Tuesday, 07 April 2009
-
Chivalry's not dead, but it sure is sick
Ever notice how conversations about "how to treat a woman" proceed?
First, a man will say "I treat women with respect."
Another man will pipe in with "Women really want us to lead."
A third man will agree, saying "its our duty to honor a woman by protecting her."
About then, without being asked, a woman will pipe in: "Women don't want you to lead!"
Then another woman will respond "Yes, we do. We need men's strength and leadership."
Someone else (sometimes a man, sometimes a woman) will try to be diplomatic and make a compromise: "men should protect women, but they can't control women."
So they all grudginly agree that it is chivalrous for a man to protect a woman and honor her by being sensitive to her, but wrong of a man to demand a woman to obey his every whim. Thus, the solution reached is not one of equality but rather one of temperment: the man can be in charge as long as he is nice about it.
The problem with this conversation is that it treats 50% of the population of the world as if they were of a single mind and demeanor. It says that roles in a relationship should be determined by supposedly universal decrees rather than looking at what works for each individual relationship.
The very quesiton "what do women want," in fact, dehumanizes women. Why treat women as some huge single unknowable obselisk? Why not turn to a woman and ask her "what do YOU want, as an individual?" Some women will say they want to be an equal. Others will claim to thrive under the authority of a strong man. But until it is a question to the individual and not about women as a group, you will never get to know the person you love.
The same thing is true for men. The statement "this is what men should do" limits and stifles individual strengths and weaknesses. Why not turn to a man and ask him "what do YOU want, as an individual?" Some men will say they want to be an equal. Others will claim to thrive under the authority of a strong woman. But until it is a question to the individual and not about men as a group, you will never get to know the person you love.
That is the danger and sickness inside chivalry or any other term meant to encapsulate some code of proper conduct between the sexes. A man who says he honors a woman, but claims that all women at their heart want the same thing, is a sick person. He is cut off from not only the true individuality of his lover, but of himself because he forces himself into a role based on the role he forces her into. He does not let the relationship develop naturally. For some relationships, perhaps even for the majority of them, the truth is similar enough to the "code" that the damage will never be noticed. But for the millions of men and women whose abilities and desires do not conform to the decrees of "chivalry," it is a crippling illness that will keep them all their lives from discovering who their partner is and who they are themselves.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to GoodbyeSickan's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in GoodbyeSickan's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (5)
Very well put. I don't know that I've thought quite in these terms before, but you raise excellent points. Thanks!
we are a nation that loves to label people & then pigeon hole them. hopefully one day that will change. peace, Al
awesome I totally agree :]
Sometimes it is too easy to ask "what do women want?" and not try to unravel that mystery. Other times some men do a quick evaluation and miss the facets of attractiveness in a woman.
First impressions will taint later impressions but for sure some people will say one thing and actively do things that disqualify what they just said.
There are wounded men and women walking around in this world. A successful man or woman often have a backup system that helps them to stay that way. Some men and women are losers because their back up system sucks. There are a lot of women who go around in this world with their group of women as protection, they don't need a man's protection and often that same system locks out any man who is trying to be friends with that woman.
Men have their own clicks and that locks men out of a possible relationship with women. The peer pressure to not allow any of their members to invest more time in women and others outside of that group is limiting. The group often looks out for its own self interests.
-------------------------------------------
Then there are loners. I live most of my life alone. Every so often I step out of that title and eat out. For sure if I see someone eating alone that means I could join that person (especially if I see that person doing that more than one time). Shyness is often an excuse. After all I can be bold on the internet and what happened to my shyness? Some awkwardness is related to cultural values. I'm sure most Islamic folks do not allow their women to eat out in public alone. Normal protocol for strangers is to introduce themselves. Supposedly in bars typically strangers will buy a drink to introduce themselves.
Anyway it seems like people prefer to use a dating service to introduce themselves to others. How people take time to naturally get to know people is supposedly similar to the internet. You introduce your self and sometimes you read their blogs to see if they are an acquired taste....