What you tell your children is often not nearly as important as the example you set for them. When children see parents and family members treating each other — and the people in the communities around them — with respect, deference and courtesy, they get the message that those are the qualities that build life-long bonds of trust, admiration and affection. As insightful parent and blogger Heather Blair reminds us, teaching kids to both perform and appreciate acts of respect and courtesy is an important first step toward instilling a sense of chivalry in tomorrow’s leaders, teachers and role models.

“Jessica. For God’s sake,” he said. “Allow me to do at least one common courtesy for you. In spite of what ‘women’s lib’ teaches you, chivalry does not imply that women are powerless. On the contrary, chivalry is an admission of women’s superiority. An acknowledgment of your power over us.”

— Beth Fantaskey, Jessica’s Guide to Dating on the Dark Side

An act of courtesy, like holding a door, need not be interpreted as a chauvinistic display, just acknowledged as a show of respect.

When I came to the above quote, I had to read it a couple of times because it is what every girl (and woman) should realize. Plus, it was being said by a vampire prince named Lucius. Yum. Good summer read. I recommend.

I had a friend once who told me that she hated it when men opened doors for her. She was under the impression that they must think she wasn’t capable of doing it on her own. She found it degrading.

Cue my jaw dropping to the floor.

I’ve never seen chivalry as an indication that a man thought me incapable. I’ve always seen it as a gesture of respect and quite honestly, I find it sexy as hell.

As a mother to four daughters, I am teaching them (yes, even the 4-year-olds) that they deserve to have doors held open for them. Not in a snooty I must have it sort of way, but in an I am worthy of it sort of way.

And mothers of sons, I implore you. Please teach them to be gentlemen. Please know that I am here, teaching my girls to appreciate it. I am teaching my girls to acknowledge your son’s respect and truly appreciate the gesture. I swell with pride when my four little girls, following me like ducks through a door held open by a gentleman, echo in their tiny little voices, “thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.”

I love that my husband still opens the car door for me. I love that he guides me into a room with his hand on the small of my back. I love that he lets me sit down first and that he doesn’t let the waitress take his plate until I’m all done. I love that he lets me order first and always holds the door open for me.

I always thank him and I never see it as degrading.

I know I sound preachy, but I really think that this is where we’ve all kind of crumbled. Do not let your girls wear the word ‘juicy’ on their butts and teach them that they are worth the effort. They are worth being treated like princesses. Teach them to be worthy of chivalry.

And then teach them to never berate a man in public. Please.

But that’s another soapbox for another day…

Read more of Heather Blair’s views and opinions on her blog, Mindless Junque.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch
2. Putting Down Chivalry’s Baggage
3. A Little Lesson in Chivalry

Little acts of kindness and consideration are deeply woven into our cultural fabric. Whether you call them “chivalry” or just good manners, things like holding a door, standing when you meet somebody or letting someone ahead of you in line are the sorts of actions that distinguish someone as a lady or gentleman “of good character.”

But in the debate over the place of chivalry in today’s world, there is a distinction that is often overlooked: What happens when an act of kindness becomes expected or obligatory? When chivalry is demanded of someone, is it really chivalry at all?

In a blog on the topic of chivalry in modern society, Ambrose Tan proposed an intriguing “thought experiment” on both the actions and motivations that define chivalry. The questions he poses may help us all to recognize the boundaries of chivalry – and remind us that no act of kindness or respect should ever be taken for granted.

Consider the following situation: A man and a woman approach a place where their paths intersect. At the intersection, they both stop momentarily. Perhaps they wish each other, “Good morning.” Then …

1. The man gives the woman passage first and bids her a safe journey if they have exchanged greetings. He then resumes his passage.
2. The woman does not stop, assuming her right to passage first. The man stops momentarily, having no choice, then resumes his passage after the woman passes.
3. The man resumes his passage first. The woman is momentarily taken aback but continues her journey.
4. The woman does not stop, assuming her right to passage first. Alas, the man does not intend to be forced to stop, and speeds up, narrowly passing the woman first. The woman is momentarily taken aback but continues her journey.

In which of these cases has chivalry not occurred?

Let’s see what the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English says about chivalry: it is “courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women.” Now let’s see what it says about being courteous: it means to be “polite, respectful, and considerate.” Neither “being chivalrous” nor “being courteous towards a woman” is an act that does not involve deliberate choice.

The obvious answer to the question above is 3, and many will say 4. And there are many who will not think the same of 2. I say otherwise. Of course, 1 is a case in which chivalry has definitely prevailed, but can 2 truly be called chivalry, and is 4 definitely only the fault of the man?

The difference between 1 and 2 lies in the mentality of the party “expecting” chivalry in 2. Chivalry is a choice, but in 2 instead the man has been forced to accede to a particular outcome of the encounter, a farce of “chivalry”, and to accept the disrespect of being on the receiving end of bad manners. In 4 he has bravely stood up against it but will later on be castigated for his actions, somewhat unfairly.

I suspect what many of today’s women lament about, especially (some of) the highfalutin “educated elite” types who like to place themselves on a pedestal, on the lack of “chivalry” on the part of today’s men, are occurrences of case 4 rather than 3. But they have taken it for granted, and to lament about the lack of something when it is being taken for granted is to be pompous, conceited, arrogant and even presumptuous.

Lament about it when you have respected the other party and the right of choice, treated the other party with good intentions and he does not show chivalry to you. He may be crossing your path, but remember that you are crossing his too. Learn to respect others and you may stand the chance of having it reciprocated (which should be) and you might find yourself pleasantly in case 1.

But take another person’s courtesy for granted and you may find yourself rudely confronted with case 4 as retaliation for your self-aggrandizement and disrespect of others — assuming your “right” to a shared space, “just because”, as in cases 2 and 4. Chivalry does not mean someone else has to accept your lack of basic manners — this is the fine line, and you may only have yourself to blame if you choose to cross it and find yourself in case 4.

Finally I want to say that men should be chivalrous. But chivalrous because they want to be, not because others force them or want them to be. And women who demand chivalry? Chivalry is something that is given, not taken.

Chivalry is a two-way street, not one.

Ambrose Tan’s blog is Varnish Is Pretty. It Smells Bad, which is where this article was originally published.

Related posts:

1. Knightly Trash Service
2. The Medicine of Chivalry
3. Episode 6: Today’s Heroes and Chivalry

One of the most famous illustrated books of the Middle Ages, the Livre de Chasse (or “Master of Game”) by Gaston Phoebus, brings the medieval sport of hunting to life in colorful detail. (Illustrations from the book are included throughout this article courtesy of the National Library of France.) Knights, princes and noble ladies loved to go hunting – but villagers, farmers, abbots and even nuns took part in the sport as well. Livre de Chasse shows not just the practical value of hunting (good exercise and putting food on the table), but also the social and cultural importance of the sport as well. In the illustrations, hunters and game animals alike are depicted with an unmistakable spirit of dignity and nobility, and hawks and hounds, like good knights, are imbued with a sense of loyalty and self-sacrifice.

But perhaps the most evocative of these illustrations are those in which the “master hunter” himself instructs a band of young hunters on the techniques, rituals and etiquette of the hunt (pictured at right). Clearly, the hunt was a learning opportunity for principles like responsibility and self-control. Hunting was a rite of passage, and it might be the first place a young knight could learn (and demonstrate) the ideals of the code of chivalry.

In today’s world, we sometimes forget that a rite of passage serves as an important aspect in the establishment of a moral code. Without moments to pause and reflect on what we’ve learned, where we’ve been and where we want to go, our values and principles can get “lost in the shuffle.” As this article, written by an avid hunter, reminds us, it’s not the activity that’s important. Rites of passage can be found in hunting, team sports or martial arts; in sending a child off to school, cooking a family meal or getting behind the wheel of the family car. Whatever the occasion, parents should use every opportunity to instill the values of honor, responsibility and chivalry in their children — and take every opportunity to look back and recall the lessons they learned at those “turning points” in the cycle of life.

Rites Of Passage Build A Code Of Honor

Another year is rapidly coming to a close, and with autumn comes the opening of deer season. Hunting is one of the things all of us guys look forward to, and we usually start feeling the itch shortly after Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game!

I brought my two sons to help with the camp and field preparations for this year’s hunt. It was hard work, but I wanted them to begin to learn the value of teamwork, pack-it-in/pack-it-out stewardship, and sweat equity — very important lessons for children to develop.

