What is Chivalry? Define the Concept.

[LifeMaiden]

Okay, one thing that was mentioned, and importantly so, by Parthian King ( HI DAVID!!!) and by Copperfox ( HI JOSEPH LOL!!) was the concept of old-fashioned chivalry. Most everyone in the West, at least, who are men, have an idea of what this concept is. Sad to say it doesn't exist in my culture, being Japanese.


What IS chivalry?



Here's the problem I run into today. To me, I'm old fashioned about a lot of things, believe it or not. I believe men should open doors for women, take their hats off when a lady enters the room, and should protect women ( I mean if a man I know is getting beat up, I'd run to help HIM, but as a rule, I shouldn't have to be the one who's going to worry about protecting HIM, he should be doing that for a woman).

But it goes deeper than that, than merely opening doors. To me chivalry is respect and honor for women.


The problem is...some men don't feel that they have to respect ALL women. What happens if a woman is not exactly proper, and isn't the Madonna that some men expect her to be? Does practicing chivalry mean that SOME women will be treated with respect, and others to be degraded or not shown the same measure of respect?



Why have some men today of this generation of mine and younger, seem to lack this courtesy?

[Parthian King]

Chivalry is an ideal that dates to medieval times. The etymology of the word has its roots in the French word cheval--horse, and is similar to "cavalier" (horseman). The idea is that the knights had a code of honor, especially in regard to women, and, in particular, a woman, since the knight would seek to "champion" the cause and honor of one lady in particular (even if they only knew each other from afar). The important thing in this code was the ideal, not the intimacy (sexual or otherwise) of the relationship.

Chivalry has simply come to mean decent and courteous (oops,there's another medieval term) attitude and action extended by men towards women. From a Christian perspective, and as I choose to practice it (however imperfectly), it means respecting everything that is beautiful and noble about ladyhood through concrete words and actions while relating to a woman, regardless of how much she may or may not "deserve" it (though I do not deny that some ladies make it easier than others). In reality, it is acting towards women as one would act towards Eve if she were bodily present, because in a way she is in every woman. The Apostle Paul tells Timothy to treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters in absolute purity. For me, that pretty much sums it up.

As for the "weaker sex" thing, in my mind a truly chivalrous man holds this position firmly in mind but generally only in reference to brute strength. I also admit to considering that since Paul tells me to treat women as sisters or mothers, a special measure of tenderness should be thrown in as well, since in my relationship with my sisters and mother I have seen it necessary (and all of them are extraordinarily strong individuals). In other words, the chivalrous man deeply respects a woman's strengths even as he makes allowances for her weaknesses. If he doesn't, he is chauvanistic rather than chivalrous.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

The Defense of the Weaker would be noble and just whe nthe enemy is in the wrong. Nobleness and Justice. Courteousness and respect. Loyalty and honor. Duty and Valour.

What if I could outwrestle you in an arm wrestling contest? ;) Whoops...I accidently 'edited' this thread when I was responding to you and it was supposed to be in quotes.

[LifeMaiden]

Well, then, having a strong personality certainly isn't something that would make chivalry a very attractive concept for women like myself. Despite some women being those damsels in distress, which a lot of men find appealing simply because those women act or appear helpless, all women should be put on a pedestal, not just the ones that don't speak their minds or aren't independent and strong. Even if I LOOK like I have the strength to open a door or kick someone's butt, a guy should do it for me, because that's the way it's supposed to be.

Hahaa...I'm hardly ANYONE'S idea of a sister or mother in purity. I think that's what I run into a lot...I'm not anything near those concepts or ideals.

I just think it's unfair that women who are independent and very strong are not treated as objects of chivalry by many men, because those men don't 'think' we deserve it. Here's an example....remember Eowyn and Arwen in LOTR? Because Eowyn was battle-worthy and more of a warrior woman than Arwen, would it be easier to open a door for Arwen and not Eowyn? Come to think of it, they didn't...wait, yes they did. They had doors in Middle Earth. :D

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

That would be debatable because I don't think of it because I can't most girls or women are far away and can only be seen far away. I am Homeschooled.

