|
The problem that I have with chivalry is that it either demeans women, or it perpetuates a hideous double standard. We have all these women asking why men aren't chivalrous anymore, but how come nobody asks why women aren't chivalrous? Is it because they are already perfect creatures, or is it because they are incapable of following the rigorous code of chivalry?
Under chivalry, the knight would go around doing knightly things and then return to the castle to report to the ladies all that he had done. It was then up to the ladies to accept the knight's deeds and praise him, or reject the knight and possibly send him on a dangerous mission as penance. This tells us that women are the moral custodians of chivalry and implies that they can do no wrong. Chivalry could then be an acknowledgement of women as being our moral superiors, and therefore deserving of being placed on a pedestal.
But maybe it's not that. Maybe chivalry is doing things for women because they need male assistance. Maybe chivalrous behavior is required, because women are not as capable of doing things as men. Maybe they are less agentic, and men have to do it for them.
Why should men be burdened with this code of conduct when women are not expected to follow it? Women are not incapable, and women are not morally superior, so why continue to use the word that implies one of those two things? Why not just have common courtesy, where everyone is expected to be polite?
|