As a father, I want my kids to know how important it is to appropriately manage the natural resources God provided for us. If they want to hunt, they need to put in the effort at the front and tail end of the season.

After the day’s work, and the kids had bedded down for the night, something occurred to me: The modern youth have very few moments in their lives where they can definitively mark life transitions. What I mean is that kids these days will transition from toddler, to adolescence, to teens, to adulthood with little life mile marker or fanfare.

In the days of King Arthur’s knights, there were waypoints a youth could strive for, and look back on, that showed they had “made” it. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Necessity of Chivalry, that there is a dichotomy in manhood that finds a healthy fusion in the person of the knight and the code of chivalry — we find gentleness and fierceness in the knight. This is an ideology that should not be lost on the young men of today. Lewis writes:

As a young man in the warrior class, these boys would be singled out and sent to the castle as a page. A page was a servant of the king or other stately aristocrat who would train the young lad. The page would clean stables, repair barns, learn combat skills, and in general, serve the needs of the lord of the manor. Essentially this made great leaders as each knight learned what it meant to serve the needs of others before his own were met.

After seven years as a page — around the age of 14 — he graduated to the position of squire. With the increase in position, so came the increase in responsibility. The squire moved from service to the lord, to service to a knight. For a squire to become a knight, he had to show loyalty and bravery in harsh, battle conditions. The squire was the shield bearer of the knight, which is to say, he was the knight’s personal aide. He carried the shield, the banner of the knights family, guarded the knight’s prisoners, and replaced the knight’s sword should it become lost or damaged in battle. At the age of 14, the squire was an aspiring knight and he discharged his duties to the best of his abilities.

Finally the squire becomes a knight. He has faithfully served his master for nearly a decade and has proven his usefulness to society, the king, and the realm. Similar to the U.S. Marine’s mantra, “Unit, Corp., God, Country,” the knight fought for the ideals of his country and was self-sacrificing for his countrymen. Over 20 years, this young man has learned his responsibility to his people, his humility before ladies, and his duty to fight as protector of the intangibles of State.

In each of these transitions, there was a ceremony (perhaps small) that would mark the boy’s promotion and responsibility change. This would culminate in the ceremony of knighthood. The knighting ceremony was a ritual not taken lightly by the squire; after all, he’d been waiting his entire life for such an occasion.

It began with a ritual bath the night before the ceremony. He would then engage in an all-night prayer vigil — many times his armament would be laid on the alter — and receive the blessing of the church. His father (if a knight himself), the king, a noble, another knight, or clergy would confer knighthood by dubbing the squire’s shoulders with the flat of the sword.

The newly dubbed knight would swear an oath, rise, and then publicly display his warrior prowess by performing different combat techniques. The oath of chivalry included the knight’s commitment to always defend a lady; always speak the truth; have devotion to the church; be charitable and brave. There is a modern equivalent of the knight that swears similar virtues — the Boy Scouts.

So what does the modern parent do? Most of us don’t have stables to clean, damsels to save, and dragons to slay. How do we train our kids into the code of chivalry and provide markers in their development for them to see they are moving up as young men?

A friend of mine planned a milestone for his son’s 12th birthday. Jon lives up in Kansas and his parents have some property that is moderately wooded. Out among the trees, in a quiet place, was a folding chair and father and son took a walk from the car to the chair. While son sat down, father began to explain the meaning of manhood. He spoke to his son about integrity; doing the right thing even when nobody was there to watch. He spent about 15 minutes with his son alone in the woods on the topic before walking back to the car.

Waiting at the car was Jon’s dad, who then took a turn with his grandson at the chair in the woods. His conversation covered duties as a husband. He spoke of the Biblical mandate to keep charge over his future bride, to protect her physically and emotionally; to be a provider; to serve her needs before his own; and to lead with courage and commitment. About 20 minutes later, grandfather and grandson approach the car, where Jon’s father-in-law awaits his turn.

Back to the chair they walk where grandfather speaks of a man’s responsibility to his children. To pass on leadership qualities; to care and provide for them; to discipline with equity and consistency; to instill in them a desire to succeed in all they do.

Each of these men discussed humility on the one hand, and excellence on the other. Leadership means that you accept responsibility when you do things wrong, and share glory when it goes right. As the four gathered at the car, the three men prayed with the boy. As a present, they presented a .22 LR rifle to him. With the passage from childhood and closing in on manhood, the rifle, like the sword, was meant to show that his responsibilities had changed and with that came greater trust.

As I bring this article full circle, my sons are learning to shoot, and developing a love of the outdoors. This dove season, with a .410 in hand, my son was able to shoot his first dove, and learn how to clean it. We will enjoy a dinner with the animals we harvested at the end of the season. He too has learned that he is gaining responsibilities and he must exercise great care with the things he is trusted with.

In our day and age, hunting should be a rite of passage for a young lad. They learn a healthy respect for the deadly weapon they have shouldered for the task, and they learn respect for wildlife and proper game management. Stewardship. Hunting and the outdoors bring us closer to those knights before us who balanced ferocity and tenderness. A true man. The kind of characteristics our young boys should admire and model.

©2009 Brian Gleason

Related posts:

1. A New Order
2. Great Expectations: Chivalry In Tomorrow’s Knights
3. A Knight in the Water Tower

There are a lot of preconceived notions of the kinds of courtesy expected of a man: Holding an office door for a female co-worker, paying for dinner when he and his wife go to a restaurant, or insisting that any boy who wants to take his daughter out on a date has to introduce himself and meet “dad’s inspection.”

In some views, the man who does these kinds of things would be a gallant example of chivalry. In others, he might be thought of as a sexist — someone using traditional gender roles to make women feel helpless, inferior and even “possessed.” This sort of attitude is referred to in psychological and behavioral studies as “benevolent sexism,” and it is at the heart of the ongoing debate as to whether chivalry can and should be encouraged (or even tolerated) in a culture that values equal rights and gender equality.

This two-part article, which was originally posted on the Psychology Today website, takes a serious look at both sides of the issue. In the first part, psychologist Daisy Grewal reports on recent research which shows that “putting women on a pedestal” is often linked to abusive behaviors — especially for those women who fall off the pedestal. Her piece provides a serious, clinical look at the downside of chivalry.

Part I: Hidden Dangers in Harmless Courtesies

When people think of sexism, they usually think about hostility towards women: overt discrimination, derogatory comments, and even rape and violence. In reality, views about women in popular culture and beyond are highly dichotomized — a phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as the Madonna/whore syndrome. In other words, archetypes of women are often sharply divided between the extremely good (e.g., the virgin) and the extremely bad (e.g., the temptress).

Prejudice researchers use the term benevolent sexism to refer to forms of sexism that characterize women as extremely good. The benevolent sexist views women as bastions of purity who need to be protected, supported, and adored. Despite its overtly positive flavor, this idealization of women implies that women are weak, soft creatures that are best suited to traditional gender roles. As social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske have written:

(B)eing on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who puts [a woman] there is likely to interpret this as cherishing.

The traditionalist may view benevolent sexism as feminist hogwash; however there is considerable evidence suggesting that benevolent sexism is real — and in fact, far from benevolent when viewed from a broader perspective. Researchers have developed a survey, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which assesses the degree to which individuals endorse both hostile and benevolently sexist views. Examples of survey items assessing benevolent sexism include, “A good woman should be put on a pedestal by her man,” and “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.”

A study spanning 19 countries and including more than 15,000 participants found that hostile and benevolent sexism tend to go together: Cultures that are higher in hostile sexism also tend to be higher in benevolent sexism. People who score high on both are thought to be ambivalent towards women. Ambivalent sexists reconcile their opposing views by sorting women into specific subtypes such as “housewives,” “career women,” or “babes.” Hostile sexism may be elicited by women who are viewed as threatening, (e.g. feminists or career women) while benevolent sexism is directed towards women who reinforce traditional views about gender, such as housewives. Both perspectives fail to view women as multi-faceted equals to men.

You might be thinking, If benevolent sexism is so bad, then why do some women like it — or even seem to prefer it? Indeed, the more men endorse benevolent sexism in a culture, the more women in that culture tend to endorse it too. For women living in cultures that are oppressive towards women, there are numerous advantages to benevolent sexism.

