Is Chivalry Dead?

An old Chinese adage tells us to be careful what we wish for; we may get it.

Such is the case of contemporary feminists. Having declared war on polite and genteel behavior-- of men toward women-- they are distressed to see that men no longer give up their seats to women on the bus. Men have become rude and disrespectful toward women.

Since women considered courtesy to be insulting and demeaning, they should now be thrilled to have won this small victory.

A New York Post article suggests that it all means one thing: that chivalry is over.

If we wanted to be pedantic, we would point out that chivalry is a martial ethos, invented during the Middle Ages. It seems to have morphed into something else of late, but it did not begin as a form of courtesy.

Similarly, chivalry is not the same as courtly love, the origin of what we call courtship. Courtly love was invented during the same Middle Ages, as a seduction ritual whereby the ladies of the manor, women whose husbands had gone to crusade in the Holy Land, worked to seduce the boys who remained at home. Those boys would obviously have been too young to fight wars as fully fledged knights.

Call it chivalry if you like, but it is really gentility. It involves codes of good conduct that exist for men and women. They are not universal and they are not therapeutically correct.

Mary Madigan explains her experience in the New York Post:

Is Chivalry dead? After a grown man practically trampled me to get on the bus recently, I’d be inclined to say yes.

He was in a suit and fun socks (boring finance bros tend to think quirky socks make them look fun), and he was on the verge of elbowing me to get a seat.

I was unnerved by his rugby scrum approach to public transport, it was a bit much for 8 a.m. and buses come every 10 minutes – but I wasn’t shocked

It wasn’t very chivalrous, but is that even a thing anymore? Is men letting women go first on public transport a dead concept?

Evidently, feminists rejected such behaviors. They argued that a man who was deferential toward a woman was demeaning her, and was saying that she was weak.

Strong women could open doors for themselves. They pay their own way in restaurants and they did not mind standing on buses or subways. According to feminism, a man who defers to a woman is simply treating her like a weak and ineffectual being.

Anyway, the important point, from my perspective, is that gentility-- to call it by its right name-- is a code of social conduct. It comprises roles and rules, from gentleman and lady to deferential and respectful gestures.

And yet, in a culture that is defined by therapy people are not encouraged to follow old rules. They are not even inclined to follow new rules. They are told to follow their bliss, to express their feelings. We are induced into thinking that we are unique and autonomous individuals. As such we should do what pleases us, regardless of the consequences. If the woman is standing in your way, push her aside.

Evidently, the rules of gentility are not designed to make you function like a self-involved human monad. They have been established to promote social harmony and to allow people to get along.

When you follow rules of decorum and gentility you are showing yourself to be a member of the group, to belong. If you fail to perform the most elementary gestures of courtesy you are showing yourself to be an outlier, an outsider, someone who is not contributing to group harmony.

Recently, I pointed out that the basis for social cohesion is trust. It’s a bit vague and limited as a concept, but it was the best we had. Now we can add that social cohesion develops when people follow one set of rules, follow them automatically and show respect and courtesy to other people.

If you fail to do so, you are showing yourself to be a boor, not to belong, and unworthy of trust.