Chivalry--where did it go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
It’s not around any more. It was a code of conduct for men, for knights. Should we bring it back? (Without the coats of armor.)

“The best way to overcome the insanity of our own age is to look backward—to a time when chivalry mattered. We must look back, because we can’t (to anticipate a common and stupid retort) actually go back. We must be knights in shining armor, even if the world mocks knights; because if the Middle Ages needed knights, our own age needs them more. It is not simply that damsels are in distress; the whole world is in distress, largely because men are lacking the qualities that once defined knighthood. We need to bring those qualities back—to fatherhood, to the priesthood, to the world.”

 
I agree and until it comes back I’m going to be polite, kind and considerate.
 
I’d say I’d want more of a definition. Chivalry was, in many ways, always a fairy tale. That’s not to say fairy tales are always bad.

I think they mistake the opposition somewhat though. The opposition to a certain sort of masculinity is that it seems to depend on a femininity that is weak, that doesn’t take care of itself. It’s the sputtering confusion or even anger when I hold a door open, or pay for something because I know I have a better income.

I always wanted to be the paladin - a fact you could probably deduce from half my RPG characters. But that’s not my role in the chivalric system; in fact it’s often seen as an insult or an attack. That’s often the opposition.
 
It still exists and the best you can do is practice it yourself. Since Chivalry is an act that involves being virtuous and like all virtue it points outward rather than inward you can be a good role model to others by practicing it. By teaching them what real love is, that it is man acting according to his own nature which is love unchained by vice that enslaves his nature. Feminism spawned because men abused their positions for their own convenience and at the detriment of their fellow women. What virtues men failed at other women attempted to take them up foolishly but they weren’t given much choice. Man must love his woman like Christ loves the Church who give himself up for it.

This can be difficult but looking around how man treats his fellow man and woman at times it’s clear what is needed more than ever is more chivalry not less. I mean we even have men today supporting abortion on the grounds of women rights, how convenient for them that this is the only rights they care to speak up about which also benefits them. For society many years ago in times of disaster women and children were to be protected at all cost, were sacrificial love wasn’t even questioned. Today the children are tossed away from existence at the slightest notion of inconvenience so i’d say certainly Chivalry is need more than ever.
 
We don’t need to bring chivalry back. What matters is the morality that follows from God’s laws and revelations, essentially: divine law, and all the -isms like capitalism, socialism, etc., etc., are just passing circumstances of the time and ideologies focused on things that are not of the highest importance or absolute or fully objective. When we focus on -isms rather than on living out the faith, we give up some of the broader deposit of Christian morality in order to focus on a narrower section that’s intermingled with things that are not necessarily bad but may well be unimportant.

For example what do we care about nobility titles and inheritances, fiefdoms, feudal obligations? We have democracy now, and it’s not like democracy should be our top focus as Christians anyway. So some things are better left in the past. This includes the aspirations of warriors, landholders and all manner of intermediary rulers of the bygone feudal era.

As Christians we should be careful to avoid attaching religious or even moral significance to things like old-fashioned etiquette or standards of ‘gentlemanly’ or ‘ladylike’ conduct that are predicated on trying to cast a sufficiently prestigious impression, make us act like the upper crust of society and be accepted as belonging to such, etc. etc. That should be viewed on par with participating in SCA/ren faire events, or Victorian cosplays, and not as restoring ‘morality lost’.

And as a man brought up in chivalry, with no small dose of pretence attached thereunto, I still feel compelled to say we do need to get over the idea of woman worship. Give all that’s due and a lot of that which is at least not wrong to give, but avoid doing children or even adults of either sex the disservice of spoiling them with ‘princess treatment’ that could get out of hand. It can for example damage their chance at forming a functional relationship with one of the opposite sex or with society at large, by instilling ideas of enjoying a lofty status that is not recognized outside of one’s own imagination (this is also true of guys wanting to feel special as ‘knights’ or ‘lords’, even if they are actually real descendants of old nobility).
 
Wait, am I actually agreeing with you on something?

I do think people forget many times that these ideals were often only for the upper crust, and even then only halfway practiced. There are enough times historically where all the talk about chivalry served as a “noble” cover for the ancient activity of keeping a mistress. And I am all in favor of taking the true conclusion of equality - that men and women both be responsible for themselves.

If one aspires to a noble title, “saint” would be a far better goal for us than “knight” or “princess.”
 
From the article:

“This gentleman’s virtue includes the love of God, loyalty to the Catholic Church, the defense and honor of women, the protection of the helpless, the pursuit of wisdom, the development of physical prowess, the practice of mercy and empathy, the attainment of holy piety, continually striving toward perfection, and the rejection of materialism.”

That doesn’t sound like a bad ideal. The only item listed that might be questioned in the current day is ‘the defense and honor of women.’ It may be that women no longer desire to be defended, honored, or protected.
 
It’s funny because I think the defense and honor of women is the second most important point on that list…behind the love of God and tied with honoring the Church.

I also think that a majority of women want this from men.