Chivalrous men who are willing to risk life and limb for their women may be quite desirable in societies where women are often preyed upon. However, as Glick and Fiske point out, the irony here is that women in such societies are forced to seek protection from the members of the group (men) who threaten them in the first place. In the U.S., endorsement of benevolent sexism has been linked to conservative ideology and religious beliefs. While some women may see benefits in being treated in paternalistic way, research suggests that costs for women overall may be high.

A set of experimental studies published in 2007 by three researchers at the University of Liege serve as a sobering reminder that benevolent sexism can be harmful — and perhaps even more harmful than hostile sexism. Female participants were invited to participate in a study where they thought they were undergoing training for a job interview. They were introduced to a recruiter that expressed either hostile, benevolent, or nonsexist views about women’s abilities to perform in the potential job.

After hearing about the job, participants completed a test of their problem-solving abilities. Surprisingly, the women who were exposed to the benevolently sexist recruiter performed worse than women who were exposed to either the hostile sexist or the non-sexist recruiter. In an additional study, the researchers found that women in the benevolent sexism condition faltered on the exam because they suffered from intrusive thoughts about their ability to perform. The authors concluded that:

(B)enevolent sexism created a mindset of preoccupation, self-doubt, and decreased self-esteem. Such mental intrusions interfered with the task to be performed…On the contrary, hostile sexism was detected as prejudice and therefore left no ambiguity.

Most women do not respond well to hostile sexism, but at least open hostility can be openly fought. Benevolent sexism is insidious because on the surface many women may find it appealing or even desirable. To many women, benevolent sexism may not even appear to be sexism at all. However, its consequences run both far and deep across the globe.

© 2009 Daisy Grewal, Ph.D.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry: The B.S. Debate – Part 2
2. The Chivalry Trap
3. The Chivalry Debate: Part 1

While considering the negative aspects of chivalrous behavior and attitudes, think also about what a world without chivalry would look like — a place where no one had compassion, made sacrifices, or put forth any effort to be kind and courteous (unless there was some sort of personal benefit to be gained).

Dr. Gad Saad, in his counterpoint examination of chivalry and benevolent sexism, reminds us that compassion and respect are the walls that separate true chivalry from sexism in disguise. He considers the fact that when we see a man making a sacrifice to help someone weaker than himself, the response of appreciation and admiration may literally be coded into our DNA.

In conclusion, we have to remember that not all acts of chivalry are created equal. Kindness, consideration and compassion must always spring from a sense of respect and courtesy, not from a desire to “assert dominance” or “show ownership.” (Which is true for the courteous actions of men and women alike!) The difference between chivalry and b.s. (benevolent sexism, that is) is all in the attitude.

For more on gender roles, courtship customs and the protocol of chivalry, listen to Episode 28 of the Chivalry Today Podcast, “Modern Romance, Courtly Love and Chivalry,” which features interviews with Susan Squire, author of I Don't: A Contrarian History of Romance» , and Diane Gottsman, director of the Protocol School of Texas.

Part II: Respect and No B.S.

One of my fellow Psychology Today bloggers recently put up a post on benevolent sexism [BS]. I do not wish for this particular blogger to think that I am attacking her personally. I simply feel compelled to critique BS whenever I come across it. Let’s hope that my critique does not constitute an instantiation of hostile sexism.

The general idea is that there are two forms of sexism, the standard hostile form and a more insidious BS form. For example, if men were to be chivalrous by opening up the door for a woman, they would be succumbing to BS. As a matter of fact, most universal courtship acts meant to impress women (e.g., catering to a woman’s needs by being considerate) would fall within the BS rubric. If a heroic male bystander were to intervene whilst a woman is being violently attacked, he would also be succumbing to BS.

I am not making this stuff up.

In short, any attitude or behavior that connotes that women might require to be catered to and/or protected in specific instances is a form of BS.

That women specifically state that they find chivalrous and heroic men to be terribly attractive is apparently a testament to their having been brainwashed by the patriarchy. That romance novels, strictly written and read by women, always display men as chivalrous and heroic protagonists is also a manifestation of the insidious evils of the patriarchy. That the Fireman and Man in Military Uniform archetypes exist within the repertoire of fantasies of countless women around the world is also proof of the cancerous effects of millennia of patriarchal brainwashing.

The BS police have managed to completely confuse me. Should I purchase my wife flowers this week as a gesture of my love for her, or is this a form of BS? If I am sitting on a public bus and a pregnant woman is left standing, should I give her my seat, or is this a form of “disgusting” paternalistic BS chivalry? If I were to witness a violent attack on a woman (which by the way led to a whole field in social psychology known as the bystander effect), should I simply ignore her cries for help? “Sorry lady, I’d hate for the BS police to think that I am sexist, so I shall refrain from calling the police.”

My feeling is that the same folks who believe in BS also argue that it is inappropriate for us to pass value judgments for the manner by which the Taliban treat their women. After all, who are we to question the cultural imperatives of another society right?

Here is a promise: I will continue to treat women with utter respect. I will be chivalrous and considerate to them. I will try to intervene and protect them if they are being harmed. If this means that I am displaying BS, so be it.

© 2009 Gad Saad, Ph.D.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry: The B.S. Debate – Part 1
2. The Chivalry Debate: Part 1
3. The Chivalry Debate: Part 2

Michelle Singletary is a popular personal-finance columnist for the Washington Post. Her new book, Your Money And Your Man,» looks at the financial evolution of a healthy relationship, from the first date and wedding plans to retirement and life insurance. (Although her book is marketed as “women’s financial advice,” there is plenty of sound information about spending and investing for men too.) Throughout the book, Singletary emphasizes one of the principles of chivalry that is crucial to a good relationship: Honesty. A spouse who isn’t honest about what they’re spending (or saving) is likely to be dishonest about other things as well. As Singletary points out with her typical dollars-and-cents savvy, dishonesty indicates disrespect, which “will bankrupt your relationship.” Although the following excerpt is full of good financial advice, there are also some valuable lessons to be learned about faith, trust and chivalry in relationships.

Common cents and the cost of lying to your mate

In a marriage, financial honesty is right up there with fidelity. And yet men (and women) think nothing of keeping financial secrets.

Look at one reader’s plight. She wrote:

Honestly, as I told this reader, a good man wouldn’t lie to his wife. Nor would a good woman lie to her husband.

A woman often hides her money from her husband just in case he turns out to be a philanderer, spendthrift or financial control freak. There are experts who advise women, especially stay-at-home moms, to keep a separate stash of cash. They even provide tips on how to carry out the deception. Here are just a few:

• When you go to the grocery store, write a check for an amount over the total and hoard the cash you get back.
• Secretly sell off odds and ends around your home at swap meets, flea markets and garage sales.
• Find a part-time job that will pay you in cash.
• Open a non-interest-bearing account in your maiden name in another city. Make sure all bank statements are sent to a secret post office box.

Almost anything goes to protect your money. Women are told not to feel guilty about hiding money so they can shop without having to justify purchases, or invest without their husbands’ knowledge, or raise cash for a rainy day.

After all, it’s about time that women – who are increasingly earning more than their husbands and bringing more assets into a marriage – learn to conceal their true financial situation the way some men do.

I hear it all the time. Women should strive to maintain as much financial independence as they can. Experts advise women to keep separate accounts and sign up for credit cards in their own name just in case they get divorced. Fail to do so, they warn, and you may have trouble getting credit after the marriage ends.

I know many women who harbor fears that their husbands will have affairs and clean out their bank accounts. It would be foolish not to protect your financial interests at a time when so many marriages end in divorce.

But that fear, however realistic it may turn out to be, does not justify dishonesty. It’s possible to have financial independence without being deceitful. A marriage in which someone is hiding assets or skimming money from the joint bank account is a sorry marriage.

In extreme situations – if a woman is being abused either physically or emotionally – she may need to squirrel away money to get out of a horrible or life-threatening relationship.

But that is the extreme.

If you have enough faith in your man to marry him and trust him with your life, you need to trust him with your money. More important, if you are going to have children with him and trust him with their lives, you should trust him enough to divulge everything about your finances, even assets you want to keep separate from your community property.

But trust doesn’t mean turning over complete control to the degree that you are clueless about the family finances. As Ronald Regan said when negotiating with the Soviets: “Trust, but verify.”

Black Dresses and White Lies

Have you ever hidden a shopping bag full of clothes in the trunk of the car or in the back of the closet to keep your honey from finding out how much money you spent at the mall?

