Chivalry: Yea or Nay?

Ok, so this discussion came up in a Skype chat and it's deserving of being put here by a mile. The basic question is: Does Chivalry still have a place in today's society? For those who want to know exactly what chivalry is read HERE.

Now the interpretation of these is very subjective, however there are some points that would be seen as very controversial if upheld in today's society. Discuss the finer points of the code, and how it would apply to today's society, and then say whether this code really belongs in it. So, let the games begin!

Heck yay. Especially with the way, I treatz the womenz.

Verily.

Chivalry as a code of life and and status might be dead, but it is in most cases a very dignified way of living ones life. Now the commandments listed here can be considered quite complicated to those whom perhaps do not speak English as their first language or to those of you whom simply do not possess the vocabulary for older words such as these. As such, I shall write them in a simpler form where necessary.

1: To fear God and maintain his church.
2: To serve the liege lord in valour and faith.
3: To protect the weak and defenceless.
4: To support widows and orphans in their times of need and hardship.
5: To not insult someone without being provoked.
6: To live by honour and for glory.
7: To hate the idea of monetary reward.
8: To fight for the safety of others.
9: To follow the orders of those above you.
10: To protect the honour of all other folk who follow the code.
11: To never engage in unfair, mean or deceitful behavior.
12: To keep faith.
13: To always tell the truth.
14: To never give up.
15: To respect the honour of women.
16: Never say no to a challenge from someone at the same level as you.
17: Never run away from a fight.

Click to expand...

Now to be perfectly frank, I believe in following the code of chivalry in my modern day life where applicable. However I don't believe it is fair to take the exact definition from medieval times as that, along with many things from such a time, have changed in definition.

Let us first look at how the code contradicts itself and move to adapt it as possible.

The code came from a time of religious bias, a time where the entire World was turning in on itself for what silly sky fantasy they believed in. In this modern day society, the idea of defending every human equally would contradict the old ways of following a single religion. Since the tenant "To Keep Faith" exists, I believe this may be applicable to all World religions rather than just the catholic faith. Thus the first tenant would be null and void in todays society in order to fit in with the other more just rules.

Tenants 2 and 9 also fall into the same field, the idea of a liege lord is now dead and as such the idea of following the orders of ones authority figure is still important. It should be noted however that this rule was often broken by knights as a figure of authority may not be chivalrous themselves and as such disobeying their orders went against the rest of the code. By the by, one should simply follow they whom is viewed most just and obey their orders diligently. Either that... or be a leader yourself.

Tenant 3 is personal opinion in terms of its application. But I personally have always followed this as a rule of thumb as it is by far the most famous rule. A chivalrous individual should always help those whom cannot help themselves and whom desire help, if more people did this then I think our modern society would be a much better place as a whole.

Number 4 is a bit of a given, you have to be a right sick piece of trash to directly disobey this rule. While simply not following it is fine, I think doing the opposite of said would be appalling don't you?

Number 5 is another important one. Don't be a bad person, don't insult people without at least rationalizing a good reason for your provocation. Why on Earth would you do that unless you're a jerk?

Number 6? Another debatable one but if you apply it to modern ideals and definitions then it makes sense;

Honour:
1: high respect; great esteem.
2: the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.

Glory:
1: high renown or honour won by notable achievements.
2: magnificence or great beauty.

In essence? Hold yourself with dignity and aim to achieve greatness. If you ask me this is the sort of mindset that earns a person respect.

Now number 7 is one that changed with the times, now one requries money to live and exist in this World, however back at the times of the knights chivalrous, they had themselves provided for by their lords. They were provided with food and housing, arms and armor. They had no need for money apart from selfish indulgence and thus it was denied by the code. Maybe indulgence is worthwhile and could be argued for, but I'd at least counter point that this should be in moderation. The refusal of monetary reward in todays setting would apply to something like helping a neighbour or fixing your little brothers bike for them... it is unchivalrous to expect or ask for payment for the good deeds you do, helping others should be its own reward. Your payment comes from your work and job and is your means of living in general.

I understand why others might shy from Tenant 8, but personally I choose to uphold it as well. It can be difficult to stand up for another person... in any circumstance. But can anyone argue that doing so is not the right thing to do?

