|
|
|
|
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 12:35:01 PM |
5. You have to join a convent/nunnery for any hope to get an education.
This was not true at all in the noble classes. Women who were landed were expected to have an education. They were expected to be versed in French (the language of the courts), despite what country they were from, and have a basic knowledge of Latin. They were also expected to read and write as they had obligations which might require this. They were educated in domestic arts, such as sewing, embroidery and household management, as well as dance and musical training. Many women from noble families were educated at home, alongside their brothers.
It's not like education for readily available to any of the poorer classes, male or female. The merchant and artisan classes were somewhat literate, well versed in math and encouraged to support and assist in their husband's trade. Poor males who wanted an education too, could only look to the church.
The really interesting group of women in Europe, were the courtesan onesta, the "Honest Courtesans." They were expected to be not only educated but also intellectual. They often were skilled performers or artistsas well. They gained their clientele by being witty and clever, good at conversation aside from being attractive. They were expected to have excellent manners and fashion sense. They were much less about providing sexual services and were expected to be well-informed, interesting companions. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 1:16:42 PM | | "Did women kill chivalry?" Sure you did. Every time you date a guy who isn't chivalrous, every other guy notices, and thinks that's what women want. So, we emulate that which is successful. Women have been reinforceing bad behavior for so long, and now you complain about what you've done. Wake up; stop dating creeps and jerks, and they will gradually notice, and things will change. But don't expect it to happen overnight (read this to mean: probably not in your lifetime). All too many women are still turned on by domineering males who's successes are often the result of self centered aggression. They will treat you well, but only as a means to an end. Once they have you, the chivalry disappears. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 1:35:31 PM | The truth is chivalry is not dead, just serverly wounded. The fault is not with women, the women's movement, or even the definiative lack of skilled horsemen.
Its been wounded by a societal shift away from the key element that brought about its most binding cause and tenents.
Personal responsiblity. We do not teach it or value it anymore. Its meaning forgotten.
The martial discipline and cause as so well explained by the name the japanese gave their warriors.. Samurai, to serve.
Chivalry was not about a way to woo women, or present a face to the world.
It was about binding responsiblity to the powerful, to bring to them and understanding of how to serve and use power in a benificial way.
Now we generally disregard and look down on those who serve. We have changed from respecting those who take responsiblity for themselves and those around them. We have come to believe and idolize money and its corrupting power free from the responsiblities that should accompany power instead. Its a long slow and sad road but there still remains a few in each generation who remember whats important. Striving not to attain the success that this society values, but rather as Cervantes put it to reach the unreachable stars.
Chivalry is not dead people have just forgotten how and were to see it. | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 4:26:45 PM |
This was not true at all in the noble classes. Women who were landed were expected to have an education. They were expected to be versed in French (the language of the courts), despite what country they were from, and have a basic knowledge of Latin. They were also expected to read and write as they had obligations which might require this. They were educated in domestic arts, such as sewing, embroidery and household management, as well as dance and musical training. Many women from noble families were educated at home, alongside their brothers.
It's not like education for readily available to any of the poorer classes, male or female. The merchant and artisan classes were somewhat literate, well versed in math and encouraged to support and assist in their husband's trade. Poor males who wanted an education too, could only look to the church.
The really interesting group of women in Europe, were the courtesan onesta, the "Honest Courtesans." They were expected to be not only educated but also intellectual. They often were skilled performers or artistsas well. They gained their clientele by being witty and clever, good at conversation aside from being attractive. They were expected to have excellent manners and fashion sense. They were much less about providing sexual services and were expected to be well-informed, interesting companions.
Thanks for the elaborated history lesson, however this still proves my point. Women could only be educated in housekeeping and liberal arts unless they were in these "specialized groups." Do women want to revert back to that just like how they are trying to cling so dearly onto chivalry? | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 6:53:46 PM | No, you missed my point entirely...
The vast majority of people were not only illiterate, but there was really no such thing as a school. So few people could read in fact, that the written word was considered almost magical to them. A written placard on a wall, would send the townspeople to find someone who could read, and was considered to be absolute fact, just because it was written.