Do you intercept credit card statements so your spouse won’t yell at you for overspending?

If you answered yes to one or both of these questions, you have plenty of company. In one survey of 1,000 married couples conducted by Reader’s Digest, 48 percent of wives and 49 percent of husbands said they kept how much they paid for something from their spouses.

Interestingly, couples with higher incomes lied more about what they spent.

What’s going on here? If you’re lying to your husband about purchases, shame on you. And if you’re lording over the family finances, making your husband feel like he’s your child waiting for his weekly allowance, shame on you, too.

One way to stop the lies is to create a fair and equitable system in which each partner has his or her own pocket money. That doesn’t mean setting up separate accounts. Just allocate a certain amount that you each can spend without any judgment. Consider this money your personal allowance. You can’t and shouldn’t be judged on how you use it.

You might ask yourself, “How harmful is it to keep quiet about what I spent on a pair of shoes or a stereo system?” You might feel entitled to spend the money you make the way you want. But keeping secrets and failing to communicate about your spending is a symptom of a big problem in your partnership. Your sneaky spending is sabotaging your family’s financial goals, and lying about how much you spend is no trivial matter. Keeping secrets ruins relationships.

©2007 Michelle Singletary

About the Author: Michelle Singletary’s Washington Post column, The Color of Money, is now syndicated in more than 130 newspapers across the country. She is the author of 7 Money Mantras For A Richer Life» and Spend Well, Live Rich,» as well as her new book, Your Money And Your Man,» . Singletary is a graduate of the University of Maryland and has a master’s degree in business from Johns Hopkins University. Visit her website for more advice about money and investing, or to sign up for her weekly e-newsletter.

Related posts:

1. Really Good Iced Tea
2. Uncensored Chivalry
3. Episode 10: Chivalry and the Benedictine Rule

While I usually make the point that “chivalry is more than manners,” when a manners expert like Peggy Post speaks out on chivalry, it’s time to sit up and pay attention. Peggy is the “great-granddaughter in law” of legendary etiquette expert Emily Post, and is the director of the Emily Post Institute, which is described as a 21st century “civility barometer.” Peggy clearly believes that chivalry and etiquette alike should not be bogged down in the formalities of yesteryear. This article demonstrates that even the manners and courtesies of “gentlemanly” chivalry can be easily updated to exist in harmony with contemporary gender values. The first sentence of the article says it all!

A practically modern approach to etiquette

Elevator etiquette is just one of the places where the customs of chivalry still exist today, according to the Post Institute.

Thankfully, chivalry is not dead. But today, it’s not so much about men rescuing and protecting women as it is about being considerate of others. Holding the door for the person behind you, helping a friend put on his coat, standing to greet a newcomer — a polite person should extend these gestures to everyone, regardless of gender.

Of course, if a man insists on playing the perfect gentleman, and is especially attentive to a woman, she shouldn’t be offended. Whatever his motive, he’s still trying to be kind.

Here are some long-standing chivalries, updated and made gender-neutral:

• Holding the door. Whoever gets to the door first holds it for others.
• Getting off an elevator. The person closest to the door exits first.
• Helping to put on a coat. Anyone having trouble putting on a coat or sweater should receive some help, regardless of gender.
• Paying for a meal. Whoever does the inviting does the paying.
• Standing. Getting up to greet someone is always polite — and this is especially important when the person is elderly or is a business superior or client. It’s also the thing to do when you’re being introduced to someone.
• Walking on the outside. The custom of a man walking between his female companion and the street was the custom in the days when carriages splashed mud and ladies’ finery needed shielding. These days, it doesn’t matter who is walking on the street side of the sidewalk.
• Shaking hands. Used to be that a man was supposed to wait for a woman to offer her hand before he extended his. Today, regardless of gender, people should shake hands upon meeting, and it doesn’t matter who puts out their hand first.
• Helping to carry something. A neighbor or coworker — anyone — who is overloaded with books or packages will appreciate an offer of help from whoever is nearby.

© 2006 Peggy Post

About the Author: Peggy Post is the spokesperson and author for the Emily Post Institute. Her books include the rewritten 17th edition of Emily Posts's Etiquette,» and The Etiquette Advantage in Business: Personal Skills for Professional Success.» Peggy writes monthly columns in Good Housekeeping and Parents magazines. She is the wedding etiquette expert for InStyle Weddings and WeddingChannel.com. Peggy conducts lectures and seminars for businesses and community groups across the country. This article may not be reprinted in any form without the permission of the author.

Related posts:

1. Episode 30: Reclaiming The Sword and The Code of Chivalry
2. Paying The Price
3. A Little Lesson in Chivalry

Want to mess up a good relationship? Psychologist Dr. Dave Currie has four surefire ways to do it – all of which involve simply ignoring the principles of chivalry.

As part of his popular Marriage Uncensored television talk show (now in its third season), Dr. Currie advocates that couples adopt an attitude of unflinching honesty and interpersonal respect — attitudes that are also very in synch with the values of chivalry. To treat your relationship partner “chivalrously” means more than opening doors and being polite. It means having the courage to be truthful and open, surrendering your selfishness and vanity, and focusing on the “long haul” rather than immediate gratification. By exploring the four common ways that most relationships fail, in this article (reprinted from the FamilyLife Canada web-zine) Dr. Currie reminds us that whether you’re on your first date, or you are celebrating your Golden Anniversary, chivalry should be an indispensable part of your relationship – but only if you want it to last!

Abandon chivalry and destroy a relationship

From over a quarter century of working with couples, four principles have repeatedly surfaced as part of those marriages that fell apart. While you might not like what you hear, especially as it hits close to home, these lines of thought have contributed to countless broken families. Be warned.

1) Indulge Your Selfishness

There are few guarantees in life. But if you’re looking for a guaranteed way to wreck your marriage, never forget the cardinal rule: Marriage is all about your own personal happiness!

We teach our kids that it’s better to give than to receive. But if you’re paying attention to the messages coming from our society today, you could be excused for thinking that actually it’s better to receive…and then receive again! We’re supposed to look out for Number One, aren’t we? Sometimes, getting our own way means stepping on a few people along the way…even if it’s our spouse.

Of course, the other side of selfishness is selflessness. The selfless person says, “Whatever I can do for you is all that matters.” But it seems that if you want to guarantee your own happiness, you need to operate on the “me” principle. It’s about having life’s table sloping towards me; the ebbs and flows of life must favour me. It’s about getting my needs met and my desires gratified. It’s about getting everything needed to please me.

If marital breakdown is what you want, never let go of your need to be satisfied first. Don’t worry about what your spouse needs; they’re on their own there. Live by this creed and you will be free from your spouse’s expectations and demands. It’s so natural to put yourself first. It’s what we all do. It’s often too big an effort to think about others first, so we don’t.

2) Justify Unfaithfulness

The next big step towards marital disaster can be summed up in the phrase, “What they don’t know won’t hurt them.”

The thing to remember about unfaithfulness is that it’s so easy to slip into. You may hear “unfaithfulness” and automatically jump to “affairs.” Now, an affair is a great way to shipwreck a marriage, no doubt about it. But unfaithfulness comes in many more subtle forms. It doesn’t start at the bedroom door, but in the windows of your mind. A look here, some lust there, maybe throw in a bit of pornography and a dose of flirtation with others, and you’re well on your way before you even leave your spouse.

We live in a world where words like “faithfulness” and “commitment” are no longer in vogue. The idea of tying myself exclusively to another person for the rest of my life is viewed as archaic. Where’s the freedom in that? Our sophisticated society regularly reminds us that if a relationship fails to bring me happiness (see point #1), the prudent thing to do is to discard it, or at least work around it. If my spouse isn’t meeting my needs, simply find someone who will.

”For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, till death do us part…” Those words used to mean something. But in a culture that is quick to break its vows, perhaps a more honest pledge would be, “Till something better comes along, for as long as I feel like it, as long as we both shall love” – sad, and with tragic consequences.

3) Expect It To Be Easy

You don’t have to go looking for storms in your marriage; they will come to you. There are forces intent on destroying your relationship; so if you want it to go down in flames, you just need to stay out of their way and let them do their work. Allow yourself to be blindsided by life’s difficulties.