[LifeMaiden]

Well but you must view the interaction between your mother and father though.


I think a lot of women these days...and this goes without saying...mistakingly have allowed the 'women's rights' movement to detract away from their feminity or from allowing men to behave in a chivalrous manner. A woman doesn't need to act like a man. When I say I'm strong and independent, these are my character traits, but it doesn't mean I don't want someone to protect me or open doors, and that I shouldn't allow a man to be the head of the household spiritually, as it says in the Bible.

I do.


I admit guilt to confusing chivalry and chauvinism in men at times. When a man says, " A woman shouldn't get educated/get a job/have a mind of her own/be seen and not heard, " he becomes suspect to me. Chivalry or chauvinism? Probably the latter. In fact tonight at the gym an older guy opened the door for me. :D That was sweet.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

My Father sometimes Forget s to hold the door for her which she tells afterward.

My father also fails romantically. :o

[Ephinie]

My Father sometimes Forget s to hold the door for her which she tells afterward.

My father also fails romantically. :oNow I feel sorry for your father... having his kid tell a bunch of people on a forum that he fails romantically. :p

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

MY Mom gives him hint, BIG hints. He seems to not listen. He 's one track minded.

[Ephinie]

MY Mom gives him hint, BIG hints. He seems to not listen. He 's one track minded.Um... sounds like a typical guy to me. :rolleyes:

[LifeMaiden]

Well at least I know I'm not alone. LOL. My dad is the kind of guy who just doesn't get chivalry either. I mean I think he was definitely more of a chauvinist, and chivalry is unheard of in Japan, or in many Asian cultures, as I said. He waits for my mother to do everything. Like, we were out for Mother's Day at this restaurant, and he never pulls out the chair for her. He walks through doors before she and I do, mostly. She reminds him too to open doors and he's so clueless.


I think chivalry means that a woman can have a lot of power 'behind' the lines. I've seen it even though I didn't recognize it before until I got older. Some of my male relatives would get all blustery about something, and their wives, my aunts, would firmly put a hand on their shoulder to tell them to stop...without saying a word.


My mom waited on my dad pretty much...she did a lot for him, but see, he expected that it would BE done because in his eyes, a woman just should do it. However he never bothered to really buy her flowers, to thank her once in a while, or to demonstrate any kind of romantic doting or appreciated. That really struck me as a kid.

[LifeMaiden]

This is really creepy. A few moments ago, I was glancing through the Bible trying to search for the book Galatians, when one the second flip, my eyes settled upon FIRST PETER, Chapter 3, 1-10, the very chapter regarding Christian spouses and how a husband and wife should interact. I was like, in sort of shock. That was certainly appropriate considering this topic. But it was eerie because I had never read that before. I'm not yet even close to being familiar with Scripture and there it was.

[Sunrise]

Just as an aside, after being present at the birth of our son, my husband now says he has no idea where the idea that women were "the weaker sex" came from. :p

[Parthian King]

A Christian man who practices chivalry does so based on a higher standard than silly romantic ideals. Women are to be respected because they are endowed with God-given gifts--not because they as individuals do or don't match an image in a book, on a screen, or in a man's imagination. An essential characteristic of Christianity is unconditional love, however spotty our practice of it is.

I am reminded of the play Man of La Mancha, the stage version of Cervantes classic Don Quixote. In it, Don Quixote sings "Dulcinea, Dulcinea--I see Heaven when I see you, Dulcinea" to Aldonza, a coarse peasant trollop. This goes beyond romance and into a divine love that leaves sentiment in the dust. It involves eyes that see what only God can see. From where I stand, that's how Jesus saw me when He picked me up from the morass of sin I was in and crowned me His Bride along with the rest of His Church.