To single women out as a group for this treatment is unrealistic. Noble women were expected to run a rather sizable manor. Some of the time in the prolonged absence of their husbands who were off pursuing other activities. So domestic arts were as important as well as reading and writing. Just as the military arts were for noblemen. Books were not easy to come by prior to the early 1500's, even after the invention of movable type in 1455.
I am not sure what exactly is wrong with being skilled at the housewifely arts anyway. I don't consider my ability to run a home, make it pleasant, cook meals, sew clothing and embroider something so horrid that it transports me to the middle ages.
I am not sure how to follow the logic that says because we are suddenly educated and have options in our lives, we are no longer allowed to desire good manners. As long as we are returning them, what exactly is the big brouhaha about? | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 7:08:11 PM | | i think so. i used to practice it but i have been treated as though its a stupid thing to do. and when i see women ignore the chivalrous guy and go towards the jerk than that just puts gas in the fire.im debating as to whether i should even bother with this anymore .. | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 8:58:02 PM | Dented night,
Yes, I suppose reciprocal is probably a better way to term what I'm asking.
What I'm getting at with all of this is that it smacks of a double standard in some manner. Women complain (and I don't begrudge any woman for this either, just to be clear) that men aren't chivalrous anymore. That may or may not be true. We have such idealistic and flawed perceptions of life before we were around anyway, it's tough to argue that things were ever so honourable and civil without having been there for the experience. In any case, that women sometimes complain about the lack of chivalry in modern men isn't entirely unfair in my opinion. What IS unfair is to omit mention of any womanly code of conduct on this matter. What is it called ? I don't know but if nothing else, it could simply be termed appreciation. Why aren't we lamenting the apparent lack of this standard as well ? Good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 10/31/2006 10:10:57 PM | Lol Womanly code?
Tho shall stay home and raise the kids!
Tho Shall have supper ready by the time i get home....
Etc etc
lol JK JK! Dont crucify me!
Appreciation i think is shown, but just as not all men are courteous not all woman show it.
Maybe what the reciprocity here would be stuff like, and those are just example to see if i understood you correctly Gotapulse.
-Being at your side when you're sick and taking care of you?
-When you have a crappy day she's provide moral support for you?
Again those are just caring and courteous actions. I think women tho are more enclined to do things like that due to maternal nature.
Not sure if i got your meaning but anyhow. I would be willing to bet there are more women who are appreciative then guys who are chivalrous. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 12:19:07 AM | Okay, I'm not sure why this is turning out to be such a difficult question to express but since I'm the one trying to express it and nobody seems to be understanding it, the problem clearly lies at my end. I'll try to explain myself better this time.
In commonly understood vernacular, chivalry is a word that applies solely to males (at least as far as who it is that is supposed to practise the codes it sets out) In other words, nobody tells women to act chivalrously. Please, folks, don't argue that YOU tell women to practise chivalry, the other %99.9 of the world doesn't tell women to be chivalrous. We've already argued the definition of the word to death anyway but the rest of the world is still ignorant about the history behind it. So let's sum this up and try not to argue semantics :
Men are supposed to act chivalrously.
Courtesy is a gender neutral term. If somebody doesn't like to be called chivalrous then we could probably substitute the word courtesy in its stead. With that said, the ladies' answer to chivalry can't simply be to be courteous. Simple courtesy doesn't apply specifically to one sex whereas, as I said, chivalry , for as far as the vast majority of people are concerned , is meant to be practised by men alone. We're all supposed to be courteous. If her answer to his chivalry is courtesy then why are we bothering to argue about chivalry at all ? The problem is an apparent lack of courtesy and there isn't a popular conception of courtesy as being particularly romantic.
Rightly or wrongly, chivalry is a romanticised term that invokes images of men pulling out chairs , opening car doors, etc., ....for women.
What I want to know is, given what I just said, what romanticised ideal is there for the ladies to live up to ?
Men practise chivalry and women practise "______" ?
In other words, if we do this for the ladies , what are the women supposed to do for us along the same lines ?
To try and help folks to understand my question, I'm going to venture a guess and say that if men practise chivalry for the ladies, women are supposed to practise lady-like behaviour for the men. I think this is fair but if somebody has a better term, by all means, submit it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I've managed to clear this part up. If not, that was my best guess and I'll leave it at that. Nevertheless, there is a reason I brought this all up in the first place.
