An opinion article
Chivalry is defined as polite, kind, and unselfish behavior, especially by men toward women. Chivalry began with medieval knights as a code of conduct initially tied to feudalism. Through the ages, the concept evolved to become widely romanticized. In past generations, young males were taught rules of etiquette on how to treat females. These practices were carried into adulthood and demonstrated respect for women. A man holding a door for a woman is an example of chivalry. A man paying the restaurant bill on a first date is another. But, with the modern-day push for women to break from tradition and take on male-dominated roles, we are left wondering, “Is chivalry dying?” If so, “Who is to blame?”
Throughout American history, women have faced challenges to be seen and have their voices heard. For instance, during colonial days, women’s property rights were greatly restricted. This was due to the American colonies adopting the English system of property ownership – with males in charge. Per Annenbergclassroom.org, in the words of Judge John Wilford Blackstone, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.” By 1839, changes were starting to be noticed. Mississippi became the first state to grant women the right to hold property in their own name – with her husband’s permission. Still, for some time after, it remained challenging for women to enjoy property rights. Here’s a second example. For decades, women also fought to secure the right to vote. This finally came to fruition with the certification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920. Still, women of color had to wait another 45 years for the passage of the Voting Rights Act, finally allowing all women to vote.
The push for women’s recognition and independence was a necessary one as evident in the above fight for rights. As the feminist movement, or women’s movement, gained momentum, supporters began pushing for liberal reforms on a wide range of issues. This led some to call for the reordering of society, with the elimination of patriarchy and the promotion of women’s rights even above men’s. While it is admirable for women to accomplish that which a man can do, the push for massive reform can blur the lines between gender roles. This shift is reframing the way people think and act – and the way in which people respond to acts of chivalry. For example, some feminists dislike having men hold the door for them. Though done as a matter of politeness, feminists perceive it as a negative action. They view it as the “stronger” sex (male) holding the door for the “weaker” one (female). Not only do many feminists dislike this act of chivalry, but they would rather hold the door for the man to prove that they are just as tough. Might these modern-day attitudes denote that chivalry is on its way out?
While dining out one evening, I overheard a group of young women discussing who should pay for a date. Most agreed that regardless of who asked for the date, the bill should be split. Only one argued, “If a guy asks me out on a date, he should pick up the tab.” She added, “If he’s a gentleman, he will pay,” indicating that she is open to chivalry. “I don’t want the man to pay. That’s old school,” said one of the voices. “What if I earn more money than he does?” The others piped in agreeing that times have changed. Still, the one person didn’t give up on the tradition of the man paying. “If he offers to pay, it tells you a lot about his character. It means he’s the kind of guy who is generous and kind and that he was brought up well to respect women.” Though her point of view was clearly in the minority, she made a solid point. What are your thoughts on this hot topic? Should men continue to honor women through acts of chivalry – or is it too “old school?”
Disclosure: This article is an opinion piece written by an independent author and does not reflect AMAC’s stance on topics.