True chivalry for me is not romance. It is grounded in respect for the image of God in another human being (in general), and of the special place women have in God's plan (in particular). As a result, I will treat you this way and think of you this way, with the help of God's grace, regardless of your attitude towards said treatment or towards me.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I guess all of us fail in that way in someway.

[~Lava~]

Chivalry, in the Arthurian Tales, is defined as Loyalty to God (and King), kindness to all women, helping them if they need it, and respect for all, even your opposing Knights. My Daddy gets it and so does my brother, they are great even if my Brother can be a little mean sometimes, he is generally very chivalrous

[Copperfox]

An oversimplistic definition might be "Chivalry equals strength and courage plus unselfishness, justice and mercy." For example, in pre-Islamic Persian tradition, when two warriors fought a duel, each was allowed one stumble. That is, it was reckoned that anyone might have the bad luck to trip over something, so a fighter was expected to let his foe fall down one time without closing in to take advantage. That was chivalry of a sort.

As for Don Quixote: it is true that the popularized version of that story has great spiritual metaphors. But when I read a detailed synopsis of the (VERY long) _original_ book "Don Quixote," I was in for a surprise. The character of Aldonza is actually a _very_ minor player in the story. Still more surprisingly (for a modern "Man of La Mancha" fan), it turns out that Miguel de Cervantes y Saavedra, the author, DID NOT regard his main character as anyone to be admired, LET ALONE as any kind of Christ figure. Cervantes DID want Quixote to be laughed at, NOT held up as any kind of ideal. The reason for this was that, in Cervantes' time, Spanish society was not that far past the Middle Ages--just far enough past them to have a wildly romanticized view of medieval chivalry. It was sort of as if Americans right now seriously believed that our 19th-century Old West was _actually_ populated by super-noble heroes like the Lone Ranger. Cervantes wanted to deflate this mythology.

Don't despair, however! Before you say, "Darn it, here I thought Cervantes was an idealist and now I see he was a cynic," let me add that Cervantes
DID "write" a tale of genuine, honorable bravery; he "wrote" it BY LIVING IT.
In real life, not in a book, Cervantes was a gallant patriot of Spain, who served his country in war (against the equivalent of today's Islamist terrorism) and willingly took risks he didn't have to. He was not at all against heroism, only against impossibly fantasized _visions_ of heroism _claiming_ to be authentic history.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think the modern working definition of chivalry is that of an ethic that a stronger party not only does not exploit a weaker party (which would be simple morality), but actually puts his strength at the service of the weaker party, which is a step beyond. It arose in Christian culture because Christian culture had the benefit of the example of The Strongest Party putting His immense strength at the service of the weakest parties.

copperfox is correct that Don Quixote was intended as a satire on the by-then-aging concept of the knight (Cervantes was a Renaissance writer), but it was not a put-down of the ideal of chivalry - only the external trappings thereof.

[Parthian King]

Sure, that's fine. But those who adapted Don Quixote for the stage certainly tapped into what I am referring to. My point was a certain truth, however it was communicated, not a precise commentary on Cervantes. Lewis says there is really only one true story, and the Groom seeing beauty in the unlovely and making her His bride against all odds is a theme repeated over and over again. I picked one tale to refer to it. I just as well may have picked any number of other fairy tales that could do the same.

[Copperfox]

That's okay, PK, I like "Man of La Mancha" myself. If I were a foot taller, I'd be auditioning for the Cervantes-Quixote role in every production that turned up.

The fantasy movie "Dragonheart" featured a pretty cool code of chivalry, if a little overloaded with humanistic optimism:

"The knight is sworn to valor.

His heart knows only virtue.

His blade protects the helpless.

His might upholds the weak.

His word speaks only truth.

His wrath undoes the wicked."

[LifeMaiden]

Well you guys have to help me out here. Some of you might be aware that I've considered religious vocation in my life, so if I become a nun, clearly, having a husband is out of the question.


