Yes to Courtesy, No to Chivalry

Mar 23

I just read two different articles on the topic of chivalry. This one from Matt Walsh and this one from The Time Warp Wife. This is my response.

I appreciate respect, generosity and help. I just don't appreciate it in the form of benign sexism. If a man holds a door open for me, I say "Thank you!" Much more so if I'm carrying something heavy or wrangling kids. But I choose to assume that he's doing it because he's a kind, respectful *person* helping another *person.* If he tells me he's doing it because I'm a woman and he's a man, I lose some respect for him. Because those are the same kind of men who tend to have beliefs about submission and leadership and what jobs women should hold, with which I strongly disagree, and because I know they do not respect me as a full human being since I'm a woman. I can still think they are great people in other ways, and I can still have relationships with them, and I probably won't even tell them my beliefs on the topic (unless they ask), but I cannot respect them as much as I respect a man who is a courteous man just because he is a courteous man, without gender qualifiers about to whom he is courteous.

I have heard many times, and I just read in the comments of both articles, about women who get angry about men being courteous to them. Women who "don't allow it" or "punish" men for it. The Time Warp Wife starts out by apologizing to men for women making it seem like we don't want their respect and kindness.

The thing is- I have never actually met one of these women. I don't doubt the stories of those who claim they've been berated by women for holding the door open, but I wonder if there is more to the story. Were they really being berated for holding the door open? Or were they being berated for some sexist comment or attitude that accompanied the act?

Even Matt Walsh says:

"...men who forgo chivalry often do so because they’re afraid that being gentlemen might seem “offensive” to some women. Meanwhile, only a small fraction of women actually report being offended by chivalrous deeds."

Exactly. Most people are not offended by common courtesy. What IS offensive, however, is the attitude behind *some* acts of apparent courtesy.

It comes down to intention. I'm not going to grill the random stranger in the store on his intention when he opens the door for me. I simply accept the kind gesture, say thank you and move on with my life without giving it another thought. But I do want to know the intentions of the men my daughters will marry. The intentions and attitudes that are *behind* the actions of opening the door make a huge difference when the topic changes to "Who is the head of the house?" or "Should women work?" The same men who believe they should open the door because they are stronger and the woman is weaker, are often the same ones who believe they should make the final decisions in marriage for the same reason. That's a problem for the woman seeking an egalitarian partnership.

Matt discusses the history of chivalry, saying:

"Knights could use their strength and wealth to dominate and oppress, but they were called to utilize it in the opposite direction. They were called to do with their power what Christ did with His. They were called to love in the manner described by Paul in Ephesians 5. That’s chivalry. We might not wear suits of armor anymore (unfortunately), but there’s nothing suddenly irrelevant or unnecessary about the spirit of chivalry."

What he fails to mention is that during the same time period, women were not allowed to be land owners, receive as much education as men or have the same rights as merchants. One of those chivalrous knights could woo the lady to marry him (or just buy her as a teenager from her father), and then he essentially owned her. He could expect sex as his right and the term marital rape was unheard of. He could legally hit her. If she resisted these social customs, she might be determined to be a witch and burned at the stake. Chivalry did nothing to prevent or remedy any of this.

To compare Ephesians 5 to chivalry, really cheapens the message of Ephesians. The whole book is about unity, working together, and everyone striving to have a heart for what God wants, which then translates into us all wanting the same thing.

Chivalry was probably a much needed concept for knights who were going into war where rape and pillage was common place. It's a very base starting point for not acting like a savage animal. It's hardly a goal worth striving for if you're already a man who's not raping women and beating your wife.

Matt says:

"Chivalry calls for the strongest to serve and honor the weakest, realizing that the other option is for the strongest to dominate and abuse the weakest.... In the mean time, as a routine matter, chivalry is still essential. Men should carry bags, and hold doors, and pull out chairs, and offer seats to women, not because women are incapable of standing or opening their own doors, but because of what these acts represent — what they say. And what they say is simple: “I am bigger and stronger than you, but I will use my strength to honor you and protect you. I will not hurt you. I will not take advantage of you. I will humble myself before you and serve you.”