The trials are inevitable. For some, it will come in the form of financial hardship. Others will face health struggles, meddlesome in-laws, wayward kids, communication problems, sexual problems or just a lack of connection. Troubles like these wreak the most havoc when they take us by surprise and we are completely unprepared for them. Remember: when you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Just assume your married life will uncomplicated and problem-free; then when the crisis hits it will absolutely knock the wind out of your relationship.

Couples intent on surviving the storms of life prepare for them. They expect them to strike in one form or another, and when they do they are ready. Sometimes they even find that the trials draw them closer together! The ordeal becomes glue that binds them, rather than a wedge that drives them apart.

So if you’re looking for a sure-fire way to mess up your relationship, assume that your marriage shouldn’t have issues and adjustments. This denial will kill any hope of something solid ever developing.

4) Pursue The Quick Fix

Building a good marriage takes time and effort. But for some reason, many people think they shouldn’t have to work on their relationship; it should just come easy.

Wouldn’t it be great if life was like a sitcom? No matter what problem the character is facing, it’s all wrapped up neat-and-tidy after 22 minutes. Adopt that mentality, and your marriage is doomed for sure. Demand instant change in everyone but yourself, and your marriage will buckle under the strain. If your marriage has a deep wound, don’t attempt to heal it – just slap a Band-Aid on it and continue on your merry way. If you ignore the issue, it’ll take care of itself. Sorry…wrong.

You see, becoming a good husband or wife requires change. It requires adjustment. Any change, especially character change, takes time. A lot of time. For those who don’t want a good marriage, the answer is simple: Don’t take the time, don’t make the effort, don’t make changes, and yet expect things to improve. It’s like a flame: deny it oxygen, and it goes out. Think of time and effort as the oxygen in your relationship. Cut off the supply and watch the marriage shrivel.

Summary

We’ve approached this from the viewpoint of crisis, failure and breakdown. These principles work. They consistently mess up many marriages. If you see yourself in any of these four principles, take it as a warning and get the help you need. You will never regret making the effort to make your marriage work.

© 2008 Dr. Dave Currie and Glen Roos

About the Authors: Dr. Dave Currie is the National Director of FamilyLife Canada, which granted permission to reprint this article. He and his wife Donalyn live in Abbotsford , BC , and are regular speakers at FamilyLife Marriage Conferences. Dave is also the host of Marriage Uncensored, a television program airing on CH Victoria, NOW TV (BC) and CH Hamilton ( Ontario ). This article may not be reproduced in any form without express permission of the author.

Related posts:

1. Financial Fidelity
2. A Knight’s Journey
3. Ly’s Hope

This article originally appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune after the reporter interviewed me about my participation in the 2006 production of Camelot. It is a nice reminder of how simple and effective “everyday chivalry” can be.

I got flipped off the other day. Maybe I was following too closely, because the driver ahead of me hit his brakes, glared into the rearview mirror and then gave me an emphatic one-gun salute. He did it with such athletic precision that I figured he had a lot of practice.

This act of motor madness made me think of the Middle Ages, when wrath was all the rage. What with the Inquisition and the Crusades, it definitely wasn’t a Good Conduct Medal moment in history.

And that made me think of Scott Farrell, whose home is decorated in medieval knicknacks. There are axes and helmets and suits of armor, which he actually wears. But it’s not the violence that Scott loves about those centuries. It’s the birth of a code of conduct called chivalry, a moral compass that he argues can point us in the right direction even today.

I first met Scott three years ago, when he told me about his quest to instill in people the seven “knightly virtues” he believes are rooted in chivalry: courage, justice, mercy, generosity, faith, nobility and hope.

He’s 41 now and remains a true believer in the ethics of everyday chivalry. His most recent audience: the cast of “Camelot,” which is rehearsing for July performances at the Poway Center for Performing Arts. Scott, by the way, is playing King Arthur.

He said he’s seen the result of his cast lectures in little things, like how they help each other put up chairs after rehearsal or lend a hand passing out scripts or applaud others after scenes.

How we treat each other isn’t rocket science. The unglamorous reality is that most of us lead lives void of the melodrama of Wisteria Lane. We know what Ken Lay and Duke Cunningham did was wrong. Instead, ethicists will tell you that it’s the little things that define us. Our personal responses to ordinary moments become the building blocks of our character.

So I asked Scott about the car incident. What would King Arthur do?

“Whether in the car in front or the car behind, he would realize we don’t need to turn an incident like this into a vendetta,” Scott said. “Wave and smile and hope that things get better for the other person.”

Maybe chivalry could help keep that guy’s middle finger down — and my own hand off the horn.

© 2009 Sandi Dolbee

About the Author: Sandi Dolbee is the ethics and religion reporter for the San Diego Union Tribune. This article originally appeared in the June 24, 2006 edition of that paper in the weekly department, Everyday Ethics.

Related posts:

1. Knight Vision
2. My Approach to Chivalry Today
3. Zen in the Art of Chivalry

A knight is more than a warrior. Knights, lords and ladies of the Middle Ages were also expected to display the “courtly graces” at feasts and gatherings, and one of these graces was skill in dancing. On the surface this might seem silly — a demonstration of just how frivolous chivalry really is — but as author David Anderson reminds us, there is an underlying sense of compassion, sincerity, fidelity and respect wrapped up in the simple act of dancing. In relationships, as in a dance, we often stumble, step on each other’s toes, get frustrated and feel bored, but a knight in shining armor must have the grace to overcome those setbacks without losing the rhythm. Getting beyond selfishness, anger and apathy requires gallantry and confidence. In this essay, excerpted from the book Breakfast Epiphanies, we are reminded that chivalry is a crucial element in any intimate relationship based on trust, honor and sincerity.

Building A Strong Relationship One Step At A Time

When my wife and I set out to learn how to dance, we did not expect to practice. We wanted to waltz like Maria and the captain in The Sound of Music, and we naïvely assumed that our expert instructor, Larry, would show us the basic trick to waltzing and then we would start twirling and gliding. Instead we spent half the hour learning how to rise and fall with every beat, how to place each step – Drive with that foot, he would insist, No, heel first! – and the other half learning three measly steps. (The poster board on the easel listed 27. We won’t be waltzing in public until our silver anniversary.)

When the hour was up, Larry gave us a sheet with the 27 moves and told us to go home and practice. “Next week,” he said with a big smile, “I’ll turn on the music and we’ll start with a little dance recital.”

The next day we put the coffee table in the hallway and moved the living room furniture against the walls. Practice began. Someone looking in the window (and don’t think we didn’t worry about that) would have seen two stiff mannequins locked in herky-jerky combat. But we were happily learning how to dance. For a week or more it was all wonderful like that.

It is not hard to dance with someone when everything is just fine. But it is almost impossible to take up a dance position with someone you are fighting with. Pam and I tend not to have explosive fights. (I am Scandinavian and Virgo; I’m not sure what her excuse is.) Our quarrels tend to simmer for days until someone is grown-up enough to suggest we ought to have a talk.

In the middle of such a simmering conflict, however, it is time to go through our paces. “Are we going to practice our dance?” she says. “I guess so,” I say with a passive-aggressive shrug. I put on the music and we stand in the middle of the living room floor like two hedgehogs negotiating an embrace. I take her right hand. Stiff. I place my right hand squarely on her back. She squirms as if to say, “This is stupid – you can’t dance with someone you don’t even want to be in the same room with!” But we lurch forward on the downbeat of Hi-Lilli, Hi-Lo, clomping woodenly through the waltz. It is ugly, but we do it. And afterward we nod at each other coolly as if to say, “So there.”

That dance rehearsal with its pathetic embrace was pure revelation. It may be impossible to dance with someone you don’t even want to be around. But, we discovered, you can practice dancing. You don’t always have to enjoy it, you just have to do it. It’s the only way to become any good at this. When you’re in conflict with your partner, you can’t wait for reconciliation to hold one another and move in mirrored grace. You practice your way through the mess. In other words, dancers dance.

Because it involves intimacy, dancing seems to demand emotion or feeling. Wrong. It’s nice when feeling coincides with intimacy and the outward and visible beauty of a couple’s movement seems a sacramental sign of an inward and spiritual grace. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that one. It happens, but only because you practice.

We are sometimes enthralled by the romantic notion that, in intimate relationships, we ought not do or say anything we don’t truly feel. To do so would be dishonest. Wrong again. Usually we have to go through the motions to get to the emotions. “We are more likely to act our way into feeling,” C.S. Lewis said, “than to feel our way into acting.” The 12-steppers put it in shirtsleeve English: Fake it till you make it.