What I run into a lot is...and I understand this, yet at the same time, it leaves me hanging...I run into men who are clearly intimidated on some level of my success as a personal trainer, and the fact that I live in a beautiful home I bought with my own dollars. Technically, I do not need a man to support me financially, but I also am torn by the fact that there are men who are clearly willing to be leeches as well.


Did I ever tell you guys about how I went out on this date with one of those so-called liberated men, claiming to be 'sensitive' and ' loved independent women'...and when he invited ME to dinner, he insisted that I pay for my HALF, because he didn't believe that chivalry was anything but for 'wimps.'

I was surprised, but I shouldn't have been. I actually did NOT leave my share. I said, " You invited ME to dinner, remember?"


Why do some men start to feel 'useless' around a woman who has her own life, and more so, her own house, her own car, and her own 'things?' Do I have to sell my stuff and act like a damsel in distress so a guy will come and 'rescue' me because he feels sorry for me?! I even had a guy tell me, " Well you obviously don't need a man to support you, Michelle."


WHAT? Since when is a relationship and chivalry in a gentleman about not even attempting to look PAST those things? Clearly, I am not going to ever support a guy unless he loses his job or becomes ill and unable to work, but I'm not going to put up with a leech either! How much respect do we really have for a man who allows a woman to boss him around and henpeck him and he can't bring home the bacon? None.


You guys have got to give me some insight on this. If it means that I have to give up my home to make a man feel useful, then I might as well call it quits and be single my entire life.

[LifeMaiden]

I think the modern working definition of chivalry is that of an ethic that a stronger party not only does not exploit a weaker party (which would be simple morality), but actually puts his strength at the service of the weaker party, which is a step beyond. It arose in Christian culture because Christian culture had the benefit of the example of The Strongest Party putting His immense strength at the service of the weakest parties.

copperfox is correct that Don Quixote was intended as a satire on the by-then-aging concept of the knight (Cervantes was a Renaissance writer), but it was not a put-down of the ideal of chivalry - only the external trappings thereof.


A great example is that supposedly, Sir Francis Drake threw his coat ( or cape) in the muddy road when Queen Elizabeth herself was going to cross the street at his side. And she was no shrinking violet. In other words, old-fashioned chivalry should be extended to queens and to everyday women.


Remember when WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAME FIRST lol? On the Titanic, men without a doubt clearly gave their lives up for their wives, girlfriends, and their children. Did you know there was a poll that I read where today, only 60% of men would give their lives for women on a sinking ship? 60%. That means 40% are like, " okay, you guys stay here, I'll take the lifeboat."

[Parthian King]

To respond to the first of the previous two posts, the problem, I think, lies in the fact that the men you refer to are grounding their sense of "chivalry" in externals in the life of the woman in question that can shift and change rather than the absolute (imago dei and biblical definitions) that never does. Similarly, their chivalry arises from that part of them that feels strong in comparison with a particular woman rather than Christ who is strong through weakness.

LM, you referred to 1 Peter 3 (the first verses), which is a passage I have spent considerable time exegeting for a seminar I took. The truths found there always are in play, no matter what (even though it specifically refers to the marriage relationship, which is not required for the respect God demands elsewhere). That means whether a woman is strong or weak (physically), rich or poor, assertive or passive, ambitious or not-so-ambitious, the Christian gentleman will respect her out of loyalty to Christ. For me, that's what Christian chivalry always comes down to.

