Is chivalry secretly evil? If you go through the list of traditional chivalrous actions, you'll see they all have one thing in common - traditional chivalry is all about a man taking care of a woman.
He feeds her when she's hungry, opens doors blocking her way, gives her blankets when she's cold.
It's about a man giving something to a woman she doesn't have which she needs and which she isn't doing for herself.
Traditional chivalry has come under fire because it seems to support and propagate the myth that women are helpless and men are all-powerful.
At least, that's what detractors of traditional chivalry argue as they label these practices paternalistic, unfair and outright dangerous to the status of women in their relationships and within society at large.
I don't 100 percent agree with this point.
I believe it's possible to understand and acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves while simultaneously enjoying the gender play of (consensually) taking care of them in little ways regardless.
The chivalrous ideal lasts in our popular imagination because there's something nearly universally appealing about it.
Whether that appeal comes from societal programming or biology is irrelevant - for many of us, it's undeniably there.
Which is part of the reason why the thought of a woman being chivalrous to a man often feels so bizarre, so unnatural, so wrong.
Chivalry plays with a (consensual) dominant/submissive dynamic.
And in that dynamic, most women prefer to play the submissive role and most men prefer to play the dominant role.
So when we start talking about a woman taking the dominant position and a man taking the submissive position within a chivalrous relationship, those roles just don't seem to fit for the average couple.
What can women do for their man? Just because chivalry traditionally plays with a certain (consensually) gender dynamic, that doesn't mean women can never do anything for their man.
If a woman wants to think about returning the kindness to her man, she can do little things for him.
I asked the young woman sitting next to me at the coffee shop where I'm writing this article about the topic of female chivalry.
She said she thinks about it in terms of doing nice little things for her man and alleviating some of the burden of traditional dating dynamics.
She talked about paying for dinner sometimes, but beyond that she just talked about keeping a basic level of consideration alive within the relationship.
She talked about picking up little things like coffee or a drink for her man when she's on the way to see him or buying him something he might like, such as a game or concert tickets.
In her estimation, chivalry could be transmuted into consideration.
The idea that women should be equally considerate of their man in ways that don't undermine the dynamics men and women both like to play with makes a lot of sense to me and seems like a great way to keep the bedrock of your relationship equitable enough that you can slip into the consensual power dynamics of traditional chivalry without worry.
He feeds her when she's hungry, opens doors blocking her way, gives her blankets when she's cold.
It's about a man giving something to a woman she doesn't have which she needs and which she isn't doing for herself.
Traditional chivalry has come under fire because it seems to support and propagate the myth that women are helpless and men are all-powerful.
At least, that's what detractors of traditional chivalry argue as they label these practices paternalistic, unfair and outright dangerous to the status of women in their relationships and within society at large.
I don't 100 percent agree with this point.
I believe it's possible to understand and acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves while simultaneously enjoying the gender play of (consensually) taking care of them in little ways regardless.
The chivalrous ideal lasts in our popular imagination because there's something nearly universally appealing about it.
Whether that appeal comes from societal programming or biology is irrelevant - for many of us, it's undeniably there.
Which is part of the reason why the thought of a woman being chivalrous to a man often feels so bizarre, so unnatural, so wrong.
Chivalry plays with a (consensual) dominant/submissive dynamic.
And in that dynamic, most women prefer to play the submissive role and most men prefer to play the dominant role.
So when we start talking about a woman taking the dominant position and a man taking the submissive position within a chivalrous relationship, those roles just don't seem to fit for the average couple.
What can women do for their man? Just because chivalry traditionally plays with a certain (consensually) gender dynamic, that doesn't mean women can never do anything for their man.
If a woman wants to think about returning the kindness to her man, she can do little things for him.
I asked the young woman sitting next to me at the coffee shop where I'm writing this article about the topic of female chivalry.
She said she thinks about it in terms of doing nice little things for her man and alleviating some of the burden of traditional dating dynamics.
She talked about paying for dinner sometimes, but beyond that she just talked about keeping a basic level of consideration alive within the relationship.
She talked about picking up little things like coffee or a drink for her man when she's on the way to see him or buying him something he might like, such as a game or concert tickets.
In her estimation, chivalry could be transmuted into consideration.
The idea that women should be equally considerate of their man in ways that don't undermine the dynamics men and women both like to play with makes a lot of sense to me and seems like a great way to keep the bedrock of your relationship equitable enough that you can slip into the consensual power dynamics of traditional chivalry without worry.
SHARE
