Definition
of Chivalry:
A feudalistic facade concocted in the Middle Ages to deflect attention from the
barbaric conditions under which women lived.
Chivalry
included exaggerated courtesies and control of the female sex through moral purity
standards which males were not required to adhere to. The female sex was falsely
“cherished” and her movements and freedoms were severely restricted under the guise
of “protecting” her. It was a Middle age version of the modern mafia protection
racket; “Pay me and I’ll protect you. Protect me from who? I’ll protect you
from me!
During
the Middle Ages, highborn women were the primary recipients of chivalry, as they
were the primary targets for abduction, forced marriage, and rape in order to further
men's ambitions for rank and power.
Chivalry
included a range of superficial gestures designed to emphasize the appearance of
female helplessness and to remind her of her utter dependency on men.
During
feudal times, women were indeed at the physical mercy of men who have the physical
advantage. But instead of crafting laws, back then, to protect women, chivalry
was born. Chivalry gave the appearance of protecting women while reinforcing
the harsh reality of her physical helplessness against men, and her social, material, and political dependency
on men.
What
has this to do with women today when recourse can be taken to courts of law
rather than to the sword, when lawmakers have crafted laws to protect women
from brutes? It is simply this: A few civil rights and outlawed physical
brutishness does not exclude men (who continue to rule in public policy and
attitudes) from harboring the same brutish sentiments of male superiority women
have been up against throughout the ages.
“Chivalrous”
behavior continues to mask the same attitudes among many "gentlemen"
as among brutes—that woman is created a subordinate creature and should remain
so—no matter how many civil rights is given.
Modern
chivalry continues to include many culturally ingrained—superficial—gestures
designed to reinforce the idea of woman’s helplessness and dependency on the
physically stronger man. Complementarian leaders admit this is the case. They take
the case even further by publicly teaching that common courtesies can be used
to demonstrate what they call, the “realities of manhood.”
Finally,
some honesty about chivalry!
This
is explained more fully in the following excerpt from the book, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and the
Evangelical Caste System:
“It is shameful that even
courtesy has become a twisted tool for complementarian men who are desperate to
demonstrate the “realities” of manhood and womanhood. In explaining how
courtesies can be used to masculine advantage, pastor and author, John Piper, who
believes that it is inappropriate for women to hold equal or superior positions
to men in the workplace, described some ways in which men can exert their
masculine personhoods over women who may be equal or superior to them on the
job. Piper calls upon men to exert their “mature masculinity” or “manhood” over
women they are not married to by practicing simple courtesies such as opening
doors and holding chairs for them, etc..
Quote
from John Piper in, Recovering
Biblical Manhood And Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Edited by John Piper and Wayne
Grudem (Crossway Books Wheaton, Illinois, 1991).:
‘If, in the course of the day, a woman in the law firm calls a meeting of the
attorneys, and thus takes that kind of initiative, there are still ways that a
man, coming to that meeting, can express his manhood through culturally
appropriate courtesies shown to the
women in the firm. He may open the door; he may offer his chair; he may speak
in a voice that is gentler. It is true
that this becomes increasingly difficult where a unisex mentality converts such
gentlemanly courtesies into offenses and thus attempts to shut out every means
of expressing the realities of manhood
and womanhood… (end of quote).’
For men to use their superior physical strength
in defense of woman’s equality is noble. For men who are dedicated to
protecting the autonomy of women to open doors or hold chairs is more than
acceptable. But to use courtesy as a way of lording it over women, in situations
where acting lordly would be unacceptable, is
unacceptable. Courtesies extended in order to stroke one’s own ego are selfish
in the extreme, condescending, and sinful. Treating others condescendingly
(even masking it with politeness) is not courteous by any stretch of the
imagination. It is insulting, and it is wrong. No woman should feel honored or
appreciative when courtesies are sullied by such men.”
In
response to offensive remarks about women made by then Presidential candidate,
Donald Trump, Speaker, Paul Ryan, announced, "I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.” Ryan’s response was little more than complementarian chivalrous dribble.
It did absolutely nothing to empower women.
In fact, it furthered the ancient feudal and modern complementarian narrative of the inferior (subordinate), weak, and dependent woman.
Ryan was correct, in that women should not be objectified. But as long as men hold to the idea that women are subordinate creatures and therefore need to be “championed and revered” to cover the [barbaric] fact that they are not permitted functional [or even Constitutional] equality with men, women will continue to be objectified.
Woman do not need nor want to be “championed and revered.”
The idea is obsolete. It is nothing but continuing the false, hypocritical, and medieval, idea of chivalry which should have went the way of the dinosaur long ago, but has now been revived, pushed forward by the desperate complementarian need to put woman back in “her place.”
Women ask only the respect due them as beings created in exactly the same image of God as men are. If there was ever any merit to the straw man “No Differences” argument— made up by complementarians to solve a non-existent problem—It would be the fact that there are indeed no differences between men and women in the spirit realm—beyond that, most reasonable people acknowledge and embrace differences between the sexes without the need to implement a phony front of unscriptural, outdated, and overstated courtesies in order to make little men feel big.
It did absolutely nothing to empower women.
In fact, it furthered the ancient feudal and modern complementarian narrative of the inferior (subordinate), weak, and dependent woman.
Ryan was correct, in that women should not be objectified. But as long as men hold to the idea that women are subordinate creatures and therefore need to be “championed and revered” to cover the [barbaric] fact that they are not permitted functional [or even Constitutional] equality with men, women will continue to be objectified.
Woman do not need nor want to be “championed and revered.”
The idea is obsolete. It is nothing but continuing the false, hypocritical, and medieval, idea of chivalry which should have went the way of the dinosaur long ago, but has now been revived, pushed forward by the desperate complementarian need to put woman back in “her place.”
Women ask only the respect due them as beings created in exactly the same image of God as men are. If there was ever any merit to the straw man “No Differences” argument— made up by complementarians to solve a non-existent problem—It would be the fact that there are indeed no differences between men and women in the spirit realm—beyond that, most reasonable people acknowledge and embrace differences between the sexes without the need to implement a phony front of unscriptural, outdated, and overstated courtesies in order to make little men feel big.
She is also editor of the Hungry
Hearts Online Bible Commentary
For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com
