Is Chivalry dead in the 21st Century?
Or can chivalry be compatible with feminism?
A complaint I hear from time to time from males in my acquaintance is that feminism has put an end to chivalry; they can’t open doors or buy females lunch without being accused of upholding the patriarchy and so forth. While to some degree I think they might be conflating chivalry with common politeness (it’s polite to open doors for people) they do have a point. If chivalry is meant to be an ideal male trait, where is its place in the 21st Century when women tend not to need saving?
There is a lot of literature around about the ‘crisis of masculinity’. For example, one theory for explaining why so many more men than women commit serious crime is that criminal behaviour is an expression of masculinity. Where high socio-economic men can express masculinity through socially appropriate ways (doing well at sport, getting promoted, earning lots of money, etc), because lower socioeconomic males have less access to these socially appropriate avenues, violence and gangs become their outlet for defining what it is to be a man. It’s an interesting theory which I think has some merit.
As such, there is definitely a need to consider male gender identity. While some feminists like to argue gender identity is a purely social construct which is meaningless, this is a massive slap in the face to all the transgender people who have had their gender identity denied. Clearly gender exists and a healthy gender identity can promote a person’s sense of happiness and wellbeing. However, what this gender identity should be is debateable and the status quo shouldn’t be placed uncritically on a pedestal.
As such, I put forward a modest (or perhaps immodest?) proposal for rendering Chivalry an acceptable identity for the modern male which they can choose to subscribe to without offending anyone.
1.Redefine chivalry in a positive way.
How can we make it the positive expression of male identity without it having to be at the expense or belittlement of women? The historical view of chivalry has always run along the lines of an Arthurian legend: strong heroic male goes to save weak damsel in distress, cuing happily ever afters. But why can’t we just delete that last part about the damsel? I believe it is possible to define chivalry in terms of positive, self-oriented traits: strength, daring, and a desire to help those in need. In this way, gender feels less like a zero sum game in which women have to be weak for men to feel strong.
I think the other merit of this redefinition is that it is more inclusive of homosexual men. The current concept of chivalry is very obviously hetero-normative, whereas this redefinition allows men of all orientations to feel like they can aspire to a chivalrous gender identity.
2. It’s not the act, but the intent which feminists should find offensive.
There is nothing patently offensive about men buying lunch or opening a door for a woman. These are nice/polite things to do for people. Clearly, it is the intent behind the act which matters in determining whether a particular act is offensive to feminist ideals. For your convenience I have created a handy chart:
Acceptible intent / Unacceptible Intent
I want to help you because you are a human being in need. / Because you are a woman, you can not possibly help yourself.
I will do something nice for you because I am selfless. / Men just have to do nice things for women because men are stronger.
I am taller than you so I can more easily access that item on the shelf./ Women are weak, LoLz.
I just got a pay rise, so I am feeling generous. / Because I am a man and probably earn more money than you, I will pay.
3. Being Chivalrous and being a man are not synonymous
It is ok for a woman to espouse the chivalrous traits of being strong, heroic and concerned with saving people. Indeed, it’s ok for women to espouse any supposedly masculine trait they like. Those traits are not exclusive to men and men don’t own them. Any man getting upset that women are getting too good at “male stuff” genuinely needs to get over himself, or rather, try to develop a gender identity which is so not so fragile that it feels challenged by what women are doing.
On the other hand, it is also ok for a man to NOT espouse these traits and instead define their identity in some other way. The other great crisis of masculinity is the way in which many men feel unable to act outside the stereotypical male gender role. In the 21st century we can all start to accept that it is ok for men to knit, enter a nursing career and cry. It’s really time to put an end to gender policing where men are called ‘poofs’ or ‘pussys’ for not espousing masculinity 100% of the time in every arena of their life. I may have to draw the line at allowing men to like Justin Bieber though, mostly because no one should like Justin Bieber.