Tenant 9 was discussed earlier.

If we assume that the code of chivalry is indeed just, which I do in this scenario, then those whom follow it are in most circumstances deserving of their dignity due to the actions they see through for the benefit of others. I would, personally, gladly defend such a person with my own honour at stake... such a thing is chivalrous as well and thus tenant 10 exists.

Tenant 11 translates directly into "don't be a dick". Simple stuff even for those who don't follow the code.

This was discussed, but tenant 12 can in a modern circumstance if adapted by taken literally as "Stay true to what you believe." Which if you ask me, is a very important thing in any persons life. What is life without something to strive for? A personal way of life to believe in? Be it religious or otherwise... having faith in ones beliefs and defending them is undoubtedly worthwhile.

Tenant 13... Telling the truth can be hard, especially when the truth would hurt people... so I understand this tenants controversy and I too can break it. Still, I believe that in most situations I would still strive to stick true to this tenant. In the majority of situations in life, lies are rarely necessary and they hurt more people than they have ever helped.

Tenant 14. Never give up, what else is there to say?

Now for tenant 15, many people often misunderstand this one and think it hints at women needing to receive special treatment. Even people whom follow the code tend to mess this one up. But I'll tell you now that all of those people are wrong. In the time of this codes conception, women were considered weaker and lesser than men... men were the stronger and better individuals in the eyes of the populace. Chivalry disagrees with this common misconception of the era. "15: To respect the honour of women." Women and men both have their own honour, their own codes to live by and their own sense of dignity... this tenant isn't telling us to mollycoddle females, but to treat them with the respect and dignity of their own. In its own way and in the most blatant way at the time, this tenant is telling us to treat all people as equals should they have the willpower to match you and that even if they don't that they deserve some semblance of respect. This is the tenant of equality in gender, not favoritism of any one side... and if you really want to dispute equality then you have a much grander problem my friend.

Tenant 16 is linked to honour entirely and it is the only one I can myself claim to disagree with in many parts... even though yes I do abide by it. Confrontation is often bad, but if someone challenges you to a battle of any sort... if they stand as a rival at your level. Then I believe that there is a certain disrespect in turning them away... if it is out of fear then it is self disrespect for doubting your ability against an equal, if it is out of arrogance then it is disrespect due to your under-estimation of an equal opponent. Remember, this tenant specifies that you may not turn down a challenge from an "equal" opponent.

Finally, tenant 17. Never run away from a fight, probably one of my favourites. "Never to turn the back upon a foe." Never turn away from your enemy. If you enter into a fight then you have gotten yourself into that situation, you either get yourself out, live up to your claims and succeed... or you fail trying only to try again later. I view running away from an accepted confrontation as weak, it shows an inability to cope with what you yourself have undertaken... if thrust into a situation against your will then I wouldn't blame you for running, but you'd have to accept and agree to that fact that you did so because you were not capable enough to deal with the situation... that's simple 2+ 2 logic. This applies not only to a physical opponent but to every trial and tribulation in life... responsibilities, commitments, challenging times. This rule does not forbid you from seeking help... only from running away and abandoning the issue for someone ELSE to deal with. Have honor, stand and fight, or let someone who can handle the situation deal with it for you. Which option would you rather choose? If people applied this to their lives I can see their ambition pushing them to excel further rather than the common ending of their fear inhibiting them from growing as a person.

All in all, chivalry as a code is old yes, it is slightly dated in some areas, yes.

You hear talk of the crusades and the holy tenants of chivalry... how they lead to massacre and death. Pain and suffering. But as I established in a modern setting these rules contradict the entire code! They render it redundant and thus in adaptation the religious connotation would have to be removed.

And when you remove that aspect... can you tell me of a knight who slaughtered innocents? A knight who ruined lives? Or can you only see as I do the stories of valiant heroes whom gave their all for what they believed in? Maybe sometimes they were misguided but they protected those weaker than themselves and they defended their dignity, their beliefs and their homeland. They were some of the most respected individuals in the medieval World by the common man and much like today the problems of the World were caused by the "kings" and "rulers" whom rarely followed the code of chivalry at all.