It is our family custom to hold hands when we say grace. We’ve done it since the children were old enough to join us at the table. Sometimes when we are in conflict, one or another person will decline to join hands. But more often than not we manage to close the circle. This act of intimacy does not mean that all parties are reconciled – the pitched argument continues right after the amen. It is simply a reminder that while we may be in a bitter war, we are fighting with those we dearly love. If action must wait upon feeling, it is impossible to hold someone’s hand – and “insincere” to pray – in such a state of anger. Yet a moment’s thought tells us that intimacy in the midst of conflict is the true test of love. Anyone can hold a hand or say a prayer when they feel like it.

In relationships, as in all of life, we are perfected by practice. It’s the one thing we can do even if we’re not sure we can do the real thing. If you can’t dance, you can practice dancing. If you can’t love, you can practice loving. If you can’t empathize or set aside anger or hold a hand, you can practice doing it. Sometimes the other person can’t tell the difference, and after a while, neither can you.

©2005 David Anderson

About the author: David Anderson is rector of Trinity Church in Solebury, Penn., and a columnist for the Pennsylvania Episcopalian. He has received various awards for his writing, including the Lilly Endowment grant. He lives with his wife, cookbook author Pam Anderson, and his two daughters in New Hope, Penn. This essay is reprinted from his book Breakfast Epiphanies: Finding the Wonder in the Everyday, and may not be reprinted in any form without permission from the author.

Related posts:

1. Knights of the Gridiron: Part 2
2. Jedi Knights
3. The Meaning of Chivalry

The Code of Chivalry is a cultural product of Western European society. This brings up some very valid questions in the mind of anyone who does not have roots in that culture: How does this code apply to me? Why should I adhere to this archaic, restrictive and often confusing standard of behavior when my traditional values lie elsewhere?

These questions are perhaps most pertinent among the African-American community, in which chivalry is literally an alien concept, imported from a cultural heritage that is neither African nor American. Yet as author Darryl James points out, there are many aspects of African-American tradition that are harmonious with the ideals of chivalry, including courtesy, integrity and mutual respect between men and women. His article reminds us that every culture contains elements of chivalrous, honorable and noble behavior, and that people of every color and ethnic background can be “knights in shining armor.”

The African-American Perspective of Chivalry

Chivalry:

1. Gallantry, courtesy and honor.
2. The noble qualities a knight was supposed to have, such as courage and a readiness to help the weak.
3. The demonstration of any of these qualities.

We often hear that chivalry is dying, or that the art is dead, but many of us have no idea why.

In its purest definition, chivalry is truly dead. Chivalry refers to the code of ethics and conduct of a knight (or chevalier) during the Middle Ages, where his horse, weapons, attendants and flag were concerned. The code had nothing to do with conduct in love until much later.

After the Crusades, poets turned chivalry into something beyond the code of the chevaliers. The new chivalry became a code of courting and a code of honor in love, as opposed to war.

None of us can be honest and discuss the death of chivalry without also discussing its diminishing at the hands of both men and women. Currently, women discuss how men are no longer chivalrous, while men discuss how women have been rejecting chivalry. Modern chivalry fit fairly well during a time before the current women’s rights movement, when women began to reject traditional roles and behavior, including the roles and behavior required for garnering chivalrous behavior.

For example, feminism taught women that displays of chivalry were, in many ways demeaning and condescending. The new idea was that since men did not hold doors for each other, why would they do so for any other equal? The image of the chivalrous man protecting the weaker “damsel in distress” did not fit well with the evolving image of the woman as equal, strong and independent.

Strangely, many people today who speak of chivalry and tradition frequently fail to spell out the woman’s obligations during the medieval institution, and in many ways romanticize yesterday’s chivalry far deeper than the post-Crusade poets. The newer romanticized version has recreated the woman’s role, so that she is far less than weak or in distress, but still deserving of favorable treatment, specifically when it comes to who will pay for dinner.

In short, after an arduous program of attacking and seeking to re-write both chivalry and tradition, today’s so-called “modern” woman is now attacking men for moving away from so-called “old-fashioned” standards. Now, let me bring this thing home: The truly sad part for African Americans is that neither the historic nor the romanticized versions of tradition debated in most of today’s open forums actually belong to us.

Feminism, initiated by white women, was neither African, nor African American. Womanism is a new term rolling around the black community, but even it has yet to evolve into a clear message. To be clear, strong black men with love and respect for womanhood have no problem being chivalrous, but we do have a problem with freedom and feminism being situational.

We will still hold the door for women, even though far too many neglect to offer gratitude, while some even act insulted by the courtesy. We will still offer to let a woman walk on the inside, and allow her to go first as a courtesy. But what we will not do is allow women to enjoy sitting back without a care in the world while we coordinate and pay for each and every date. The part of chivalry that dictated that men pay for all dates is outdated. It began in a time when women either didn’t work or worked in jobs that paid very little. Now the other part that has to be mentioned is that this was never a part of our tradition as African descendants in America.

Chivalry: A Tradition of Honor and Respect

When I hear people talk about chivalry, dating and courting, inevitably talk of “tradition” comes next. But what fails to come up is a real focus on what our tradition really was. For example, when Betty Shabazz first met Malcolm X, her first words to him were analyzing his health based on having a woman nurture him. She didn’t wait to see where he would take her, she paid attention to what he was doing and what he needed and in return, he did the same. That’s our tradition.

Traditionally, a man would express interest in a woman and the first date would be in the form of dinner at her family’s home, so the family could check him out. Perhaps he would even attend church service with her, but the focus was not on his demonstration of entertainment arrangement skills (Does anyone remember going “Dutch?”), but on the two of them checking each other out. That’s traditional.

In yesteryear, men were looked at as the sole breadwinners, but that was neither African, nor African American. Black women have always worked and were partners in the finances. That’s traditional. Of course, there are some of us who can recall stay-at-home mothers, who were purely housewives, but that was never the majority of us.

As for chivalry, men are being blamed for the demise of the art, but women also used to be more chivalrous than they currently are. For example, Betty Shabazz offering to nurture Brother Malcolm was a chivalrous act. The point is that if we really want to be traditional, there is more work involved than having a man take a woman to an expensive dinner or on a series of dates where he pays. Chivalry and tradition worked both ways.

For every woman who claims to want a man who is old fashioned, the question has to be asked whether or not she can actually cook a meal and whether she is actually willing to invite a man over to her home for a home-cooked meal. Old-fashioned women could cook as well as clean, even as feminism was evolving. Remember the commercial message of empowerment from the eighties? It went something like this: “I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan,’cause I’m a woman … ” The point is that we cannot be one-sided or revisionist when it comes to tradition and being old fashioned.

Both men and women must be honest about the current condition, which has chivalry seriously wounded and its image confused and tarnished. We are not going to move forward with simple-minded demands that we hold on to something that is evaporating, or that we go back to something that has been evolving. When you talk of a return to chivalry, what stage of chivalry are you referring to? At what point in time?

If chivalry is dead, but was a good thing, where did it go wrong?

I assert that chivalry was attacked because it was misinterpreted. Instead of viewing it as a mutual art, yesterday’s feminists saw the deference to females as negative. The perception was that old-fashioned chivalry was showered on women who were weaker than men, which had to be rejected by women who were seeking equality. But chivalry was also about courtesy and respect, both given and received.

Men should still pursue courtesy and respect for womanhood. We need to teach young men how to be gentlemen, so that our real traditions can be passed on. Women who wish to receive chivalry today must do two things: Stand ready to return the respect and courtesy, and communicate those desires properly.

Since there is no universally accepted definition of chivalry, we must define our own individual concepts of chivalry and discuss them with potential partners to see if they are practical and applicable. We must communicate and compromise.

Now, that’s traditional!

© 2005 Darryl James

About the author: Darryl James is an award-winning author and the founder of Rap Sheet, the only black owned rap music publication. James’ latest book, Bridging the Black Gender Gap, is the basis of his lectures and seminars. Previous installments of the column can now be viewed at his website, The Bridge.

