by Emily Esfahanifrom The Atlantic 12.11.12
It's been unfairly maligned as
sexist, but women and men alike would benefit from bringing it back.
This past spring marked the 100th
anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. On April 14, 1912, as the ship was
on its maiden journey from Southampton, UK, to New York City, it hit an iceberg
in the North Atlantic. About three hours later, it sank. Three-quarters of the
women on the ship survived; over three quarters of the men, by contrast, died.
In Washington DC, there is a memorial to these men. The inscription on it reads: "To the brave men who
perished in the wreck of the Titanic...They gave their lives that women and
children might be saved."
About a year ago, a group of today's
men were tested the way that the men on board the Titanic were. When the cruise
ship Costa Concordia hit a rock and capsized off the coast of Isola del Giglio,
Tuscany, last January, men pushed women and children out of the way to save
themselves. One Australian woman on board reported at
the time:
The people that pushed their way on to the boat were then
trying to tell them to shut the door, not to let any more people on the [life]
boat after they had pushed their way on...We just couldn't believe
it—especially the men, they were worse than the women.
This contrast is indicative of a
larger trend—the decline of chivalry and the rise of boorish behavior among
men. According to a 2010 Harris poll, 80 percent of Americans say that women are treated with
less chivalry today than in the past. This is a problem that all
women—especially feminists—should push back against.
After the women's liberation
movement of the 1960s, which insisted on the equal treatment of women in all
domains of life, feminists dismissed chivalry as sexist. They still do. A new study, published in the feminist journal Psychology
of Women Quarterly, questions the entire enterprise of male chivalry,
which, in an Orwellian flourish, it calls "benevolent sexism."
Chivalrous behavior is benevolent
because it flatters women and leads to their preferential treatment. But it is sexist
because it relies on the "gendered premise" that women are weak and in need of protection while
men are strong. "Benevolent sexism," Kathleen Connelly and Martin
Heesacker of the University of Florida write in the study, "is an ideology
that perpetuates gender inequality." They advocate interventions to reduce
its prevalence, even though, they found, chivalry is associated with greater
life satisfaction and the sense that the world is fair, well-ordered, and a
good place.
Charles Murray, the libertarian
social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, summed up the study with
tongue-in-cheek, writing
"the bad news is that gentlemanly behavior makes people happy." He
goes on to ask, "When social scientists discover something that increases
life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn't they at least consider the
possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy?
Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo
sapiens?"
In an interview, Connelly tells me
that despite Murray's points, the problem with chivalry is that it assumes
"women are wonderful but weak." This assumption of female weakness
puts women down, Connelly says.
Perhaps because of women's
ambivalence about chivalry, men have grown confused about how to treat women.
Will holding doors open for them or paying for the first date be interpreted as
sexist? Does carrying their groceries imply they're weak? The breakdown in the
old rules, which at one extreme has given rise to the hookup culture, has killed dating
and is leaving a lot of well-meaning men and women at a loss.
Historically, the chivalry ideal and
the practices that it gave rise to were never about putting women down, as
Connelly and other feminists argue. Chivalry, as a social idea, was about
respecting and aggrandizing women, and recognizing that their attention was
worth seeking, competing for, and holding. If there is a victim of "benevolent
sexism," it is not the career-oriented single college-aged feminist.
Rather, it is unconstrained masculinity.
"We should have a clear notion
of what chivalry is," argues Pier Massimo Forni, an award-winning professor of Italian literature and the
founder of the Civility Institute at Johns Hopkins. "It was a form of
preferential treatment that men once accorded to women generations ago,
inspired by the sense that there was something special about women, that they
deserve added respect, and that not doing so was uncouth, cowardly and
essentially despicable."
Chivalry arose as a response to the
violence and barbarism of the Middle Ages. It cautioned men to temper their
aggression, deploying it only in appropriate circumstances—like to protect the
physically weak and defenseless members of society. As the author and
self-described "equity feminist" Christina Hoff Sommers tells me in
an interview, "Masculinity with morality and civility is a very powerful
force for good. But masculinity without these virtues is dangerous—even
lethal."
Chivalry is grounded in a
fundamental reality that defines the relationship between the sexes, she
explains. Given that most men are physically stronger than most women, men can
overpower women at any time to get what they want. Gentlemen developed symbolic
practices to communicate to women that they would not inflict harm upon them
and would even protect them against harm. The tacit assumption that men would
risk their lives to protect women only underscores how valued women are—how
elevated their status is—under the system of chivalry.
A story from the life of Samuel
Proctor (d. 1997) comes to mind here. Proctor was the beloved pastor of
Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church. Apparently, he was in the elevator one day
when a young woman came in. Proctor tipped his hat at her. She was offended and
said, "What is that supposed to mean?"
The pastor's response was:
"Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would
not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened
you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if
necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man
and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and
solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you
all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat."
Some women are trying to bring back
chivalry. Since 2009, for instance, a group of women at Arizona State
University have devoted themselves to resuscitating gentlemanly behavior and
chivalry on a campus whose social life is overwhelmingly defined by partying,
frat life, and casual sex. Every spring for the past three years, these women
have gathered for the "Gentlemen's Showcase" to honor men who have acted chivalrously by, for
example, opening the door for a woman or digging a woman's car out of several
feet of snow.
The event has spread to campuses
nationwide. Its goal is "to encourage mutual respect between the
sexes," Karin Agness tells me in an interview. Agness is the founder and
president of the Network of Enlightened Women, the organization that hosts
Gentlemen's Showcases at colleges each spring.
"The current framework is not
generating healthy relationships," Blayne Bennett, the organizer of ASU's
first Gentlemen's Showcase, has said.
"I believe that chivalry provides the positive framework to maximize the
overall happiness of men and women."
Women, she said, "want to be
treated like ladies."
Bennett and her fellow chivalry
advocates have the right idea. "If women give up on chivalry, it will be
gone," Sommers tells me. "If boys can get away with being boorish,
they will, happily. Women will pay the price."If feminists want to level the
playing field between men and women, they should find common cause with
traditionalist women, like those at ASU, on the issue of chivalry. Both groups
are concerned with how men treat women. They just differ in what that means:
Feminists want men to treat women as equals; traditionalists want men to treat
women like ladies. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Chivalry is about respect. It is
about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable
than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a
heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other
words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to
civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never
have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be.
If women today—feminists and
non-feminists alike—encouraged both men and women to adopt the principles of
civil and chivalrous conduct, then the standards of behavior for the two sexes
would be the same, fostering the equality that feminists desire. Moreover, the
relations between the sexes would be once again based on mutual respect, as the
traditionalists want. Men and women may end up being civil and well-mannered in
different ways, but at least they would be civil and well-mannered, an
improvement on the current situation.
Through a tragic event that occurred
last summer, our nation was jolted into recognizing chivalry's enduring power.
During a screening of the Dark Knight, a deranged gunman opened fire in an Aurora,
Colorado, theater, murdering twelve innocent people. Three men, all in their
twenties, were in the audience that day with their girlfriends. When the shots
rang out across the theater, these men threw themselves over their girlfriends,
saving the women's lives. All three of the men died.
At the time, Hanna Rosin noted
that what these men did was "deeper" than chivalry. It was heroic. I
agree. But heroism and chivalry share a basic feature in common—the
recognition, a transcendent one, that there is something greater than the self
worth protecting, and that there is something greater than the self worth
sacrificing your own needs, desires, and even life for. If we can all agree
that the kind of culture we should aspire to live in is one in which men and
women protect and honor each other in the ways that they can—and not one in
which men are pushing past women and children to save their own lives—then that
is progress that women everywhere should support.