Protecting and honoring women means to not take advantage of them. To respect them and love them.

Chivalry is so important. If I had a son…I’d strive for him to behave this way.

My husband respects me, my dignity, and my honor. He always has.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how chivalry would occur in the workplace. My current boss is a woman, she is very capable and the best person in her position that we ever had. But I don’t accord her any particular honor because she is a woman. I have female colleagues, and I don’t treat them any differently because of their sex.
 
JimG said:
That doesn’t sound like a bad ideal. The only item listed that might be questioned in the current day is ‘the defense and honor of women.’ It may be that women no longer desire to be defended, honored, or protected.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on how one defines those words.

I’m used to, when people talk a lot about defending and protecting and honoring women, it seems to end up doing so by putting them in a cage of sorts. I don’t want protection and defense if it requires me to sit back and let the men do all the “hard work.”
 
DarkLight said:
I suppose it depends on how one defines those words.

I’m used to, when people talk a lot about defending and protecting and honoring women, it seems to end up doing so by putting them in a cage of sorts. I don’t want protection and defense if it requires me to sit back and let the men do all the “hard work.”
Click to expand...
I think it’s difficult to find the balance.

For example I have no issue with how Mike Pence treats women differently unless it has an impact on their careers. I have coworkers who if they are going for vacation or just back will leave/greet a woman with a hug and cheek kiss but not a man and again I don’t consider that sexist.

Stuff like holding a door, carrying stuff or offering a seat (excluding pregnancy and that’s not because she is a woman as much as she is a person who needs the seat more than you do) I’m inclined to say only do what you would do for a man. I think doing anything differently would give the cage impression. I have offered to help a woman with luggage, not because she was a woman but because she was clearly struggling and I would have made the same offer to a man.

Defense, again if it was a man under attack and you would intervene do so. Otherwise don’t. Your decision should be based on does the victim seem to be coping and would you end up being a help or another victim, not on whether the victim a man or a woman.

Protection: Here I think of stuff such as walking a woman to a car/home. I see the value here in that a lone woman is more at risk of being attacked than a lone man. I would be reluctant unless it was someone you knew.

Honor: Most of the behaviors I think of here fall under what I consider common decency and should apply equally to men and women or on a per person basis. For example don’t watch your language around a woman because she is a woman but because you know she’s not comfortable with it and you would make the same accommodation for a man who preferred not to hear profanity.
 
There are plenty of chivalrous men out there. They are not hard to find. As Elf said, chivalry is basically good manners and common decency. Many if not most mature men who were raised right know how to act decently towards a woman, especially one whom they want to impress.

Some men’s concept of “chivalry” goes further, to expect certain behaviors from the woman - meekness, deferral to him, focus on homemaking rather than a career, etc. This is not what I’d call “chivalry”, it’s simply a set of expectations for a partner which may or may not be realistic. I once dated a guy who was into the whole chivalrous knights and ladies thing who had these kinds of expectations that his girlfriend should be a sweet, quiet princess type. I’m not like that and needless to say we did not stay together long. Both of us were able to find other people for long term relationships. The husband I did find treated me with respect and was very mannerly (he even was named “Most Polite” in his high school year book).

If a guy can get a woman to sign on to his expectations, then fine, perhaps they can be happy together. A woman who doesn’t like those expectations is free to walk away and find a man who fits better with what she wants. However, people of both genders are entitled to be treated decently and with good manners regardless of whether they are meek or assertive.
 
Men need to do this when they can. I do it when the situation calls for it. Young men should be taught virtuous behavior. It not only shows respect for the other person but towards oneself.
 
It has passed like rain on the mountains. Like wind in the meadow. Behind the hills. Into shadow.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
A good gesture today, can become a show or an act after a while. Maybe we don’t only need to look back, but learn from the past, how/why such a good intention died. Maybe the proper ‘chevalier’ and role model for men today to emulate, would be Joseph, He doesn’t denounce his wife so that she should “eternally indebted”, but He allows himself to guided by the Lord and gets no “societal recognition” for it.
 
Also, I think a society is strongest when a woman depends on the man, and the man likewise depends on the woman. Maybe “Jesus” today would have been referred to as a “mummy’s boy”, having a mother who followed (though she only “silently followed”), from crib to cross. And I think Mary would have loved to grow old wit the care of her husband, though she submitted to the Lord.
 
Last edited:
Yes, DarkLight, the true conclusion is that women, just like men, are responsible for themselves, because they have either equal or equivalent mental, intellectual and spiritual faculties for the purpose.

Necessarily, holistic protection and care can’t go hand-in-hand with empowerment. One can’t have a spouse burdened with parental-like responsibilities without access to parental-right authority, tools or rights. Just like a parent can’t really be an effective parent when stripped of any authority over the child but still burdened with the duty to provide bailouts and soft landings and so on. So it’s either or.

Of course, there is a deeper sense of chivalry, mostly etiquettal (in a deeper sense of etiquette) and relational, that also works if the woman is your feudal superior and could even perhaps beat you in actual combat (e.g. younger, healther, fitter and with access to better equipment).