I have admired and yes, silly as it might sound on paper, I have striven to follow chivalry as best I can as the person I am. At its core chivalry is the ideal of defending what you feel is right, protecting your dignity as a human being... and most importantly striking back at injustice and disgrace brought on to the weak, defenceless, innocent and honourable.

I give chivalry a resounding "Yea" as a fit for the modern society, if followed correctly as its code dictates and purified of its contradictions in a modern World then I feel like it would bring a sense of honour back to us all that is so very painfully lost in more modern times. More chivalrous people are needed in times like these.

Some parts yes, some parts no, as is the case with most ethical systems. I think the underlying idea is good, it's just that the code itself is too rigid and simplistic (and archaic). Chivalry is more or less about being as fair and just in your dealings with people as possible, which is a good idea and something that I believe transcends the cultural norms of the age, as most good ideas related to ethics do.

Chivalry died the moment women fought for equality and gays, lesbians, and transgenders became accepted by society. Same thing applies to gender roles.

Women should treat men courteously the same way men treated women courteously way back when (if that was ever a thing outside of media).

Alfieri said:

Chivalry died the moment women fought for equality and gays, lesbians, and transgenders became accepted by society. Same thing applies to gender roles.

Click to expand...

I find this funny because not a single one of those things actually happened ever.

Just because women fought for equality doesn't mean they have it, and having gay marriage doesn't say anything about acceptance.

Crizzle said:

Heck yay. Especially with the way, I treatz the womenz.

Click to expand...

There's a lot more to Chivalry than just treating women well, but quite frankly I think that's one of the aspects that most needs to be done away with. Nobody should be treated differently, for better or for worse, because of the genitals they happen to possess.

Crystal Berry said:

Chivalry: The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.

Sounds like something I would want my dream boyfriend to be like.

Click to expand...

Alfieri said:

Chivalry died the moment women fought for equality and gays, lesbians, and transgenders became accepted by society. Same thing applies to gender roles.

Women should treat men courteously the same way men treated women courteously way back when (if that was ever a thing outside of media).

Click to expand...

Again, there's a lot more to chivalric code than just treating women well.

Universe said:

I find this funny because not a single one of those things actually happened ever.

Just because women fought for equality doesn't mean they have it, and having gay marriage doesn't say anything about acceptance.

Click to expand...

I'm not touching either of these issues with a ten foot pole right now because either will totally derail this conversation due to their controversial nature. I think both issues would make outstanding threads on their own though.


As for my own personal thoughts on the matter; there are quite a few aspects of the chivalric code that I really do like. I think it is important to show compassion and courtesy to people and I agree that it is generally a good thing to be honest and just and to strive for excellence.

Chivalry is a dead ethical system for a reason though. The overly strong religious aspects of the code as well as several of the other belief factors within it are outdated and not compatible with modern societies at all. I see no problem with taking inspiration from chivalry, as it has a few good points in there, but the majority of the code is outdated and shouldn't be applied to contemporary life. I think twocows put it quite nicely.

On another note, can we please refrain from one or two line sentences that don't contribute to the conversation at all? I don't expect everyone to write a novel like Deceptio but the Round Table is supposed to be a forum for more in-depth discussions.

gimmepie said:

The overly strong religious aspects of the code as well as several of the other belief factors within it are outdated and not compatible with modern societies at all. I see no problem with taking inspiration from chivalry, as it has a few good points in there, but the majority of the code is outdated and shouldn't be applied to contemporary life. I think twocows put it quite nicely.

Click to expand...

As I said before the topic asks if Chivalry can be adapted as a code into a more modern society, in doing so the religious aspects of said code would directly contradict with the other factors involved and as such they would have to removed from the ethics and rulings of chivalry from the get go.

Deceptio said:

Now for tenant 15, many people often misunderstand this one and think it hints at women needing to receive special treatment. Even people whom follow the code tend to mess this one up. But I'll tell you now that all of those people are wrong. In the time of this codes conception, women were considered weaker and lesser than men... men were the stronger and better individuals in the eyes of the populace. Chivalry disagrees with this common misconception of the era. "15: To respect the honour of women." Women and men both have their own honour, their own codes to live by and their own sense of dignity... this tenant isn't telling us to mollycoddle females, but to treat them with the respect and dignity of their own. In its own way and in the most blatant way at the time, this tenant is telling us to treat all people as equals should they have the willpower to match you and that even if they don't that they deserve some semblance of respect. This is the tenant of equality in gender, not favoritism of any one side... and if you really want to dispute equality then you have a much grander problem my friend.

