior.  It is the nature of the definition.

Since women have been demanding equality for decades, they should not be surprised that chivalry is dead.  If women have equal standing with men, then men are literally in no position to act chivalrously towards women.  This isn’t rocket science, ladies.  It’s the natural consequence of decades of social reengineering.

No comments:

Post a Comment