It’s very fashionable of late to attack Men’s Rights Activists as holding a contempt for chivalry, and this is used as grounds for further canards such as being anti-family, anti-woman, hopeless misogynists, whiners, and so on and so forth. The whole litany of ad hominem attacks follows. Okay. To give a shallow answer to a shallow observation: "Damn straight! We do hold chivalry in contempt. Bailiff! Haul us away in irons! Guilty as charged!"

The disconnect here, is that people who blithely drop the word “chivalry” have little understanding of what it actually means in a historical sense. It has been prostituted and devolved into a one way street in modern thinking and usage, which is why we speak of it in such mocking and derisive terms. Pull up a seat, one and all, and let your Uncle Pete enlighten you.

Chivalry originated among the noble classes, and as such was inapplicable to commoners, in the first place. A peasant, serf, yeoman farmer, and such could be chivalrous no more than a fish could be ridden into battle. It is like the term "vassal." If I claimed someone as my vassal, the modern reader would assume I meant an inferior, my lackey; in actuality I could not have a vassal/leige agreement with anyone who was NOT my equal. Chivalry similarly was practiced strictly among the noble classes. The concept of "chivalry" from a noble to a commoner would be met with blank and uncomprehending stares by someone of the age. Exhibiting courtesy towards an inferior? Whatever for? While true, peasants were the work force and by and large you didn't gratuitously mistreat them any more than you would mistreat your draft horse, honorable behavior was not exhibited towards them because they were not honorable people.

If you were my peasant, I could have you hung if you displeased me sufficiently. Speak out of turn? The back of my hand. Maybe twice, just for forcing me to the effort of keeping you in line. You are then expected to lower your eyes and murmer your apologies in a low enough tone of voice that you did not further disrupt the conversation of your betters.

Man or woman, it doesn't matter. As one who is not of the aristocracy, you come near to meriting the term of "Non-Person." Do I rape your daughter? No. Not out of any respect, though, for her as a woman, but for the same reason I don't copulate with the goats. One does not buggar animals. One does not defile the noble schlong by placing it inside the common trollop - and if I do, you consider yourself honored that I deigned to consider you worthy. Forget about marriage. If I'm in a good mood it might merit a chickle before I pimp-slap you for the termity of suggesting such a thing. A generous person might move you and your child to easy duty, or drop some silver here and there. Most the time? The peasant bastard of the highborn rising to his father’s court, I am afraid, is strictly an invention of sword-and-sorcery novelists. My noble blood is hopelessly diluted by your serf blood. I did improve the stock though. Consider yourself privileged, and shut up, slut.

There’s a word guaranteed to rouse the ire of feminists and their allies. “Slut” To spare a whole tangent, do a search sometime on the entymological origins of the term "slut." You'll find it most enlightening. A peasant woman, for instance, was not expected to be a virgin on her wedding night, as such aspirations were considered far above their station - as peasants they oviously lacked the moral fiber to do so. Had they the moral fiber for this, they would be nobles. Q.E.D.

Now, back to business. As I sit here at my computer desk my feet are stretched out. All who walk in are going to see the soles of my size 18’s. Why do I mention this? Well, were you an Arab, and I did that, I have insulted you beyond tolerance. We must fight - because if we do not, your brother Arabs will consider you to have backed down from being "dissed." You have your honor to maintain, after all. And it matters not a bit that I didn’t intend such an insult to your pride.

Now this speaks to the rise of Heralds and Diplomats - such people practiced certain protocols, free from societal restraints, between each other, to keep rulers from meeting face to face in a fashion which would FORCE a showdown of sorts. The heralds, the diplomats meet, all speaking on a neutral ground in relation to the customs of their own culture.

Chivalry is one of those protocols. Originally it was strictly rules of war and engagement. It evolved to incoporate a code duello, and finally as a code of interaction that enabled it, among other things, to be clear whether one was insulted or not. Originally, I treated your wives and daughters in a chivalrous manner so as not to give offense to YOU. There were rules on the kissing of hands, for instance - to an intimate, it might be a lingering kiss, to the queen I would place my forehead on her hand. Either way, so long as I abided by the code of Chivalry, I was considered courteous, and you had no grounds to take offense.

Our forebears well understood that men and women not only spoke differently, but thought differently, so chivalry came to include rules for interaction between the sexes. It was dishonorable to fight a woman - they had no hope of winning. Thus, madam, you are obliged to not take advantage of this and behave in a manner that challenges me. Since I speak gently to you, you do so with me. I marry you and provide you with security. I don't diddle other women, because such might result in you having to share the maintainance which is yours - you bear my children and mine alone so I'm not footing the bill for another man's issue. The little dance of "courtly love" were means of men and women communicating intents and interest to each other both discretely and in no uncertain terms. The list goes on.

Nowadays chivalry has become one sided. Not only do women feel free challenge me, I'm expected to give them a five step head start and carry a seventy-five pound pack to “make it fair.” I speak gently to them, and they get to berate me like a fishwife. I hold the door, and it's their due. I merit no thanks - why? Because I'm a peasant, as a male. I'm obligated to them, but they are under no obligation in returne. So, speaking in modern terms, we can only arrive at one conclusion - chivalry has been perverted into becoming strictly a regulation of male behavior, of obligating men to behave towards women in a certain fashion, with no commeasurate obligation of a woman to courtesy beyond what she deigns to give.

Such attitudeas as this is why we Eeeeeeeeeevil Men's Rights Activists so rightly reject it, and treat it with dripping scorn and contempt; and it is why we refuse to extend it to anyone by sheer dint of their gender, reserving it for those women who show themselves worthy of it. And worthy requires more than a set of jugs and the love muffin.

Pete Jensen