It basically talks about how the writer held an "undercover experiment" to see if chivalry was dead, by holding a box in front of a door to see who would open it for her.
She only counted the men who did or did not, and therein lies my problem.
So, for convenience' sake, I'm just going to copy/paste this right here.
Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. Chivalry arose from an idealized German custom.[1] It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving honor, gallantry, and individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honor, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition.
The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders. All knights needed to have the strength and skills to fight wars in the Middle Ages. Knights not only had to be strong but they were also extremely disciplined and were expected to use their power to protect the weak and defenseless. Knights vowed to be loyal, generous, and "of noble bearing". Knights were required to tell the truth at all times and always respect the honour of women. Knights not only vowed to protect the weak but also vowed to guard the honor of all fellow knights. They always had to obey those who were placed in authority and were never allowed to refuse a challenge from an equal. Knights lived by honor and for glory. Knights were to fear God and maintain His Church. Knights always kept their faith and never turned their back on a foe. Knights despised pecuniary reward. They persevered to the end in any enterprise begun.[2] Essentially, a chivalric knight is a Christian military soldier. "Certain law" stated a man must be a baptized Catholic in order to become a knight.[1]Historian Johan Huizinga remarks in his book The Waning of the Middle Ages, "the source of the chivalrous idea, is pride aspiring to beauty, and formalized pride gives rise to a conception of honour, which is the pole of noble life."[3]The term chivalry is sometimes also used to refer to the medieval mounted men-at-arms with whom this code was associated.
All right, ladies. Please note. When you expect men to open doors for you, it is a part of COURTLY LOVE and COURTESY.
If you can open that damn door yourself because you reach it first, do so. It's courtesy to keep it open for whoever else passes through after you, whether you are male or female.
If you're looking for someone to constantly open doors for you, carry all your heavy lifting, and profess their love in flowery phrase, you're looking for a "white knight". (FYI in all the old stories, he's a hero and normally dies because he upholds everyone's honor to a tee.)
I asked a question of my Facebook fans, what they thought chivalry was, two people said it was dead, and four people said it was a concept of honor and courtesy towards all. (And one joker who picked "the one that least fit", which was "when men open doors and carry heavy things for women".)
I have personally always thought of chivalry as common courtesy. Why would you not hold doors open for someone if you reach it first? I've extended this courtesy to men and women. It's considerate, and I personally think everyone should be doing it.
As for the moral system part of it, helping others who can't help themselves, I've always equated that to bullying, or people going through a hard time. You help them. It doesn't need a fancy title, it just seems to me like something people should do on a regular basis.
As for respecting womens' honor, I personally believe that means respecting them as human beings, and treating them as such.
So, according to what I think of chivalry, it's not dead at all. And I can carry my own bags, thanks.
The idea of waiting for someone to open a door for me or pull out a chair bothers me. My legs and arms are not broken, I don't need someone to take care of me. If I was burdened by boxes and having trouble opening a door, please assit me, but I don't need someone taking care of me.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with this "study" I don't know what the writer looks like, but you could have different results depending on her appearance. If she is thin and pretty more people will open doors for her, if she is fat or unattractive it might be less. If she is elderly, it might help or hurt her case. Like you said, she didn't count how many women opened the door, not good at all.
I can say I have observed this idea just from riding the subway in NYC, it's striking to see who gets up and offers a seat when varying people come on the train. Disabled people who are attractive have better luck than those who are less attractive or their disability makes hygiene more difficult. A fat pregnant woman will not have a seat offered to her as quickly as a thin pregnant woman. The elderly tend to get seats based on their smell and if they are dressed well or not. It's all messed up. As a person with good manners, I will often give up my seat, not just to those disabled, pregnant or old, but to small children because they can't take the jerking of the subway like adults can, or anyone who looks like they've had a hard day. This means I stand in the subway most of the time, but that's fine by me.