Related posts:

1. The Circle Of Chivalry
2. Be Worthy of Chivalry
3. Chivalry Is … What?

Since beginning the Chivalry Today program, I’ve always maintained that there’s nothing inherently “unequal” or “chauvinistic” about chivalry. There is nothing specifically “masculine” about integrity, courage, graciousness or just plain courtesy — and that’s exactly what this 19-year-old, up-and-coming writer conveys to her peers (and readers of any age) in this outstanding essay. Emily provides the ideal image of a modern-day knight in shining armor.

He opens the door for you. He pulls out your chair and pays for everything. You may think one of two things: A) If I can’t open the door, am I even fit to be on a date? or B) How sweet — there’s a nice guy.

For me, the answer is simple. I’d choose B. Considering my opinions on equality and the like, my choice may surprise some people. Isn’t it contradictory for a girl like me to appreciate a guy who opens the door? Isn’t that supporting a chauvinistic action?

Some believe that in the battle of the sexes chivalry is an attempt to solidify the place of the “weaker sex.” In my opinion, such actions are worthy and go to show that we should expect this kind of respect in our relationships.

While trying to be fiercely equal, it seems men and women have created a problem: when is chivalry polite, and when is it male dominance? I fear that girls who are starkly aware of this may just be labeled “The Intimidator” for coming off as anti-chivalry. Many guys have experienced this conflict: open the door and you’re a gem — or open the door and you’ll offend. Who knows what’s appropriate anymore?

The guessing game of chivalry comes down to a matter of choice, with one person then trying to figure out what the other has decided. These days guys feel it necessary to ask, “Do you mind if I open the door for you?” while it used to simply be expected of them.

This conflict is born of our ultra-sensitivity to women’s and equality issues, and while I’m glad we are aware of those issues, I don’t believe they should mean the downfall of respectable chivalry. In other words, it is possible to support all-around equality without sacrificing kind treatment.

What matters here is not the action but the intent. Ladies, don’t shrink from a guy if he opens the door. Appreciate the fact that he was thoughtful; don’t conclude that he considers you incapable. What is at heart is not his perception of your abilities, but his perception of how to show respect for people in general.

True equality between the sexes would not eliminate chivalry, but rather encourage both men and women to practice it. Chivalry itself is not the problem. The problem is that only men are traditionally expected to uphold it. So let’s cut the guesswork out of dating, girls. Let the guy open the door — and then do the same for him on the way out. It would be underestimating real equality between the sexes to have it any other way.

© 2003 Emily A. Stoddard and Blue Jean OnLine

Copyright 2003 www.bluejeanonline.com, “The only web site written and produced by young women around the world.” Publisher of Blue Jean: What Young Women are Thinking, Saying, and Doing (Blue Jean Press).

Related posts:

1. Courtesy And Acknowledgement
2. A Little Lesson in Chivalry
3. Paying The Price

Traveling to exotic wildernesses and risking harrowing mountain-climbing expeditions are often thought of as exercises in courage, and there’s no doubt that Jeff Salz — an anthropologist who has traversed the Andes, the Himalayas and the Amazon rain forest — is a brave fellow. Yet his reflections on his journeys, such as the one that follows, aren’t about glory, conquest and valor, but humble moments of generosity, grace and nobility — in rugged, foreign places, Jeff has frequently found the essence of chivalry. In fact, Jeff notes that the Argentine gauchos live by a code of honor very reminiscent of the Code of Chivalry, and refer to themselves as caballeros, which comes from the same Latin word that give us “chivalry.”

A distant trek toward chivalry

The taco vendor threw a few more on the glowing comal. Patillas, the cab driver, handed him a greasy wad of 100 peso notes. His poncho covered his bulging potbelly like a tarpaulin over a monument not yet unveiled to the public. It was 3 a.m. in a very bad part of Mexico City.

His arm was around me. When he spoke, I tried to be nonchalant, dodging the shreds of tortilla — that meat came at me like shrapnel. It was a sacred moment.

“You are an American. I am a Mexican. It does not matter. La nobleza no se conoce fronteras.” (Nobility knows no borders.)

We ate the next round together, shoulder to shoulder, our breath visible in the frosty white light of the vendor’s shack, celebrating the camaraderie of men awake when anyone in their right mind should be sleeping, the savor of salsa that could double for battery acid and the unspoken feeling that individuals on street corners might yet save the world.

Recently I’ve noticed, after nearly a quarter of a century of climbing and escapading from Asia to Albania, Argentina to Australia, the tales I most often tell are not about summits attained, untracked wildernesses traversed. The memories I most cherish are always about people.

My personal turning point came in Chile the night Stephen and I almost shot our horse. It was to have been an equestrian/alpine Andean expedition. Maraquetta, our chestnut packhorse, had turned up lame, having sawed her rear hock to the bone with her tether rope during the night. Too long we had bought and sold horses, tended to split hooves and sore withers. Maraquetta also had the bad habit of rolling on the ground whenever our backs were turned, scattering food, cook pots and climbing gear across the countryside. We decided to jettison whatever we could not fit on the back of our individual horses.

To be unencumbered, free to ride, meant giving up ice axes, crampons and hardware. No climbing rope, just a halter rope. What did not fit in our saddlebags was left, not destroyed but temporarily put out to pasture with poor, lame Maraquetta. Our goal was to travel the length of the Chilean Andes, from Talca to Temuco, like nomadic huasos, Chilean cowboys, roaming free and living off he land. We knew we were out to discover something in this enormity of road-less wilderness. We knew not what.

For months we found shelter in the humble, tumble down homes along the way, or pitched our tent in farmers’ fields while our horses fattened on gifts of oats and alfalfa. In a land so poor that in the handful of villages where a phone was to be found — they joked about having to put fertilizer around the poles before they could speak over the wires — we were received like visiting dignitaries. Loaves of bread were baked, sheep slaughtered, precious casks of wine were broken open. We were welcomed and feasted like royalty in every log shanty and sod cabin we visited for a thousand mountain miles.

How were these simple folk, barely able to subsist on their own, able to afford such hospitality? As Woody Guthrie used to say, it is always those that have the least that seem to give the most. Maybe it’s because they’ve got nothing left to lose.

My life was changed by that trip. I came to see that the experience of “ecstatic oneness” wasn’t exclusively mountain top stuff. Experience taught me that, despite costume and language, the differences of strangers gradually fades, replaced by the inevitable recognition of sameness. I found what, unbeknownst to myself, I had been looking for from the start: the kindness and generosity that had been hiding in my own heart.

Traveling to remote places offers the good fortune of meeting ourselves in other guises. There are an infinite number of permutations of the human expression. There remains but one human spirit. Ultimately it is our own reflection we see in the wild eyes of the Tibetan tribesman dancing his slow and ancient step in the Himalayan night, the sad eyes of the Salvadoran campesina whose son has disappeared on his way home from work, the endlessly loving eyes of the turbaned old Uhygur of Turkestan who cradles his only remaining granddaughter in his arms. Experiencing ourselves in the many forms of humanity, we travel lifetimes in the course of an instant.

Like the experience of the mountaintop, from such grandeur we feel smaller, almost inconsequential, in our tiny chosen lives. Yet at the same time we become immense. We are everything we see. There is no separation. In a distant land … we are home.

To experience the kindness of a stranger in a strange land is really not that uncommon, yet for me it has become the reason I travel. I don’t know if I had stayed at home if I ever would have learned the secret whispered to me that night on the lamp-lit streets of Mexico. La nobleza no se conoce fronteras. The human heart knows no bounds.

One thing I do know: very often it takes a taco or two in the wrong end of town to find out what really matters.

©2004 Jeff Salz

About the author: Jeff Salz is an acclaimed explorer with a Ph.D. in anthropology. He has traversed most of the remaining blank spots on the globe. His book, The Way of Adventure: Transforming Your Life and Work with Spirit and Vision,» is acknowledged as one of the definitive works on adventure. This article is reprinted at Chivalry Today by permission of the author.

Related posts:

1. True Nobility: Knightly Show & Inner Spirit – Part 3
2. Inspired By Nobility
3. Chivalry and the Tow Truck Driver

Although I’ve often pointed out that the Code of Chivalry goes far beyond simple manners, it’s equally true that manners and social courtesy are the outward expressions of respect and self-restraint — and those concepts are at the heart of the Code of Chivalry. I first read Dr. Moore’s column about returning a sense of chivalry to today’s world on his website several years ago and enjoyed it very much. Now, I am pleased and honored to be able to share this article with Chivalry Today readers as a means of reminding everyone that there is more to “chivalry” than mere manners — and that there is more to “manners” than simplistic courtesy. Dr. Moore’s perception of chivalry addresses some very powerful and complex social issues.