… But that sort of thing doesn’t really work well on an intuitive level for modern middle/working classes. In my experience in most women prolonged direct exposure to that type of behaviour from men could simply lead to a sense of entitlement and the idea that men of any social rank are her manservants.

Here, I rely on the real-life example of how often women refer to their boyfriends, spouses etc. as their personal bodyguards, drivers, fixers, porters and whatnot, which, in the light of traditional etiquette, would be distasteful when applied to a man of equal or not much lower social standing than the woman’s own, or even any free man not her bondsman or retainer (actual manservant). Doing so would ill reflect on the lady’s own breeding.

The proper response to extra courtesy from a man of mostly equal standing would be either reciprocal courtesy on the same level or (especially from actual superiors) some form of clear and ample recognition. Getting fussy, capricious, etc., was not really an option, not even for women of the highest social orders, not even versus butlers, valets, etc. This is the part that’s not taught to women any more along with the ‘ladies and gentlemen’ stuff, not even in families with aristocratic backgrounds.
 
To further elaborate on the previous post, chivalry is like conceding precedence in diplomatic protocol. You dispense with the rights and privileges of your own rank, and you show the other more care or recognition than his or her rank would require. If you met a man with parity of status, it would be courteous to let him first. Or if his formal rank was far below his demonstrated worth (service, character, skill, etc.). And in the case of women, you even show them deferrence, though that does not mean acting like a butler ready to run on errands. You may actually, and in some cases you have to, go as far as filling in for her vallet without dishonour (it would require more humility to do so for a male, and typically only for a clear superior, a royal, a cleric, a hero, or a man in frail health) but it would be her own duty of good upbringing to remember that your relative social ranks and roles are not affected. Roughly, you treat them with elevated courtesy as though they were one or two, or three, classes higher, but that’s not the same as establishing an actual class divide.

Personally, I still cling to the old etiquette simply because I’m too used to all the kissing of hands and pulling of chairs and helping with coats and steps etc. to just change my ways overnight, but I generally want my female interlocutors to regard these as purely manners and in no way making advances on them or trying to impress them, nor an invitation to begin treating me like a beta male. I don’t go as far as some guys of old did by being ‘yours to command’ (I am, but only if it’s a polite request and not a command) and taking any sort of ill-treatment with no scoff but a bright thank you. Well, I probably would in fact say ‘thank you’ in response to an insult, but that would actually be a rebuke.

Back in the old day the sort of extreme ‘yours to command’ and ‘thank you for insulting my lineage’ sort of attitudes were characteristic of young men without much rank or position compared to someone more settled in life. As they became more seasoned and weathered, they gained more confidence and more sense of their own rank, and they stopped being lap dogs. Not that you can actually impress a woman by being that — but try to explain this to a beta male who thinks that by being nice and demonstrating subservience he can eventually get all the rewards he desires (you can’t ‘conquer’ a woman by acting like you’re her own spoils of war, i.e. incompetent little captive crying for mercy) and fails to see the inherent contradiction in trying to impress someone (make a commanding impression) by acting like a doormat. Give a knight a castle or ship and allow him to live till thirty, and the nonsense will stop eventually, developing into a more mature sense of courtesy. And a more mature mating game. 😉 Because we are in fact largely talking about mating strategies here (notably beta strategies), thinly disguised in social conventions. Cheap males getting hormone-high and eagerly competing for expensive females are quite umistakable (as is using resources and services to make up for what the genes lack in one’s mating offer).
 
chevalier said:
Not that you can actually impress a woman by being that — but try to explain this to a beta male who thinks that by being nice and demonstrating subservience he can eventually get all the rewards he desires (you can’t ‘conquer’ a woman by acting like you’re her own spoils of war, i.e. incompetent little captive crying for mercy) and fails to see the inherent contradiction in trying to impress someone (make a commanding impression) by acting like a doormat.
Click to expand...
I was thinking somewhat as well of the scorn for the false “nice guy” I see among many mannerly women in the modern age. A chaste woman is well advised to stay away from the sort of man who offers too many niceties, because so often they serve as a prelude to an expectation of sexual favors in exchange. The mockery of the “nice guy” type is precisely because he loses his manners when they don’t result in the sex he expects. A smart modern woman knows the difference between a man who is genuinely mannerly and one who puts them on when he wants something from her. I know many women insist on paying their own way in part because of that widespread expectation, and the fear of a man lashing out when denied. It needn’t even be said she will provide her own transportation!

There’s a particular art to learning to be polite and kind to everyone without allowing one’s self to be taken advantage of. It’s better for a woman to have a man who is up front about what he wants - it’ll save everyone time and energy in the marriage. No one, man or woman, will last a marriage without having their own needs met (I don’t specially mean sex here), and the vast majority of us don’t have servants nowadays to tend to tasks. Even historically one doubts much of chivalry as in the stories occurred among the working classes; one would hardly have time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top