Click to expand...

Chivalry does not favor women at all, in fact it simply states that they should be treated with the honor and respect that they deserve. Perhaps knights of the time were especially kind towards women as in THEIR ERA this is what they believed the tenant to mean.

But we are adapting the CODE and not the MEANS by which it was followed. The code states that we treat women with the respect they deserve, it in no way specifically implies that we should not show this respect men, nor does it state that women should not show respect to men in return.

What almost all of you are focusing on is the behavior of knights, none of you are actually focusing on the chivalric code itself and what it implies.

Deceptio said:

As I said before the topic asks if Chivalry can be adapted as a code into a more modern society, in doing so the religious aspects of said code would directly contradict with the other factors involved and as such they would have to removed from the ethics and rulings of chivalry from the get go.



Chivalry does not favor women at all, in fact it simply states that they should be treated with the honor and respect that they deserve. Perhaps knights of the time were especially kind towards women as in THEIR ERA this is what they believed the tenant to mean.

But we are adapting the CODE and not the MEANS by which it was followed. The code states that we treat women with the respect they deserve, it in no way specifically implies that we should not show this respect men, nor does it state that women should not show respect to men in return.

What almost all of you are focusing on is the behavior of knights, none of you are actually focusing on the chivalric code itself and what it implies.

Click to expand...

I love that you're rebuking the only other person in the thread who pointed out that there's a lot more to the code than people are assuming.

As for the code itself, there's more that I disagree with in their than just the overly-heavy religious influences etc. I don't have the energy right now, but I'll come back later and do an in-depth post showing the parts I like and dislike and explaining why.

Quote of the day;
"They say Chivalry is dead.... dead..... dead...."

Nah, disagreed to this quote!

One more thing, I came up of this in the INTERNET:
"Not only men needs to do it, also women should"

I think that it is possible that chivalry still exists and can be used in today's society but we are lazy or selfish. I try my best to up hold this kind of ideal but it can be hard.

Chivalry, as it once existed, is dead. It was a code of honour that meant to bind the strong to protect the weak. That kind of power no longer exists in individuals, making chivalry obsolete next to common decency.

Chivalry has been completely warped by centuries of romanticism, so in that sense I would say it's never been alive in the first place. It's a very attractive moral code for people and if it works for you I'm not going to stop. As far as I'm concerned, cultivating virtue is worthwhile even if you base it off an inaccuracy.

Personally I work on wude, which is a little bit different.

Universe said:

Just because women fought for equality doesn't mean they have it

Click to expand...

Well no, that's true, but I don't think women need to have achieved equality for Alfieri's point to be valid. The point he was trying to make was that women are striving to have themselves seen as equal to men, a notion that I agree with to the fullest extent. When that began to happen, the notion of chivalry as it applies to women did die. I don't mean that in a negative or passive-aggressive way, I think it's a good thing. It's what should have happened, because chivalry and feminism aren't two concepts that can happily co-exist.

While their hearts are quite possibly in the right place when men open a door for a woman or stand on the side of the path closest to the road so that any oncoming car would hit him first, it does send out the message that women are weak and need to be protected.

On the other hand, I have a female friend who I go out and do stuff with quite often. She's about half my size. One time she bought a heavy photo frame while we were out together and I offered to carry it for her but she insisted that she carry it herself. About every second person we walked past who saw her carrying this big photo frame while I walked beside her holding nothing, gave me a filthy or incredulous look, like I was some piece of shit who was shirking his responsibility as the man in our twosome. So while chivalry might be dead, it has still left some deeply ingrained societal attitudes that feminism has yet to scrub away.

Shining Raichu said:

Well no, that's true, but I don't think women need to have achieved equality for Alfieri's point to be valid. The point he was trying to make was that women are striving to have themselves seen as equal to men, a notion that I agree with to the fullest extent. When that began to happen, the notion of chivalry as it applies to women did die. I don't mean that in a negative or passive-aggressive way, I think it's a good thing. It's what should have happened, because chivalry and feminism aren't two concepts that can happily co-exist.

