Shades of Chivalry

Over at one of my favorite man-haunts, the Christian Pipe Smokers forum, our own bearded brother and combox maven Del gives as pithy an explanation, and as pointed a defense, of chivalry as you could hope for.

He elucidates not only the real nature of chivalry, but the course of its decline in the modern West;

The real Chivalry was a culture of Christian soldiers.

Chivalry was replaced by "manners".... oh, about the time that Christendom fell, I reckon. Cervantes ("the last knight of Europe") mocked chivalry at its end, in his Don Quixote.

Anyhow.... chivalry was about having a heart of heroic self-sacrifice. Having good manners was easier, because good manners could cover a bad heart.

The Feminists of the 20th century were an insane lot. But they understood one thing rightly: They did not want to be abused by predatory pigs with good manners. At the onset of the sexual revolution, the feminists still wanted the good men back (in spite of their perverse notions of what a good man should be).

Chivalry (a singularly Christian idea) is dead in the post-Christian era. We can see its corpse rotting, in the vast number of single mothers and deadbeat dads.

BUT! -- as Chesterton said, "What Man has done before, Man can do again!" We see a rising chivalry in groups like Promise Keepers and March for Life. The battle now is for families and for life, and chivalry is rising like a pheonix in Christian fatherhood.

This "John Paul II" generation of young Catholics are embracing chastity and fruitful marriages, in defiance of their parents' lack of faith...

What thinkest thou? The original post that Del was responding to asked whether or not Chivalry is dead. Clearly it is not... but maybe it has been in a coma.

And speaking of Chivalry...

Comments

[Jeff Hendrix]

I have been a member of Corpus Christianum for two years. I highly recommend that readers of TLOBC consider becoming members as well. Its daily prayer disciplines and intercessions for the Holy Father, for families, and the renewal of Christendom are an important part of my vocation in Marian chivalry.

[Tim J.]

"I have been a member of Corpus Christianum for two years. I highly recommend that readers of TLOBC consider becoming members as well."

I've been meaning to. Think it's past time I did!

[Pierce O.]

I would also recommend St. Louis de Montfort's Total Consecration to Mary; serve our Lady as a knight of Christendom! Like Gimli!

[John Kasaian]

Del's post certainly has made me think more about Chivalry and how to promote the ideal among my Scouts.

[Patrick]

I went to the forum and searched in vain for a helpful definition of chivalry. "A heart of heroic self-sacrifice" is...what, exactly? Chastity/marital fidelity? How is it different from any other religious tradition (Muslims, for instance, are chaste and faithful). Surely, it has nothing to do with not "charging an unhorsed opponent".

As usual, this type of thing degenerates very quickly into "what's wrong with feminism/feminists", which tends to prove that the people getting the vapors over the death of chivalry are piling dirt on it's grave.

[Tim J.]

""A heart of heroic self-sacrifice" is...what, exactly?"

That's not exactly a novel term for Catholics. You're sure you have no idea what it means? Look at the cross.

It means putting other's needs before your desires, and sometimes before your own needs. It means giving up things to help others... time, money, trouble, recognition, etc...

This is a foreign concept?

And, yes, the death of Chivalry and the rise of feminism are related, but you notice that Del did not blame the fall of Chivalry on feminism. Quite the opposite. Feminism is a symptom - a very logical and predictable result - of the lack of Chivalry.

What is strangest about feminism is that those who promoted and practiced it most seemed to say, "Men are selfish pigs... so we need to behave more like them".

?!?!

[Patrick]

"You're sure you have no idea what it means? Look at the cross.

It means putting other's needs before your desires, and sometimes before your own needs. It means giving up things to help others... time, money, trouble, recognition, etc..."

Rather than being a set of behaviors like good manners or chastity (which atheists and Muslims can have), the definition of "chivalry" amounts to "Christianity-applied-to-gender-relations", is that correct?

