Monday, September 04, 2006

"Chivalry is Dead"...a Commentary

"Last weekend, my roommate’s girlfriend came to visit and I spent most of Sunday third-wheeling it with them.... As I wondered who was going to drive, my roommate opened the passenger door for his girlfriend to sit down, before walking back around the car. I was astounded. I had witnessed modern day chivalry, and then I vomited a little in my mouth.

My aversion toward chivalry can be justified by looking at its effect on relationships. Thinking of chivalry, a person usually recalls a time when men saved damsels in distress and women were typically uneducated. In this time long ago, a chivalrous code was developed in order to protect the helpless ladies.

In modern society, women are just as smart and independent as men, so why should men seek to treat them otherwise? A relationship should be founded on the mutual benefits two people receive from each other’s company, and should consider each individuals’ personality. Chivalry tries to define how relationships should work by assigning roles based on sex, excluding character contrasts.

I proposed this idea to some female friends. The responses were generally the same: 'I want to be independent but it’s nice to have a guy show he cares by doing things for me every so often.' Seems hard to argue, but my point is this: a guy should do something chivalrous because he is inclined to do so, not because it is an expected duty.

No matter how terrible that song is, Nelly Furtado is right: 'chivalry is dead,' at least in the sense that it is no longer necessary, and possibly harmful to relationships. A person should not be expected to act a certain way in their own relationship, and a female should judge a man on his personality, not his manners."

-Flyer News, Volume 54, Number 2

Quite a bit has been discussed in the blogosphere concerning chivalry as of late. Excellent points have been made on David Boskovic’s Oneway Purpose, and in Brett Harris’s series on The Rebelution regarding gentlemanly behavior. There is no need for me to repeat the points made there, but I would like to add a point of my own to the mix.

Chivalry is not a mere tradition that should be abandoned. If it is indeed dead or dying, women should do everything in their power for it to be resuscitated; for if chivalry is lost, then femininity is in great danger of being forgotten.

A pastor once explained in his sermon the differences between men and women, and what it meant to be a "weaker vessel." (1 Peter 3:7, NKJV) He showed to the congregation two pitchers. One was a plastic water pitcher. He explained: "Men are like this pitcher. It is strong, heavy-duty and designed for a unique purpose."

Then, the pastor revealed a delicate, porcelain teapot to the congregation. "Women," he said as he gently upheld the fragile pitcher, "are like this teapot. It is the weaker vessel. If I dropped it, it would shatter. If I dropped the plastic pitcher, it would not shatter. But the value of the teapot is not diminished by its delicateness. We treasure and protect teapots."

Chivalry is servanthood, based upon the principle that men and women are different. Usually chivalry does not require earth-shaking actions, but small actions such as offering a girl a chair, indicate a respect for femininity.

Any thoughts?