While their hearts are quite possibly in the right place when men open a door for a woman or stand on the side of the path closest to the road so that any oncoming car would hit him first, it does send out the message that women are weak and need to be protected.

On the other hand, I have a female friend who I go out and do stuff with quite often. She's about half my size. One time she bought a heavy photo frame while we were out together and I offered to carry it for her but she insisted that she carry it herself. About every second person we walked past who saw her carrying this big photo frame while I walked beside her holding nothing, gave me a filthy or incredulous look, like I was some piece of **** who was shirking his responsibility as the man in our twosome. So while chivalry might be dead, it has still left some deeply ingrained societal attitudes that feminism has yet to scrub away.

Click to expand...

You made a really good point. In fact you make so many great points! :D

Chivalry can be seen as sweet or flattering, but as you pointed out it could also be seen as patronizing, or as a cheap tactic to attempt to win a girl's heart. If I allow a boy to do something for me I almost always try to return the favor. I also feel reluctant to let my date pay for the entire meal because I have money and I don't want the poor guy to spend so much on me lol. Most girls will outright tell you "it's ok" or something like this if you offer to do things for them. Some of us get creeped out depending on who it is. In most cases I see this aspect of chivalry as flattering, and really sweet, unless I sense an interior motive.

I have had guys who I had no interest in offer to do so many things for me and it really just makes me feel confused and honestly a bit scared :/

Okay, so I've said it a bunch of times now, but I feel like it's really not going into you people's heads. So let me put it as plainly and as obviously as possible so that you folks understand.

I feel like once again the point of Chivalry is being overlooked here. We're NOT talking about the way people used Chivalry in the past, not in the slightest. Relating those examples is simply taking the personal interpretations and experiences of people whom were most likely wrong in their use of the code to begin with as, with any code of rules or morals, it is often taken and used for things for which it was never intended.

To clarify, to all of you people whom think Chivalry is dead because of women having more equal rights... and equally so for those of you who think that Chivalry tells us to belittle women and treat them like fragile objects to be protected... I'd just like to take this point in time to inform you that you're blatantly wrong.

Look at the code again. Let me point out the two most relevant points if they don't jump out at you.

3: To protect the weak and defenceless.
15: To respect the honour of women.

Do I really need to put two and two together here? The code itself at no point tells us to consider women as weak and fragile things. In fact it tells us to do EXACTLY the opposite.

What is honour? Honour is the concept of dignity, of respect and of standing. If we treat women like objects that need to be protected then do you know what we're doing?

We're BREAKING the code of chivalry.

In old and fantasized stories of knights and kings, there's the classic trope of the brave warrior saving the princess in the tower. If you look at a real account of a knight in medieval times you'll find very different stories.

Protecting women exclusively like that isn't a part of chivalry, it's a part of fairy tales.

Let me put it perfectly frankly for you.

Chivalry tells us to respect womens dignity and honour, in other words it tells us to understand their right and to not try and belittle them or their abilities.

Chivalry also tells us to protect the weak and defenceless. Children, the elederly, the sick and the crippled are all perfect examples but women in general do not fall into this category and the code of chivalry ACKNOWLEDGES this.

Honestly. You all need to start trying to consider CHIVALRY as a modern moral code... NOT your childrens bedtime stories of Prince Charming and his desperate flirting with the princess in her castle.

Deceptio said:

Okay, so I've said it a bunch of times now, but I feel like it's really not going into you people's heads. So let me put it as plainly and as obviously as possible so that you folks understand.

I feel like once again the point of Chivalry is being overlooked here. We're NOT talking about the way people used Chivalry in the past, not in the slightest. Relating those examples is simply taking the personal interpretations and experiences of people whom were most likely wrong in their use of the code to begin with as, with any code of rules or morals, it is often taken and used for things for which it was never intended.

To clarify, to all of you people whom think Chivalry is dead because of women having more equal rights... and equally so for those of you who think that Chivalry tells us to belittle women and treat them like fragile objects to be protected... I'd just like to take this point in time to inform you that you're blatantly wrong.

Look at the code again. Let me point out the two most relevant points if they don't jump out at you.

3: To protect the weak and defenceless.
15: To respect the honour of women.

Do I really need to put two and two together here? The code itself at no point tells us to consider women as weak and fragile things. In fact it tells us to do EXACTLY the opposite.

What is honour? Honour is the concept of dignity, of respect and of standing. If we treat women like objects that need to be protected then do you know what we're doing?

We're BREAKING the code of chivalry.

In old and fantasized stories of knights and kings, there's the classic trope of the brave warrior saving the princess in the tower. If you look at a real account of a knight in medieval times you'll find very different stories.

Protecting women exclusively like that isn't a part of chivalry, it's a part of fairy tales.

Let me put it perfectly frankly for you.

Chivalry tells us to respect womens dignity and honour, in other words it tells us to understand their right and to not try and belittle them or their abilities.

Chivalry also tells us to protect the weak and defenceless. Children, the elederly, the sick and the crippled are all perfect examples but women in general do not fall into this category and the code of chivalry ACKNOWLEDGES this.

Honestly. You all need to start trying to consider CHIVALRY as a modern moral code... NOT your childrens bedtime stories of Prince Charming and his desperate flirting with the princess in her castle.

Click to expand...

I did make it a point in my post to say 'chivalry as it applies to women.' I read the OP, I understand that there is more to chivalry than the treatment of women, and I also understand that the 'code' is about honour and respect.

Regardless of your valid (yet a little condescending) points, when people think of chivalry, they think of the fairy tale you're talking about. Whether or not that's right, that has become what that word means to people, and that's the angle of chivalry I was addressing. It is an open discussion, after all.

While lots of the chivalry code is outdated, I think some of the points do perhaps contain some value such as defending the weak. I personally don't care much for chivalry or hold much sentiment to it, I think its probably more practical and beneficial to simply follow one's own moral codes rather than upholding a single code that could so easily be subjected to various meanings or extremities.

Does it have a place in our modern society? Perhaps, some points are valid, but as said earlier, with most ethics some points are reasonable whilst others are not. While it may not be explicitly applied to our social conduct nowadays, as pointed out by Shining Raichu, the beliefs of some parts of chivalry are still deeply entrenched in how we view social behaviors and how we treat individuals and judge actions.

Shining Raichu said:

While their hearts are quite possibly in the right place when men open a door for a woman or stand on the side of the path closest to the road so that any oncoming car would hit him first, it does send out the message that women are weak and need to be protected.

Click to expand...

I generally hold the door open for anyone following closely behind me because it would be rude to let it shut in their face when I could easily grab it. It really has nothing to do with implying someone is weak and everything to do with basic human kindness.

If you want an example of something that truly implies women are weak, look no further than all the folks asserting that we need to help women get involved in X (and making policy decisions based on that assertion), where X is some attractive target that happens to have more men in it (the key factor is attractive; they never seem to complain about the lack of women in construction, garbage disposal, or sanitation for some reason).

For example, software development. The idea that women need unfair advantages to get them into programming is one of the most offensively patronizing ideas I have ever heard. Women aren't small animals or children. They, like all human beings, are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they are interested in and are just as well-equipped to pursue that field of study if they so wish. Primary schools generally expose girls to the same curriculum as boys; they get the same technology education we do. And plenty of women end up going into programming of their own volition because they find it to be an interesting field; that's why we've had female programmers since the dawn of programming (hell, arguably the first programmer ever was female; she even has an entire programming language named after her). Nothing at all is preventing women from pursuing programming if they want to. If anything, well-meaning fools are bending over backwards to get women who aren't interested in programming into the field (often at the expense of men). If you ask me, the idea that we need to bribe and coerce women to get them into programming is a slap in the face to all the women who decided they wanted to get into programming because they were interested in programming, and it's a slap in the face to women everywhere because it implies they're incapable of making decisions without "enlightened elites" waving a carrot in front of their faces. That's of course putting aside how unfair the whole thing is to men (and it is, immensely).

As far as chivalry goes, my thoughts are the same as those I posted previously: mostly harmless, a bit simplistic. As it specifically relates to women, I think singling any group out for unique treatment (positive or negative) based on factors like sex or race is unfair, so as a matter of course, I think the rule pertaining to protecting women's honor is unfair.