And since gender relations are still apparent, asking if "chivalry" is dead or moribund is the same as asking if Christianity, the Word that exists until the end, is dead. Right? I'm just looking for the exact definition here, and the definition seems to be exactly the same is being a good Christian.

"but you notice that Del did not blame the fall of Chivalry on feminism. Quite the opposite. Feminism is a symptom - a very logical and predictable result - of the lack of Chivalry."

Understood. I'll assume Del's calling feminism "insane" and "cute" on that thread are meant in the most gallant, self-sacrificing manner possible; the kind of gallantry that questions the mental stability of feminism's adherents and treats their worldview as a childish attempt at something ("feminism is 'cute', we're told!) This not to mention the other Old Grand Gentleman comparing feminists to the National Socialist German Worker's Party further up on the thread. Yes, yes; a gallant bunch! So chivalrous!

"What is strangest about feminism is that those who promoted and practiced it most seemed to say, "Men are selfish pigs... so we need to behave more like them".

Indeed. You'd have to be insane, cutely so but insane nonetheless, to look at your economically dependent mothers and grandmothers and believe that your path toward self-respect and self-sufficiency was through wage-working and refusing to have children so the father could dump it on you and go to the bar with his friends "from the army". Yeah: insane!* Although it helps to grow up after 500 years of Calvinist culture that sees work and wealth accumulation as terrific.

Of course, that is as "strange" as any Catholic who participates in the family-killing, de-humanizing post-industrial economy: "strange" as doing what you need to do to gain a measure of independence and control over your own life.

* (The Catechism finds lack of employment "nearly always de-humanizing")

[Tim J.]

..."the definition of "chivalry" amounts to 'Christianity-applied-to-gender-relations', is that correct?"

No, Chivalry was an all-encompassing code of conduct, which included respect for and the defense of women and others. It is not centered on "gender relations".

Feminism *is* insane, in as much as it offers a distorted view of reality. Insanity = being out of touch with reality. Being an insane world view, it tends to make its adherents somewhat insane, as well.

"You'd have to be insane... to look at your economically dependent mothers and grandmothers and believe that your path toward self-respect and self-sufficiency was through wage-working and refusing to have children so the father could dump it on you and go to the bar with his friends... "

Two questions: Do you believe that women employed by a company are somehow more economically independent than their peers who work as homemakers? How, exactly?

Also, do you have children? Do you feel they were "dumped" on you? This is an interesting question, as it seems to be a modern phenomenon to look at children as a burden rather than a blessing. Nice view of kids.

BTW, I did the Mister Mom thing for years (for various reasons) so I know from experience a good deal about the equation from both sides.

[Beadgirl]

Oi, I gotta agree with Patrick's statement that these things always degenerate into attacks on feminism. Which misses the point of feminism entirely.

I am a mass-going, pro-life feminist, and I wear the "f-word" with a great deal of pride. Feminism at its core was about making sure that women had access to the same rights and privileges as men (such as, oh, say, higher education, jobs, the right to vote, equal pay for equal work, the right to own property, the right to not be beaten and raped by your husband, etc.) Have a lot of other issues gotten mixed up? Totally. Are there feminists with very mixed up views of men and women and families? Of course. Assuming that all feminists have the same values and opinions is a lot like saying all Christians have the same values and opinions. There are certain core values, but there is a huge range in both the expression of those values and in what other values and ideals get thrown in. Lumping all feminists together and painting them as man-hating god-hating baby-hating cute idiots is about as useful and accurate as painting all Christians as hate-filled, sanctimonious, science-hating god-freaks.