If we're going to lament the supposed loss of chivalry from the men in modern society, then I would argue that perhaps if there were more women practising "lady-like" behaviour , the number of both would be increased. Right now the burden is on men to prove their romanticism by acting chivalrously. Well....don't the ladies have to give a little to get a little ?
Let's be clear here, I'm not saying that women don't do anything for men. I'm not saying that at all. I think that any woman who appreciates chivalry as a bit of romance also knows how to act like a lady. What I'm saying is that nobody is telling women to act more lady-like so why is anybody expecting men to be more chivalrous ? We tell both sexes to be courteous but as I said, nobody's heart skips a beat when you remember to say thank you to the waiter.
IF we're going to go on about how chivalry is dead then the only way to resurrect it is to promote some equivalent code for the women as well. The whole reason chivalry "died" was because so many women loudly rejected it as a part of the patriarchy. Before that attitude changes among the majority of women (majority also including those who simply don't care about the matter we're discussing) there will be no hope of seeing chivalry make a comeback.
All the same, nobody is promoting any equivalent behaviour code for the women. We'll call it lady-like behaviour as I said earlier. Either way, how would the women know how to be lady-like in the first place ? Nobody is telling modern women what makes a woman into a "lady". I rather get the impression that we'll do absolutely everything in our power to eschew such an ideal and keep women from ever embracing it. That's fine I suppose but eventually men get the impression that it's a one-street and that's exactly why men aren't bothering with chivalry anymore. It's a shame but fair is fair...if we want gentlemen, we need ladies to complement them. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 1:23:16 AM |
Men practise chivalry and women practise "______" ?
Ladyship?
The thing is chivalry has a past in stories and in the social conscience. There arent the same stories for women.
Chivalry or Courteous isnt gona make a come back, You either are or you dont. I dont see why women even bother to ask. it's like asking women if they want to go back to the pots and pans and raising kids. it's a thing of the past and will never ever come back. Even if all the men of the world would want it, it couldnt happen. Same applies to chivalry if you want your man to be it, tell him.
So you want Ladyship? Well old values says a woman should cover herself, sorry as much as i value a woman as a lady i like seeing a woman showing some skin here and there and i wouldnt want the women of the world to all dress with a dress that goes to her ankle and a blouse that button up all the way to her nose! Do i want all woman to be reserved and polite? Heck i find a woman who let a swear go by once in a while attractive and it show emotions and character. There's a time and a place for everything.
So tell me, do you still want them to be the equivalent ?
Being a lady doesnt mean you have to be always prissy and snobby. It's what they project, the class they show. I met many ladies, A few from here and actually the few ladies i have in mind are ladies trully. Not because they are forever courteous but by how they act, how they speak. I am not sure i can describe it, i just feel it and know it when i am around those persons.
I will tell you one thing, what's so wrong with it being a one way street? Do we always have to do something with the expectation that we have to get something back? What's so wrong with just being courteous and pleasing the women around you? | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 7:33:00 AM | Some randomish responses:
Chivalry wasn't about how to treat women, it was about how to live a graceful (churchly, holy) life. Defending the weak, being honest, etc.
As for the debate about whether or not women were in court and reading French, I believe you're in the wrong time period. Chivalry was on its way out by the time Chaucer started writing his unreadable, unfinished story back in the 1300s. Women weren't anything other than property, mothers, nuns or whores until the 1400s. Sure, there were a few examples otherwise, but I don't recall anything being written by women (at least in Europe, with all the knights and kings) until after the scattered kingdoms where becoming countries.
In fact, that may be the death of chivalry, the invention of countries! Instead of serving a king and protecting the borders of 2,000 acres of land, we're now waging wars halfway across the world for ideals that the soldiers may not understand, believe in, or even know about!
Finally, yes, chivalry was only applied to men's behavior. But I'm starting to believe that it, like many other romances of days gone past, was more of a fictional ideal than a reality. In reality, lords (you know, the guys who wrote the codes of chivalry) could rape serving girls, peasants, cousins or sisters and there was no law against it! The most important gem from Le Morte De Arthur (Mallory's book) was "might does not make right." When chivalry should've been around, it was to keep the powerful from pissing on the poor and weak. Now, do we think that the powerful people wanted to live like the little kid eating bugs in the sewer was their equal? I think not.