[Lady of Lorien]

I think true chivalry respects and cares for all women as women. No matter how rich or poor they are, they are still women, uniquely gifted by God. A true gentleman does not act chivalrous only to "damsels in distress." Opening doors and removing hats for women are small outward signs of chivalry. However, those things can also come out of a kind of scorn for women's weakness. True chivalry is found in the inner state of a man, who sees in a woman something different from, but not less than, himself. She is something to be respected, not despised, for this difference. That is why a man who says "We aren't any different, why should I open the door for you?" is less chivalrous than a man who says "I will open the door because you are weaker than me, but that does not mean I consider you less than me for this weakness." Even though the woman could probably open the door for herself, she is weaker in other ways. A man who opens the door for her demonstrates recognition of her weakness and respect for her gifts and strength in other areas. It is the job of the man to do some things, but there are other things that he realizes are only possible to be done by the woman. For example, it is her privilege alone to bear children.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I hope it makes a little bit of sense... :)

[LifeMaiden]

To respond to the first of the previous two posts, the problem, I think, lies in the fact that the men you refer to are grounding their sense of "chivalry" in externals in the life of the woman in question that can shift and change rather than the absolute (imago dei and biblical definitions) that never does. Similarly, their chivalry arises from that part of them that feels strong in comparison with a particular woman rather than Christ who is strong through weakness.

LM, you referred to 1 Peter 3 (the first verses), which is a passage I have spent considerable time exegeting for a seminar I took. The truths found there always are in play, no matter what (even though it specifically refers to the marriage relationship, which is not required for the respect God demands elsewhere). That means whether a woman is strong or weak (physically), rich or poor, assertive or passive, ambitious or not-so-ambitious, the Christian gentleman will respect her out of loyalty to Christ. For me, that's what Christian chivalry always comes down to.



Well, I definitely have to work on a big area in regards to that passage...and that is that at times, a woman doesn't need to say a lot to get something accomplished. You mentioned once a long time ago that your wife could kick you under the table or give you a certain 'look' and that was enough. She didn't need to yell, scream, or do anything else to show her inner strength.

[Parthian King]

Well, I definitely have to work on a big area in regards to that passage...and that is that at times, a woman doesn't need to say a lot to get something accomplished. You mentioned once a long time ago that your wife could kick you under the table or give you a certain 'look' and that was enough. She didn't need to yell, scream, or do anything else to show her inner strength.

That's true. But most powerful of all is her smile. She smiles at me and I can take on an army. With her sitting there on the front row, smiling and brown eyes shining, I preach like a man from another world.

[Copperfox]

Has anyone noticed how easy it is to speak of a woman correcting and rebuking a man? But let one hint be heard of a man correcting a woman, and many voices (not necessarily anyone within this forum) will shriek "SEXISM!!"

Still, to show that I am well aware of the sort of male scuzzballs LifeMaiden finds so infuriating, here's a poem I wrote more or less about their type. LM's reference to the Titanic brought it to mind, for reasons which will be evident.

Tom Trendy felt a passion for himself;
The magazines all told him he was right
To live for his own happiness and wealth;
And he, of course, believed in Crystal Lite.

"I'll be no good for others," went his line,
"If I'm not good for ME!"--but at each test,
Just serving Number One took _all_ his time,
Left not one minute for unselfishness.

He cheated on his income tax, then said,
"Now, why do I do such dishonest stuff?
The answer's clear, if I just use my head:
I've simply never loved myself enough!"

So Tom went to a pop psychologist,
Who told him what he wanted to be told:
"All sense of guilt and sin must be dismissed,
For your self-love to take a firmer hold."

This sounded good to Tom, who promptly dumped
The five girlfriends he'd long been juggling;
And with embezzled money, soon he jumped
Aboard a cruise ship, where he played the king.

Girl passengers hung on his every word
Of living only for the here and now;
He had one in his room when there occurred
Catastrophe: an iceberg struck the prow.

Now Tom could show how his enlightenment
Affected others in the human race:
He sprinted from the room, and as he went,
He left a footprint on his girlfriend's face.

A blind man, three grandmothers and a child
Got in his way, and so were trampled flat.
Propelled by purest love of self, Tom piled
Into a half-filled boat, and cried, "Now scat!"

From safety, Tom heard every horrid sound,
And watched the ship sink in the ocean swells.
Then, for the dead, he spoke these words profound:
"I hope those poor souls died loving themselves!"