"Do you believe that women employed by a company are somehow more economically independent than their peers who work as homemakers? How, exactly?"
Yes. Of course the world is varied and experiences are varied and there are exceptions everywhere, but I can think of several examples why women who stay at home are less economically independent, even if the marriages are strong and the husbands are chivalrous. Let's take my mom for an example. My father's death resulted in a great deal of financial insecurity for her, partly because we as a society don't have enough in place to help out stay-at-home parents. Through no fault of his own, my father's private plans for her care after his death fell apart. The government by law cut his social security check in half, even though utilities and certain other living expenses don't go down by 50% when a household goes down from 2 to 1 people. With my father's death she lost her health insurance, and she was too young to qualify for medicare, so she was left paying an obscene amount for bare-bones private insurance. Her life-style took a huge hit, and she can't even afford to visit me.

Would things be different if she had worked, had her own savings and pension and 401K and insurance? Absolutely. Does either of us think she should not have been a stay-at-home mom? Of course not, and she has accepted all these changes and is dealing with them with grace. But yeah, women who stay at home to raise a family are financially at a disadvantage, in general. In fact, I read once that the single biggest indicator for poverty in old age was whether one was a housewife. It is a complex issue, and there are things that families can plan for that can ameliorate this and make sure a stay-at-home spouse is not left high and dry, but I personally feel we should be doing more as a society to both support a parent who stays home and support mothers who do work outside the home, for whatever reason.

Ugh, sorry for the long rant.

[Tim J.]

Good point, Beadgirl, painting with abroad brush always results in some mischaracterization. But I don't know that I accept that women who are dependent on a corporation or some other boss are more better off than those who are dependent on a spouse. They are financially stable only as long as thier employment is stable. If the economy tanks, or if they are fired, or if their company has squandered their retirement funds (like Enron and others have done) they are no better off than the widow who's husband has died.

Besides which, as you acknowledge, being "financially independent" is NOT the ultimate goal one can hope to achieve in life. I gave up a LOT of financial independence to look after our babies and to homeschool and that was the right decision, even if not the financially advantageous decision. It would have been a lot *easier* to put the kids in daycare, but doing the easy thing was not our goal.

My point is, why, in the attempt to improve the lot of women, has the focus been almost exclusivelty on moving them out of the home and into a cubicle, rather than on looking at why - in a post industrial society - looking after kids and a home has become more oppressive and intolerable.

I *agree* that many of the original aims of feminism were laudable and necessary (Susan B. Anthony was vehemently against abortion), and I do NOT think that a woman, because she is a woman, should be "barefoot and pregnant".

But the roles of men and women in society are clearly not meant to be the same.

This is taking a teleological point of view, that things are made for a purpose, and that men and women were not made to do the same things. If we can debate whether or not most women were made to be at home having babies, can we begin by agreeing that men were not made to? ;-)

May I also point out that it has never been a picnic for men, either? Not for the huge percentage of us, at any rate. It is a myth - or rather a lie - to look at history and say that men had it easy and that their ease came at the expense of women. Period.

Having the freedom to make choices is great, but those choices are not made in a vacuum. It is the empahsis on self-actualization ("what makes me happiest?") - in the case of either men OR women - that runs so counter to the Christian faith. The question is all backward.

As followers of Christ, we have duties that flow from our love toward God and our neighbor, and I don't see "self actualization" on the list. Paradoxically, self-sacrifice IS the only true path to self-actualization, but it is the very idea of self-sacrifice that seems to have become anathema to so much of modern feminist thought.

[Tim J.]

Let me also just point out that what men and women have the legal right to do, and what they ought to do, are two different questions.

If a man and a woman do the same work, OF COURSE they should be paid the same for that work. Whether they *ought* to be doing that work in any particular instance is a separate issue.

[Beadgirl]

" It is the empahsis on self-actualization ("what makes me happiest?") - in the case of either men OR women - that runs so counter to the Christian faith. The question is all backward.

As followers of Christ, we have duties that flow from our love toward God and our neighbor, and I don't see "self actualization" on the list. Paradoxically, self-sacrifice IS the only true path to self-actualization, but it is the very idea of self-sacrifice that seems to have become anathema to so much of modern feminist thought."