And a wise commenter on his blog named Jason responds in part:

"And it is here that we get to the heart of the problem of chivalry. Chivalry defines who is strong and who is weak by gender and age. You may see yourself as saying (later in your post) “I am bigger and stronger than you…” but let’s change the adjectives while retaining the same meaning “You are smaller and weaker than I am…” What if someone did something for you based on this rationale? How would that make you feel? Can you see how someone may take offense to this?"

Yes, how *would* a man respond to the same rationale thrown his way?

Let's try it out....

Women, I'm calling for us as the gender with higher emotional IQs to serve and honor the less emotionally capable. We should rescue men from awkward social situations, mediate between our husbands and their bosses, and intervene when we see two random men communicating to each other to make sure they do it in a healthy way. Not because men are incapable of navigating social situations or solving their own problems or conversing in healthy ways, but because of what these acts represent- what they say. And what they say is simple: "I am more emotionally intelligent than you, but I will use this intelligence to honor and protect you. I will not belittle you. I will not manipulate you. I will humble myself before you and serve you."

Now, I'm sure not a single man will find that at all offensive, right?

(For the record, I do not believe that women are innately more emotionally intelligent, I'm just making a point based on the common stereoptype.)

Finally, Matt uses the Titanic to illustrate this point:

"If we adopt an “every man and woman for him/herself” then no woman will ever escape a sinking ship again. The men could quite easily shove the women aside, jump on the lifeboats, and get outta Dodge."

The problem is that chivalry sets up a dynamic in which all the women on those lifeboats will die anyway. Why? Because when you always have someone doing the heavy lifting for you, you get weak. When you always have someone running to your rescue, you become dependent. When you always have someone protecting you, you never learn to protect yourself. When women never have to be strong or protect themselves or learn skills that might save their lives while they sit on that lifeboat for weeks waiting for more men to rescue them, they are always helpless and beholden to a man. This creates the very dynamic both Matt and I would like to avoid. One where "...just the physically strongest survive. Women can only be slaves in a world like that, as history has proven many times."

I can't think of a single shred of objective criteria one could use to say women were better off socially, educationally, financially, or better protected physically during the era of chivalry than they are in more equal societies today. Or that they were not much closer to the status of slaves then, then they are now.

Is it exaggerating to say that chivalry goes hand in hand with patriarchy? Even the Time Warp Wife can't discuss chivalry without starting her blog post with a story about a woman who's husband is the leader of their home and the woman is happy to obey him. Of course, she's talking about a much more benign version of patriarchy than what existed in the days of knights on white horses, but it's still damaging. And Matt can't help but refer to "physical superiority" as if greater strength equals being a superior human being. It makes me chuckle at the mental image of a man who spends his days in an office pushing papers, feeling good about using his superior physical strength to help a woman carry her groceries to her car, not knowing that the woman is a Marine in civilian clothing. There are just too many exceptions like that to go about your day constantly judging others' abilities by gender, and expect not to routinely insult people.

Both benign versions of patriarchy promotes the typical false black and white dichotomy.

EITHER it's every man/woman for him/herself.
OR we turn to prescribed gender based roles to tell us how to support and protect one another.

Fortunately, there is an option C.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Ephesians 4:1-6 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There are no gender qualifiers on who should exhibit the fruits of the spirit, and even our enemies should receive our prayers and good works. So I'm not condemning courtesy, kindness, generosity, or helpfulness. Those are all good things, of which the world desperately needs more. I'm just saying it's important to examine our intentions. It should be the intention of us all to help those in need, not to show off the areas in which we excel (or those in which we assume we are excel, whether or not that is the reality). It should be the intention of all of us to unify the body of believers by building each other up, not to divide the body of believers by gender.