Other People's Problems : The Problem with Chivalry

by Manda Jo

Periodically on the boards we have a spate of threads about the horror of being a “nice guy”, about the bizarre perversity of women who seem to prefer being treated poorly by men who don’t really even care about them to being treated as treasures by men who respect, value, and admire them. It’s a thorny problem, and of course there isn’t any simple answer. But it is an issue that is dear to my heart, and one that needs more than the space of a thread—or a column—to address. So I am beginning an intermittent series on some of the reasons for “nice guy syndrome”.

Nice Guys One: The Problem with Chivalry

I have a student, Jorge. He’s a sweetheart—a gem. Almost a parody of the Latin lover stereotype, drifting through life on a cloud of soulful looks and heartfelt sighs. He writes poetry (very badly) and bleeds inside at the thought of damsels in distress. He’s a great kid, and someday he’s going to be a great man. He’s most certainly a Nice Guy.

He’s also, as he is quick to tell me, a member of that rare breed, a gentleman. He’s telling the truth, I’ve seen it: for Jorge, all women are queens, and he holds doors, picks up heavy bags, and would probably pull out chairs if they weren’t mounted to the desks. I have no doubt that, when escorting a lady for the evening, he brings flowers, helps her into her coat, and never lets the check hit the table. And if he’s a bit faster to come to the aid of the young, the comely, and the available, it’s a slight difference and a forgivable one.

Jorge mourns that the art of the gentleman is becoming extinct, and he has this vague idea that feminism is to blame. Not that he’s anti-feminist—Jorge’s as liberal as they come—but this particular iteration of feminism confounds him. He doesn’t understand how the little courtesies that he performs can possibly be seen as anything but flattering to women and as beneficial to humanity as a whole: after all, isn’t courtesy what transforms us into civilized human beings? Conversations with students never last more than a minute, and there are more important things to talk about, like “this is how you get into college”, so I can’t really explain to Jorge the problem with is sincere, heartfelt, tender acts of chivalry. But here is what I would say, if I had the time and he had the patience to listen.

First off and foremost, Chivalry is not courtesy. Courtesy consists of all the little considerations we perform for each other as human beings who recognize the needs and desires of other human beings: courtesy is running ahead of the person with an arm full of packages and opening a door for them, regardless of who does or does not have a penis; courtesy is letting someone else have your seat if you feel fresh and they look tired, regardless of age or sex; courtesy is not taking the last piece of pizza until your guests have pushed their plates away. Chivalry, on the other hand, is a code of behavior that is rooted first and foremost in gender differences and which has only a passing interest in the convenience and comfort of those involved. Any act passes from courteous to chivalric when it becomes something you would not do for a man or when it is something you would not be comfortable having anyone—male or female—do for you.

The feminist objection to chivalry is often simplified into “guys just do that stuff to get laid”, a statement which is far from the truth, and, as such, is harmful for everyone involved. The reality is much more complicated. Modern day gentlemen object that they do not perform the rituals of courtesy out of any desire to be repaid: they are gentlemen because it brings them pleasure. We don’t need to doubt their word in order to question chivalry. Because, you see, even if their heart is pure, the problem is still there.

The first problem is with the idea that a giver of a gift has a right to decide whether or not there is any obligation for the recipient of his gift. If you give me a kidney, I’m going to feel obligated to you, whatever you have to say about it. Hell, tell me good morning, and I feel a little obligation to return the sentiment. Frankly, the obligation to you isn’t about you, it’s about me and my own need to feel like I give as much as I take in this world. This just isn’t possible to do in the face of a full fledged Chivalry attack: you’ve nothing to give in return for flowers, nothing to do in response to a held door, and no way to pick up the check gracefully if the gentleman decides to be stubborn. Chivalry isn’t a reciprocal system: it’s not constructed so that both people take turns giving and taking. If a man brushes off a woman’s attempt to return his courtesies, she’s left in the uncomfortable position of having to give up her dignity and actually argue about money—not an acceptable situation. Within the ritual of chivalry, the only coin a woman is allowed to pay in is sex, and this is an uncomfortable situation. Again, it’s not about whether or not the man expects to be paid for his kindness: it’s that a woman expects it of herself, and every other avenue of reciprocation blocked by tradition.

This also highlights the other problem with chivalry: giving courtesies is a deep and satisfying pleasure, and the man who always picks up the check, who always offers to drive, who takes unto himself all the inconveniences and irritations of life on behalf of his beloved is doing her, and his relationship, a great disservice. There is no pleasure so great as giving a gift to your loved one, and nothing so frustrating as having all opportunities to reciprocate taken away, save the physical.

The last problem with chivalry is that, regardless of intent, it puts persistent pressure on the woman involved to conform to a feminine ideal. It’s a system that treats women as princesses, as something special and delicate and rare and precious. Those are not bad things, of course, but it sends a message that the man who embraces such a system values these attributes in a woman: that he is will be impressed by a woman who knows how to dance this strange dance with him, and perhaps even be turned off or offended by a woman who doesn’t dance this dance, who picks up the check before he has a chance, or who strides to the car door and tries to open it, instead of stopping three steps back and giving him the chance to get ahead to open the door. This is the sort of low level discomfort that kills a relationship for no easily defined reason, what gets vaguely called a “lack of chemistry”.

I’m not the Voice of Womanhood. I’ve no doubt that there are women out there who enjoy chivalry in its fullest flower, and there isn’t anything wrong with that. What I have attempted to do here is to explain why some women might be turned off by actions which are, there is no doubt, sincere attempts to bring happiness to them. It’s not just that they enjoy assholes or suspect all man of having nefarious motives. So next time a woman reaches for the check or opens the door for you, don’t deny her the joy of giving: don’t make her fight for the right to be a nice person.