I think this is interesting for a number of reasons. I agree that a willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good is a necessary part of life, one that is ignored or opposed by many people. But I can understand why feminists as a group might be fighting it, in a misguided sense of righting a past injustice, because for much of time women have been expected and trained to self-sacrifice, to always put men and children first. Historically there has been an attitude that if a mother does anything for herself she is selfish. And that is not right either, I don't think we should be taking self-sacrifice to the point where one is miserable. And I think it is ok for a woman (or a man) to try to do things that will make her happy. I think the key is to find a balance between what makes one happy and what is good for the family. I think we can agree that a stay-at-home parent who is absolutely miserable may not be the best parent or set the best example.

Personal confession time -- I'm a stay-at-home parent and I absolutely hate it. I did it because it was for the best (Beadboy1 has special needs, and my career was mostly incompatible with normal children, let alone ones with issues), and I don't regret that decision, but it has taken a real toll on my sanity. Not being a martyr by nature, I've managed to set aside some personal time that I am very protective of, and now that the kids entering school age I'm in grad school to start another career. I've also seen so many permutations of this whole stay-at-home/work/work-part-time thing among my friends, and seen so many of my friends realize they wanted the opposite of what they thought they did, and seen how different factors mean that for many women they don't have much choice one way or the other, that I don't think there is any one solution.

[Beadgirl]

We've gotten off the topic of chivalry, haven't we?

[Tim J.]

"We've gotten off the topic of chivalry, haven't we?"

Not at all.

I do think it is a mistake to try and rigidly apply one formula to all kinds of different people, especially by any kind of coercion. It is God who made human beings free, and we should not try to undo that freedom by forcing people into narrow social roles.

However, I disagree with those who would say that making moral arguments is the same thing as "coercion".

I will say this; that though I did stay home with our kids for years, both my wife and I feel that it was a damned shame that our roles became "reversed". She developed a desire to keep a home and be with our kids, while I developed a deep desire to provide for the family.

As younger people, we had both uncritically accepted the politically correct view of the times in which we were raised; that both men and women should have a "career" outside the home, that the job of "homemaker" was an anachronism - a role for those too weak-minded for the workplace - and that men and women were essentially the same, except for the way society had treated them. Gender roles were considered artificial constructs.

Some time in our thirties we both came to feel we had been sold a bill of goods. And by that time we were in the very diffcult position of being substantially unable to turn back and correct past decisions. Big, important decisions.

[Beadgirl]

"and that men and women were essentially the same, except for the way society had treated them. Gender roles were considered artificial constructs."

Perhaps it is my "modern feminist" sensibilities coming through, but setting aside obvious biological differences, I do think that man and women, as a whole, are essentially the same. You mentioned in an earlier comment that you feel men and women are not meant to do the same things, and I have heard elsewhere people express this point of view, that women and men are fundamentally different. But I'd like examples of what you mean, if you don't mind, because I am hard-pressed to think of genuine gender differences, such as qualities men should have but women don't need (and vice versa), and roles that men should fulfill but women should not (and vice versa). I ask this out of genuine curiosity, too, it's something I've often wondered about.

[John Kasaian]

Very young girls are different from very young boys in the way that they look at things. This is why most pre-adolescent boys don't like to play with pre-adolescent girls and vice-versa. Try coaching a girls soccer team compared with coaching a boys soccer team--the dynamics are very different! On co-ed teams, the players will adapt to which ever "vision" is more dominant, but I find this most always causes a greater level of stress among all the players regarless of gender.
BUT---stereotypes are to be avoided. I think it is a mistake to assume that Chivalry can be stereotypical.
St Francis of Assisi was certainly Chivalrous as was Ignatious Loyola----so was Joan of Arc for that matter but St. John of The Cross OTOH doesn't come across as being very Chivalrous at all, but I would certainly welcome being corrected on that point.