______________ Joseph Ravitts, 1991

[LifeMaiden]

I must admit honestly that growing up, and having been married to a Southerner who was supposed to be steeped in chivalry but wasn't, my views of it were skewed.

I shouldn't keep criticizing my own culture for its lack of chivalry, but, there simply isn't any. And even though my father's side of the family is Baptist, there was little chivalry there to be seen.


Part of my very strong desire to be FINANCIALLY independent is that I have seen what is the result of some women not knowing a thing about the finances of the family, and then their husband dies, leaving them in debt. I have also seen instances where women stay with their abusive or neglectful husbands because they have no where else to go and little means to support themselves financially. I was determined never to be in that situation.

Many men of a different age, such as my mother's generation, being in her 70's, did not want women working outside the home, and for whatever reason, that created economic dependency on the men. I don't want to have to ask a guy for ANYTHING, not even grocery money. Of course, if a guy was truly chivalrous, he wouldn't control the money to the extent that his wife had to ask in the first place. It isn't supposed to be about 'your money' and 'my money' but about OUR MONEY.


Conversely, I have also seen WOMEN taking advantage of kind, chivalrous men by purposely giving them sob stories and intently making the men 'feel sorry' for them. Who wants that kind of pity anyways? If someone is going to marry me, they should do it because they love me, not because they feel sorry for my butt and want to help me out.

[LifeMaiden]

That's true. But most powerful of all is her smile. She smiles at me and I can take on an army. With her sitting there on the front row, smiling and brown eyes shining, I preach like a man from another world.


There's my smile for you PK:

:D


Actually, if you look at my photos I posted on the forum, and you look at that green little smiley, you'll see that they do resemble each other.

[Ephinie]

LM, I totally get what you mean about not having to be economically dependent on a man. Coming from my family backround, I learned quick that it is in my best interest to be completely self-sufficient and not have to depend on anyone for anything.

But I have to believe that on some level, it is a good thing to depend on your husband (if you have one). Same goes for the other way around - for husbands to depend on their wives. Divorce happens, and it really sucks when one party is TOO dependent on the other... then they suddenly have to be self-sufficient. But ideally, divorce shouldn't be happening; so when that happens, it's like an extreme crisis situation or something.

Okay, now I'm kind of losing my train of thought here; and I forget what exactly I'm trying to say. I guess it's something like, men and women do need each other. Not everyone gets married, so obviously people can live happy and fullfilled lives without being tied at the hip to the opposite sex. I just have this vague impression that even the happiest, most fullfilled single life could ideally be enhanced by marriage to the right person.

And on the flip side of that, my junior high Sunday School teacher continuously drove home one principle to us that I will never forget.

"It's better to be an old maid than to wish you were one."

[LifeMaiden]

I love that word old maid :D


Women and men DO need each other. Subconsciously, however, I think some women give off the vibes that " I don't need a man". I may be one of those women. I don't need a man to SUPPORT me economically, but at the same time, I'd like to find someone who is going to be there for me emotionally, spiritually, and financially. It can be tough to pay for all your bills and your mortgage and worry about whether or not you're going to have enough for retirement to live comfortable if you never get married as a woman. Choosing to be alone is one thing, or choosing a life of celibacy and poverty by becoming a nun are two things...being alone because no one wants to deal with you is another.



The problem I have is mainly that men think I DON'T need them financially or even emotionally. I run into men that I consider wimps all the time. Of course, I shouldn't be so harsh as to define someone as a wimp or a sissy unless I truly know who they are as MEN. A quiet sensitive guy can be as strong emotionally as a rock. And let's get real, there are some men who ARE clearly intimidated by a woman who has things and can be her own person. I don't want to make the mistake of letting my entire life be run around a boyfriend or husband. My ex husband had a bad habit of annoyingly wanting to be around me CONSTANTLY, and then when I would tell him that I needed private space and time, as all husbands and wives do, he would get mad and go out and find some stripper or hooker to make him feel wanted. :mad: