By Derek Devine, Guest Commentary
Last week, a piece was released entitled "where has all the chivalry gone?" I found the majority of the piece to be insulting and presumptuous, even for someone who deals with and reads as much misandry as I do.
The implicative and accusing nature of this piece inspired me to respond in the way I normally do: anonymously and with a touch of rage. That gorgeous 2" by 2" photo (edit based on photo size?) staring at you is about how anonymous I am, and I'll try to keep my personal irritations bridled. I wouldn't want to sound jaded and bitter while I was being jaded and bitter.
Let's look at chivalry first. Chivalry is traditionally defined as a code of conduct and ethics, usually heavily conservative at its base. The results of chivalry range from having a door held open for you as you exit a building to delivering an extra manly punch in the jaw to anyone fool enough to disrespect one of your clansmen to your face.
Chivalry, at least the chivalry that benefits women, is rooted heavily is sexual delineation. I hold the door open for you because you are a woman, and I lay my jacket in a puddle for you because you are a woman. The intent isn't always wrong, it's just being done solely because you're female, and is rooted in those old, very wrong, ideas of women being the weaker gender and whatnot. There was never anything "rational" about it, it was just the socially accepted behavior.
Done without purpose or delineation, it ends up just looking like random acts of kindness that we see everyday. People hold open doors, carry things for others, and so on everyday.
Which it seems people are taking more and more for granted everyday. I get half the "thank you"s I used to, and more commonly get asked why I'm holding that door.
That bit of chivalry isn't quite dead yet, and I'd contend that the friendly greeting and books-carrying crowd is growing if anything.
The biggest reason, I'd contend, that dating isn't happening is due to the confusion about what it even means anymore. If we apply chivalry how you imply it, to dating, I should be taking women out on dates as the first step in a long chain of events leading up to a white picket fence and 2.5 kids.
Which I'm not really arguing against, I'm sure that still happens. But today, dating has morphed completely from what our parents and their parents were dealing with. The original idea of a dinner date was meant as a way to meet someone and decide if you wanted to pursue that relationship further. Dates in that old sense are for people looking for a long term relationship, which certainly isn't everyone. On top of this, there is certainly the argument that this chain is… sexist, because it institutionalizes the monetized objectification of the women, and leads to that school of thought that you own your "weaker" partner.
As a gentleman in the 2010's, I don't have to do that anymore. There are other options, like chatting it up on Facebook, or texting, meeting at the commons, or whatever else Frazier thinks doesn't count. We can talk, hang out, and meet up at parties completely independent of the "chivalrous" chain of events. It's a more equal plane, you stop being really responsible for anything but yourself and what you'd like to take from and give to the other person.
As a woman in the 2010's, I'd challenge Ms. Frazier to ask a guy out if she misses dating so much. These relationships are a two way street, why does it just have to be men expending their physical resources to make the other person involved feel special? Or maybe she'd like to contend that there is a good, not sexist, reason why men should just shower all women everywhere with money and effort, and receive nothing in return.
The way chivalrous conduct was portrayed in Frazier's article was archaic and completely sexist. The "it doesn't matter if it's cheap, as long as you spend money on me" vibe is stomach turning. Saying you miss chivalry is just saying you miss being treated special just because you're female. Which is fine, just recognize that what you're saying flips off the last however many years of feminist activism so that you can vote.
College for me has been about meeting people, which the previous author seemed to dismiss as being too commitment free. But in the event that I do want to date some of the women I've met, I can guarantee you that I'm going to know who they are first, and decide that I'd like to take them on a date, rather than just take them out because they're women, and women like that. I'm not opposed to the idea in the slightest. I just find limiting it to some archaic code of conduct to be ignorant and insulting to everyone involved. You should date because you like the person you're with, not because he drives a nice car and pays for an expensive meal.
In conclusion, the institution and motivations in chivalry may be dead, but the actions previously attributed to chivalry have been cleared of the awful, oppressive motivations.