What I find intriguing is that the fierce selflessness of the Chivalric Ideal is in opposition to everything held near and dear by Modernists. This topic made me aware of the reduction of Chivarly to a mere system of manners (thanks Tim & Delfor making me aware of that!) I'll still remind my son to tip his cowboy hat to ladies we pass during rodeo weekend---even if many of them shoot us those "you dirty slime" looks for doing so!

[Tim J.]

"...I have heard elsewhere people express this point of view, that women and men are fundamentally different. But I'd like examples of what you mean, if you don't mind..."

I didn't mean to blow you off there, Beadgirl, but I have been really busy the last few days.

Again, I would never get into making some kind of list and saying, "Okay, no man should ever do this, and all women should always do that" for the most part, but I do believe that if you give it any thought, there are clearly some roles for which one sex is (in general) much better suited than the other.

I also believe this is no accident, nor is it merely the result of arbitrary social structures. On the contrary, most of these social structures grew organically around this complementary nature of the sexes... that what one sex may (generally speaking) lack, the other tends to have in more abundance.

I can give you one example of the kind of tendency I'm talking about;

Lately I have been working as a substitute art teacher in a gradeschool, kindergarten through 4th grade. There are a lot of women teachers at the school (duh) and few men.

The "duh" comes in because this is how it is everywhere, and how it has been. It is just what you would expect. This is not, I don't believe, because women have been arbitrarily funneled into gradeschool teaching jobs by a patriarchal society. It is because women (in general) do much better around small children than men do. They are on the whole more patient, more nurturing AND (in this particular sense) mentally tougher, able to withstand the company of 25 gradeschoolers for six or seven hours at a stretch. Most men I know - and this is no exaggeration - would crack. They couldn't take it, not day after day, and most not for even one whole day.

I happen to have the right hiccup in my genes that makes me able to stand it, but I don't believe most men do. That doesn't translate to an arbitrary rule - "Men shouldn't be teachers" - but simply a common sense recognition that most men aren't cut out to be gradeschool teachers, and have no desire to be. Apparently, women DO want to be gradeschool teachers in much greater numbers than do men, if my eyes don't deceive me.

Conversely, I also happen to believe that there aren't nearly as many women as men who WANT to be the CEO of a multinational corporation.

It's not that they would find the work too hard, it might be that they would find it obtuse or even - in a sense - repugnant. I know I would. As Chesterton said, "To be smart enough to get all that money, you must be dull enough to want it."

There are certain areas where - if not a hard and fast rule - this kind of thing does translate into a kind of unassailable common sense. For instance, I would not ever (I don't think) hire a man as a day care worker. It just cuts against the grain of horse sense and common experience (IMO).

[Del]

Hi Tim! You "blogged my post," as you threatened that you might....

I am surprised that comments on a blog devoted to Chesterton would take offense at the remark "feminism is insane." If you don't know what insanity is, please read "Orthodoxy." And if you don't know why feminism is insane, please read "What's Wrong With the World." I guarantee that you will be a happier person when you are through!

Let us not forget that Pope John Paul the Great called for an "authentic feminism." This call has not been answered, but the League is not afraid to try! "Authentic Feminism" discards the notion that women are oppressed by men. We call it "silly."

"Authentic Feminism" places a premium value on life, family, children, and home. It does not seek the salvation of womanhood in drudgery and wage slavery.

For Patrick, who is confused about the notion of "heroic self-sacrifice": The definition includes "things you are willing to die for." The heart of chivalry is ready to die in the defence of an innocent stranger. Such a man might take on a lifelong vow to care for a stranger, and certainly does not shirk in the life-long work of caring for his wife and family.

You might read the final pages of GK Chesterson's "The Poet and the Lunatics" for a modern example to the heart of chivalry.

[Patrick]

@ Del: "For Patrick, who is confused about the notion of "heroic self-sacrifice": The definition includes "things you are willing to die for." The heart of chivalry is ready to die in the defence of an innocent stranger. Such a man might take on a lifelong vow to care for a stranger, and certainly does not shirk in the life-long work of caring for his wife and family."