Maybe chivalry isn't dead. Maybe it never truly existed, outside of the fairy tales. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 9:00:24 AM |
Courtesy is a gender neutral term. If somebody doesn't like to be called chivalrous then we could probably substitute the word courtesy in its stead. With that said, the ladies' answer to chivalry can't simply be to be courteous. Simple courtesy doesn't apply specifically to one sex whereas, as I said, chivalry , for as far as the vast majority of people are concerned , is meant to be practised by men alone. We're all supposed to be courteous. If her answer to his chivalry is courtesy then why are we bothering to argue about chivalry at all ? The problem is an apparent lack of courtesy and there isn't a popular conception of courtesy as being particularly romantic.
QFT.
If we're going to lament the supposed loss of chivalry from the men in modern society, then I would argue that perhaps if there were more women practising "lady-like" behaviour , the number of both would be increased. Right now the burden is on men to prove their romanticism by acting chivalrously.
QFT
Well....don't the ladies have to give a little to get a little ?
Apparently not. As far as I see it, all the stuff that they are giving in return we will be giving them. They give us their affections, we give them ours. They give us time out of their day, we give them ours, etc.
IF we're going to go on about how chivalry is dead then the only way to resurrect it is to promote some equivalent code for the women as well.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
there will be no hope of seeing chivalry make a comeback.
I took this out of context, but It's how I feel. | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 12:24:24 PM | Senadin,
I think you're either making a conscious effort to be coy or you're trying to pander to the women. I never said anything about putting women in kitchens or having to raise truckloads of children. Nor did I say that any woman who isn't lady-like is prissy or snobby. Don't try to super-impose your beliefs on my statements. If you think "ladyship" requires a woman to put on a snow suit then fine go ahead and believe that. I didn't say that though...you did.
Nevertheless, you did ask a question.
What's wrong with it always being a one-way street ? Hmmmm....think about that in the context of romance. If you're constantly the only one giving in a relationship then sooner or later you're bound to ask why the hell you bother. If you didn't finally get around to asking yourself what you're getting for your efforts then perhaps you're precisely what she wants and she's the last thing you need.
And there you go again Senadin...asking what's wrong with being courteous and pleasing the women around us.
Apart from the fact that I never said there was anything wrong with it at all, you're still missing the point. Are chivalry and courtesy the same thing in your mind ? If they are then why are we talking about chivalry at all ? It's not chivalry that makes me give up my seat to the old man on the bus, it's courtesy and respect. Is this also chivalry ? Maybe, I don't know but I don't think of it that way and neither do the vast majority of people. I don't pull out chairs for men because I don't date men. Pulling out her chair is what we commonly refer to as chivalrous behaviour. In other words, if you're not going to talk about what it means to be chivalrous then frame your arguments in some other context. As I said before, courtesy is a gender neutral term, chivalry is not for as far as the general masses are concerned. I make it my goal to please the women in my life when we're romantically involved and that includes both courtesy and chivalry. However, I extend courteous behaviour to all people in my life so long as they haven't given me reason not to. I certainly don't open car doors for strange men I see on the street who appear perfectly capable of doing it themselves and would likely react poorly if I did open their door for them.
Lastly, don't assume that I do anything with the expectation of a reward for my efforts. What you're talking about is an alterior motive and basically it's selfish behaviour. This implies to me that you're a cynic for assuming the worst in any given situation. This may or may not be the case but don't apply your perception to me if you believe I would only do something courteous for the reward I might get back. Altruism isn't entirely dead either even if we are very selective about when we exhibit it. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 8:00:05 PM | Would it be to much to ask to request the next Gumbi that post from Wikkipedia be slain by whatever manner and instrument is close at hand?
While a usefull tool for the common, or average, it is a tool.
Any jack be nible, mouth be quick can edit a Wikkipedia entry.
It is common, not true.
Do you want to know Chivalry? Ask, and I will answer.
Do you want to learn Chivalry? Ask, and I will test you.
Get it clear.... Chivalry, whatever spin you put on the word's history, is clear and present.
You cannot beg it, borrow it, nor steal it.
