Stop Biting My Fingers I am Trying to Help

Greetings,

I like to think that I am a reasonably open-minded sort of individual. I do not think that some mob of middle-aged men should be determining what is right for women's bodies. I also think that the same women should be paid the same as their male counter-parts for the same job. One could say that I am a believer in  equity between the sexes because equality is just not possible because we are different, and this is an awesome thing.

Of course I like to treat people equally as well. Then I get bombarded by articles such as this one: "That's not what chivalry is, but OK" (https://goingmedievalblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/thats-not-what-chivalry-is-but-ok/). An article which is written by a qualified individual in academia, and it does a wonderful job of beating up on the male counter-part for their misunderstanding of "chivalry" and how it does not apply today. Well, let me just say, I have some corrections for the article, and some updates which need to be said.

First of all, the aspects of "chivalry" said "Nice Guys" are hitting you with are not the historical versions at all. Yes, there they have it wrong. It is because they have been hit with the romanticised Victorian ideal of chivalry rather than what it actually was. This is a concept, by the way, which is bred into many of us so that we will treat women with respect. That being said, let us move on.

Now we have diffused some of the bit where we understand that the "Nice Guy" has no concept of "real" chivalry, let's look at some places where the author also needs to have a bit of a fact check. The author states that, "War horses, who were big bois, because they had to carry the weight of all that armour, were incredibly expensive, as was armour in and of itself." Yes, armour was expensive and so were horses. On the other hand, armour, as has been soundly proven by actual collections of actual artefacts is not all that heavy. I recommend looking at some of the brilliant research embarked upon by Daniel Jaquet, especially his obstacle run in armour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw) to have an idea about armour in the real world.

With regard to horses, the weight of the horse was to increase the weight of the charge against the opponent, not because the armour was so heavy. Likewise, the destrier was designed for battle, not for wandering around the countryside, which would be the reason for the palfrey for daily work, and not suitable for carrying an armoured man. Once again, in both cases, academia demonstrates its lack of knowledge of actual medieval martial arts and warfare. 

Then there is a long list of discussion about various papers of courtly love, however they conveniently stop before the beginning of the 15th-century, so Castiglione, Erasmus and various Renaissance authors conveniently miss out. Thus we miss out on the High Middle Ages and the development of the courtier and his training, and further along the gentleman. So thus the relationship through the Victorian ideals to the modern era is conveniently missed.

Just to finish this particular article off the author signs of with, "The TL/DR? That’s not what chivalry is, and you are being a sexist muppet right now. Off you pop." Great way for an academic of any kind to sign off, trying to stay in with the "in" crowd? Well, you will pretty much marginalise the entire male audience with that one. Even if, like myself, they would be really interested in hearing stories of women's achievements in medieval history and have written about such subjects (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2018/05/myth-debunking-female-combat-training.html).

It is exactly this sort of article which immediately puts men offside with regard to the sexism debate. There is no question of middle ground, there is only one and that states all men are inconsiderate and should be shunned. It is the case that the "feminazi" is just as bad as the chauvinist/misogynist and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as one another. Two extremists, just at opposite ends of the scale.

Where does all of this lead? It leads to some very simple things. There are men out there who do respect women and who are looking out for their best interests the best that they can, and that they are interested in women's history. Of course these same men do prefer not to have the misdeeds of men of the past shoved down their throats nor where their ancestors did things in inconvenient ways.

People are interested in historical and current social phenomenon, but they are much more interesting when the whole story is told so that we can understand how we came to the place where we are now. Not skipping over a couple of hundred years and just saying that something is being used wrongly. They say that only through understanding the past can we not make the same mistakes in the future, well all of that past must be told, not just snippets which suit the social/political rantings at an author's convenience.

Understanding is important. You cannot understand the "Nice Guys'" understanding of chivalry unless you look at the entire picture and how it was fed to them. Understand that it is not the medieval version. How can it apply? Understand it is a version of the concept which has filtered through the humanism of the Renaissance and also the Romanticism of the Victorian age to an ideal of what it was. Take these things into account and you will find it is quite positive not only toward women, but people in general. Once there is even a little more understanding between the sexes things will improve quite a bit.

Ask yourself, what does writing the article serve? And please try not to bite the fingers of those who are actually trying to help.

Cheers,

Henry.

Internet Connection: Cloak of Anonymity

Greetings,

All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.

Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.

What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.

Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.

While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.

Cheers,

Henry.