The Chivalry Papers - Part One: A Debt to Women?
April 10, 2004
by Bernard Chapin
I
began writing non-fiction on a weekly basis in February of 2003 and
a great many of my initial efforts were far from satisfying. Perhaps
the least pleasing, was a column entitled “Is Chivalry
Dead”. The effort was far too moderate and revealed a diplomacy
that is rarely present in my views on politically correct subject
matter. Therefore, I’m going to refine my position in a longer essay
of several parts called, “The Chivalry Papers.”
Chivalry is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as the medieval customs of knighthood and specifically embody “[t]he qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” Intrinsic to chivalry was the idea of the horseman and the word itself derives from the Latin “caballus” which refers to riding or pack horses.
For a word that derived from such esoteric beginnings, chivalry has gained widespread usage in our culture. Few have not heard it in reference to a man’s actions. When I grew up, I knew that it was an ideal for which men should strive. Yet, in this new millennium, opinions regarding its functionality are mixed. Some women still demand it from men, but others, such as the radical feminists, have taken the position that chivalry is an object of oppression because it implies that men are superior to women and that our deference is a form of condescension.
To me, while I hate to even partially agree with anything a radical feminist says, it is clear that times have changed and men must adjust to the times. We should no longer automatically be chivalrous to women. It should only be offered in a case by case manner. True adaptation to a changing environment means the abandonment of a man’s reflexive chivalry.
We are no longer great horsemen with lances, chain mail and armor plates (although the great majority of men in medieval times were poor peasants). Now, by virtue of affirmative action, we are the second sex of our state. It is harder for men to find work and the tables have been tilted against us when it comes to promotions and advancement.
I asked Dr. Lionel Tiger a question concerning the practice of chivalry and here’s what he said:
“Chivalry? What that? Men should shiver in the presence of women? It is kind of notorious, maybe even true, that women like sensitive men but prefer "real men." Women continue to prefer men slightly older and slightly wealthier than they are, which makes ultimate reproductive sense, and boytoys have a short sell-by date. Of course it makes no sense to defer to women or to anyone on programmatic grounds. It's neither fun nor dignified and never wins friends let alone admirers.”
There is much that truth in his words. Chivalry, in the modern sense, is a form of self-sabotage for men. It is a way of keeping us down. Why should we defer to the privileged members of our state? When we interview for employment our credentials cannot merely be equal to those of female applicants; they must be superior. With sexual harassment laws, women now have the power to destroy any man they don’t like or who once wounded their pride. Theirs is a superiority in which no male can share.
If the laws are tipped in the favor of females, then why should we continue to adopt social practices that further entrench their supremacy? I admit that it is hypocritical of me to take a hard line stance on this topic because I regularly open doors for women and help them carry bulky items. Yet the reason that I do so is not out of choice but out of social conditioning. I only take the time to reflect on the nature of why I do it when the reaction to my efforts are hostile.
A few years ago I was walking out of a bar in Wicker Park and I held the door open for a group of girls. It was, as far as commercial doors go, rather heavy. The lead girl shooed me away with her hands and said snippily, “I can do it.” I let go of the door at once and it hit her with a large thud. She pushed on it two or three times before successfully opening it. I laughed about the incident for the rest of the night. Why shouldn’t I? Those who honor me I will honor. Those who do not I will avoid.
The field in which I work is dominated by women and it always will be (regardless of the myth about legions of female engineers and scientists being just around the corner). I have found that whenever the children we educate become aggressive or nasty they instinctively turn to the nearest patriarch regardless of what anyone in Womyn’s Studies or NOW should tell you.
At work, with an emotionally disturbed population and a staff that is three-quarters female, there are numerous opportunities for me to be injured breaking up fights or deterring general anarchy. Indeed, over the past six years I’ve participated in countless physical restraints and separated a good many combatants from one another.
On one occasion my intervention got me rebuked by our administration as I made a snap decision to run over and stop a student from kicking our dean in the ribcage as he lay prone on the ground. None of the female staff members in the wing raised a finger to help him, but I was found at fault for leaving a parent in the hallway to witness his beating.
Perhaps the most comical moment came a couple of months ago while I was giving a tour of the building. When we got to the lunchroom a teacher pleaded with me to get in the middle of two NFL sized students who were about to exchange blows. I did and miraculously no fight occurred and no one was injured (although, the parents who I was giving the tour to declined to enroll their child to in our school!).
What caused me to write this piece was an incident that occurred just the other day when there was a call for staff support over a fracas in a far corner of the facility. A teacher asked me in the hallway asked me why I didn’t run up there to assist. I told her I had work to do. I then asked her why she didn’t run up there to assist. She gave me no answer.
Her question appalled me for two reasons. First, I had run into her classroom to break up a fight two weeks before and she never thanked me for it. Second, her implication was that I should do such things because I am a man. My genitalia means that such behaviors are expected. Most women believe this, even though the thought of paying me more to work there would strike them as being the height of social injustice. Ironically, the woman’s abusive attitude and surly character would have made her a much better candidate for intervention than I, but I’m sure that most people don’t see it that way.
If I do not intervene to provide women with special protection then does that make me less of a man? Of course not, although women often proclaim which men are “true men” and which men are not. I believe that when women question a guy’s manhood they are actually conveying their displeasure with a particular man not adhering to their wishes and commands. When they say “he is not a real man,” you can be pretty sure this fellow has not caved in to the pressure with which they applied. For this reason, my readers, I should not allow women’s opinions to have an influence on one’s self-identity or pride. The opposite of their judgments are often the truth as those that are above their manipulations are more likely to be the “true men.”
In the instances that I’ve cited, my physical safety would be in placed in jeopardy on a daily basis if I complied with female commands and requests. However, the inevitable question that must be answered is, why is my life less important than theirs? Clearly it is not. There are females for whom I would willingly sacrifice my life but that list is quite thin. My mother and sister are two examples both due to familial bond, and also because of the shame that would haunt me if I did not defend them with until my last breath. Then would come my newborn niece, several aunts, a few cousins, our retired school nurse, and some conservative columnists– but that’s about it. Why should it be otherwise? To say that it should be is to admit my own inferiority. I am not now, or should I ever be, the pawn of women.
If you need any more proof of the validity of my argument, consider the reactions that will come from my writing this piece. In most circles it will be deemed misogynistic, but it is not in any way. I hold women to be my equals which means that I will treat them in the same fashion in which they treat me. Just as they will not risk bodily harm to save me I should not risk bodily harm to save them. My view is the height of equality. Is not such behavior the logical outcome of affirmative action, the sexual revolution, and endless propaganda about women and men being absolutely equal? In this twenty-first century we should only risk death for those who are our blood or those who are devoted to us. Being a slave to the matriarchy does not make one a man.