Just ask The Girlfriend what she would trade it for, and you might have a whole new "Poker Series" happening. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 8:11:43 PM | | I think myself as a chivalry, I love poems and doing romantic things, just any women I ever knew eather never care, or never interested. I am still chivary at heart but ladies never give any opertunities to express it any more. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 10:32:10 PM | See the thing is you want something that is reciprocal of chivalry for women when there isnt. Simple fact is that Chivalry or whatever you call it doesnt need a reciprocal opposite. it's just is, Why must you need something that is the opposite? Cant you be chivalrous and just be it without needing that reciprocity?
I am not the one that is selfish here and is asking for reciprocity. I am happy with the way things are. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/1/2006 10:57:28 PM | Cant you be chivalrous and just be it without needing that reciprocity?
I am not the one that is selfish here and is asking for reciprocity. I am happy with the way things are.
That's just how I feel. Happy with the way things are, because I know men who are chivalrous both in the old sense of integrity and the modern definition of courteous. Even some of the guys on this thread who go on and on about women not appreciating it, I'll bet they're actually chivalrous despite themselves. It's not just actions; it's an ingrained, deep, human condition. The term chivalry is just a word stuck on the thing that men are born to be. Some may lose their way, but most plod on despite the obstacles. It's one of the things that make men so wonderful. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 6:29:07 AM | SWIftONE
that sounded real self centered you want a woman for a door knod. Women are here as and extention of men to help them and push them along. WOMEN are here to keep you on the right track and encorage MEN. In other words MAKE YOUR MESS UP LIFES EASIER. even if that means critisizing went you go wrong.
PLEASE Forum users BEFORE YOU POST IT WOULD BE GOOOOOOOOD TO CONSIDER THE OTHER PARTIES FEELINGS OK. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 8:12:34 AM | @Genuine. Sorry dude. You need a serious refresher on history. Women of noble birth were exceedingly well educated, not just your vision of mothers, toys and whores. No women before 1300 writing? You gotta be kidding me. Try Hrosvitha and her inspirations, and the women inspired by her for starters. Or Ende the first female know manuscript illustrator. We are talking 10th century here. 900's. Not 1300's. By the 1300's only a fool would think the average noblewoman couldn't read. (While it is a certainty there were many men and women of noble, and other birth that could not.) I mean time moves slowly, but over 400 years?
If a woman wants to trade chivalry for courtesy that's cool. Just ask your other boyfriend to have your back when you need a man to stop talking and take some decisive action.
What does a lady need to do, or aspire to do to find, or keep a chivalrous man?
Always give him your counsel, but never flatly contradict him in public. (that's just rude)
Give him every reason to believe you are ever faithful.
Treat him with respect, not aggression or submission.
Be mindfull that with such a man you wield enormous power.
Walk on his left side where practicable.
Couple of others floating about in my brain.... | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 9:26:28 AM |
What does a lady need to do, or aspire to do to find, or keep a chivalrous man?
Always give him your counsel, but never flatly contradict him in public. (that's just rude)
Give him every reason to believe you are ever faithful.
Treat him with respect, not aggression or submission.
Be mindfull that with such a man you wield enormous power.
Walk on his left side where practicable.
That sounds good. Two happy people, I reckon, if we behaved that way.
Except I don't understand the walking on his left side thing. What am I missing? | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 9:38:59 AM | Left side is generally the shield arm.. the right the weapon arm. By walking on the left you allow easy access to the weapon allowing him to fight if needbe.
Sorta the same reason folks drive in reverse in england so that a lance *no I'm not kidding* could be used | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 12:38:22 PM | Right on the money FireKnight.
Sounds kinda odd, but actually became necessary once. I was at a Medieval gathering with a lady and late one evening crossing a wooden bridge on a nice perambulation we were attacked by a drunken man with a nice steel sword.
Having had the good sense to be on my left I could move her behind me with my left hand while drawing my sword enough with my right to parry his thrust.
Followed by a clockwise rotation (to the right) and a boot to the ribs sent the impudent oaf off the side of the bridge and down a 12 foot drop in the best Musketeer style. (Porthos is my fav in the old Richard Chamberlain version....lol)
A few seconds to ensure that my lady was suitably recovered from the rudness of the intrusion, and off we went on our walk unmolested.
Is that what women mean by chivalrous behaviour? | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