Congratulations on defining your term. This is especially helpful for people traveling backwards in time: they'll be able to get the full definition *before* the thread discussing whether chivalry is dead. I know, I know: you'd have to be "insane" to care about punctilious definition of terms, especially on a topic that can quickly degenerate into simple misogyny - (would you believe one fellow dismissed feminism as "cute").

"I guarantee that you will be a happier person when you are through!"

I was thrilled to find a very serious point hiding under Chesterton's use of humor. You might be shocked to find some people's smarmy style is a simple cover for the intellectual paucity of their argument.

@ Tim J.: "Insanity = being out of touch with reality."

Quite honestly, what *wouldn't* fit that definition? If you're a Catholic, the only thing fully in touch with "reality" is God. Everyone else may get snippets, or they may not. The feminists' problem is that they "relied on their own understanding" instead of the revealed word. In other words, feminism is "insane" like Original Sin is "insane", and if Original Sin is "insane", well, everyone is "insane".

Also: if a feminist is "insane" , what would you call a fellow in a straight-jacket?

I don't disagree with the substantive critique of feminism(!), but "insane" seems awfully dismissive to people whose #1 problem was having their ideas dismissed.

[Beadgirl]

I assumed you were busy, Tim, and not blowing me off, but thanks for responding. I see what you mean, I and while I guess I would be willing to argue that, for example, in general women seem more nurturing than men, I would not consider the difference to be as great as you do, nor would I entirely attribute it to nature rather than nurture (via socialization). How much of the disparity between female and male elementary school teachers is due to genuine gender differences, and how much to the longstanding idea that teaching children is "women's work"? Are there men who are subtly or not so subtly discouraged from some work because of a notion that it is not job for a real man? There is something similar to this in the field of library science, where women vastly outnumber men. Some of the men who enter the profession get mocked for it as not being manly enough, especially if they become, say, a school librarian and not an "information systems manager" at a large corporation.

The flip-side example you give, of women not wanting to be CEOs, I feel I can address with a little more authority, because I come from a corporate background, and as such I know a lot of women in that position. And at least in my experience, the low numbers of female CEOs and partners and whatnot are not so much because women find that work less appealing or less suitable, but overwhelmingly because such careers, as they are now expected to be, offer little or no work/life balance, especially if one wants to be a parent but also even if one just has hobbies and trips and friendships one wants to enjoy. And this lack of balance applies to both men and women, and I know almost as many men who are dismayed by it. The difference is (at least in my opinion) that men are expected to sacrifice more family and personal time for the sake of a career. For all that a woman can feel pressure to return from her three month maternity leave early, the pressure is even stronger for men, and most don't even take the one to two weeks they are entitled to. Mr. Beadgirl took off 6 weeks, paternity leave and sabbatical combined, when Beadboy2 was born, and not only was he the only man to ever do this, he only got away with it because he had worked such long hours in the years before.

My point is that there may be gender reasons for disparities like this, but because 1) there are also societal reasons and 2) I don't think the natural gender reasons are all that strong I don't find it very useful to rely on such gender arguments. Of course, given that the nature/nurture debate can never be resolved satisfactorily, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion.

Finally, I find it interesting your comment you would not probably hire a male day care worker. I actually wish there were more male day care workers, and others working with small children, because I want the Beadboys to spend time around both men and women. Any time Beadboy1 gets a male therapist or para, I am thrilled that his experiences are broadened (he is too, he responds a little better to male authority right now).

[Robert]

"I would also recommend St. Louis de Montfort's Total Consecration to Mary; serve our Lady as a knight of Christendom! Like Gimli!"

Pierce,

Members of Corpus Christianum may make an annual renewal of a Marian consecration on May 24th (as part of the Acta Militum). So CC even has that too! :-)