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.