Chivalry for a New Generation

“Is chivalry dead?” I ask my Western Civilization students. The responses are invariably electric. As attenuated its forms, as rare its observance may be, chivalry still retains a significant place in the modern memory.

It might surprise us that a generation reared with a bare minimum of discipline should care about a rigorous system of morals and manners. In particular, we may wonder that young men and women would think much of an ethic that encouraged both sexual restraint and the service of men on behalf of women. Yet we must realize that today’s youth are hardly enamored with either the sexual revolution or the feminists’ struggles to create an androgynous world. Their deeper longings are for a world in which virtuous men both respect and protect modest women. Here is a typical response by today’s college woman to the exam question, “The system of manners known as chivalry was necessary in the Middle Ages but is irrelevant today.”

Chivalry has indeed seemed to become irrelevant today and that is a tragic loss for both men and women. Women refuse to hold men to the standards necessary to achieve the genteel honor that we have lost. Women are disrespected in today’s society, because we ask for nothing more. There is probably not a woman alive who, in some part of her heart, would not want to be carried off on horseback by a knight in shining armor, but we are not allowed to admit that anymore. We are taught to declare ourselves equal to men in all respects and in no need of superior treatment. If only women would realize that chivalry was a way of showing respect and devotion, not condescension, do we have any hope of ever regaining this lost system of virtue.

The question is how moral educators can bring young men and women to this conclusion and give them the courage to act upon it. For our deliverance from a vulgarized sexuality on the one hand and a forced androgyny on the other will begin only when young men and women begin to contemplate the creation of a new chivalry. In other words, men must begin again to act like men, women like women, and some standards of decency must govern their relations.

Students’ initial responses to the question of whether chivalry is dead will mostly concern whether men still open doors for women and whether they should. The teacher might suggest other courtesies that men used to perform which today’s adolescents have never seen or heard of, such as standing up for a lady when she walks into the room. This discussion can be of enormous value in teaching young men that the majority of women actually appreciate these vestiges of chivalry. The women, with one or two exceptions in every group, long for the days when men “acted like gentlemen.” Many young men, on the other hand, are under the impression that women resent having doors opened for them. “There are feminists out there who will tell you off,” they say. The testimony of their female peers to the contrary leaves them without excuse.

© 2004 Dr. Terrence Moore

About the author: Terrence Moore is an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center and Principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado. “A Return to Chivalry?” originally appeared on The Ashbrook Center website, and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

Learn More

• See Dr. Moore’s thought-provoking article, Wimps and Barbarians, which is presented on The Claremont Institute website.

Related posts:

1. A Return to Chivalry – Part 3
2. A Return to Chivalry – Part 2
3. Passing Chivalry

In the second part of his article, Dr. Moore shares some intriguing thoughts on helping young people embrace the principles of chivalry and respect. He also draws a fascinating parallel between the tribal society of the Dark Ages and modern youth culture.

Show us Your Chivalry!

Once the discussion of whether chivalry still exists and in what forms it has been exhausted, the teacher should address the other side of the question particularly to the ladies. To what extent has positively unchivalrous behavior become the norm for young men? Personal anecdotes will abound. This might be the one chance women have to register their dissatisfaction with inveterate cursing, for example. They will never do so in company. When women are told that they could create a chivalrous environment by insisting that men stop cursing, if necessary by leaving their company, they show reluctance. Naturally pleasing, they do not want to spoil the conversation by correcting someone nor to be called a bad name on their leaving. The more restrained setting of the classroom, where comments are not directed at anyone personally, is the ideal forum for just complaints.

Hopefully the young men will respond to this discussion by cleaning up their language. The young women should nevertheless be encouraged to make their objection to cursing more generally known. I use the example of my grandfather who deplored the modern man’s practice of wearing a hat at the table but held women responsible: “In my day a lady would not sit with a man who wore his hat.” Previous ages realized that women are the natural arbiters of manners, and our age must profit from their insights.

More than just cursing, women will have experienced more threatening forms of indecency. They do not like being whistled at, yelled at, or being made the subject of sexual innuendo. One thing every female runner will complain of is being yelled at by a carload of young men.

Some of the young men in the classroom might have done some of the yelling. “So what’s the big deal?” they might ask. “It’s just a way of telling a girl that she’s hot.”

“That’s why she’s running in the first place, isn’t it, to be noticed?”

“Sometimes girls yell at guys, too.”

Here the young women should be asked why being yelled at bothers them. What they will say is that a woman never knows when yelling might turn into something else, especially when running in a big city, or at night, or even on rural roads. Some of them might even remember an infamous rape case. Young men never have to worry about a group of girls surrounding them.

The point needs to be made that from the perspective of a woman, a verbal assault, besides being very often degrading in itself (“show us your X”!) is always potentially translated into a physical assault. A woman knows that a carload of 16-year-olds, whatever their intentions, could stop and overpower her without anyone coming to her rescue. A young man has no equivalent worry. Thus, there is a difference between the sexes, and that difference requires a gender-specific rather than a gender-neutral code of manners.

Once students become aware that the vulgarization of the relations between the sexes is taking place before their very eyes, they are ready to discuss the importance of chivalry in the history of Western civilization. Before exploring how chivalry worked in its heyday, students should know why this code of manners was developed in the first place.

Chivalry took root, slowly, as the response to one of the gravest crises in the history of the West: the total collapse of civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D. and again after the collapse of the more precarious Carolingian Empire in the 9th century. True Hobbesians should spend some time with the early Middle Ages, for truly there has never been a period when life was as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” There was no government. There was no police force. Property and persons were utterly at the mercy of very bad men.

These men might be called “young,” partly because of their age and partly because of their youthful energy and disrespect for any older, established order. Young men on horseback roamed the countryside in huge packs and pillaged whatever semblance of civilization they found: families, churches, farms, markets. Like all young men, they came around to the idea of finding young women. Having no respect for decency, their method was simple. They just took any women they might come across. They took widows, wives, daughters and nuns, from any place they might find them. Young men had no notion of courtship. Their desire for the opposite sex expressed itself in venereal hooliganism.

In short, the behavior of young men during the Dark Ages did not differ considerably from that found in the inner-city gangs of today.

The solution to this crisis came through a gradual change in the motives and manners of the armed horsemen. Established men, the Church and young ladies themselves combined forces to tame the unruly passions of these violent predators. They did so by effecting a direct exchange of male freedom for duty. To become true knights, young men had to submit themselves to an elaborate set of regulations known as chivalry that brought them into the social order and established them in marriage to young, beautiful heiresses.

To enter the ranks of knighthood, young men had to submit themselves to a thorough regime of ethical training that prepared them for a life of service. The element of danger and enterprise remained in their lives since they had to protect their land and their ladies. The idea of male honor came into being. It became dishonorable for a strong man to intimidate or injure someone physically weaker than himself.

The ritual par excellence for the display of chivalry became the tournament. No other event allowed the young knight to shine in combat before the eyes of anxious maidens and discerning parents so much as this great pageant of courage and courtesy. The tournament was not simply a game or a sport. The virtues and martial skills developed in the lists prepared young men for encounters against enemies at home and abroad in these lawless times. The deference paid to ladies guaranteed that manly strength would never be employed against the fair sex but rather in its defense.

© 2004 Dr. Terrence Moore

About the author: Terrence Moore is an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center and Principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado. “A Return to Chivalry?” originally appeared on The Ashbrook Center website, and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

Related posts:

1. A Return to Chivalry? – Part 1
2. A Return to Chivalry – Part 3
3. Be Worthy of Chivalry

In the conclusion of his article, Dr. Moore provides an insightful examination of the value of gender roles in literature and society. He also looks at how the Code of Chivalry approaches masculine and feminine roles with dignity and respect in order to celebrate the essential nature of men and women in modern culture.

The War for Chivalry

At this point in the discussion, the teacher should drive home his point. The women are still silently sympathetic to the plight of women in the Middle Ages and perhaps realize that modern manners are reverting to early medieval conditions. The men are wishing they could become knights. The teacher should ask the men, “In the course of your education have you ever been taught what it means to be a man?”

The question will floor them. Immediately they sense the need for such an ethical education and its total absence in the schools, the culture and too often in the home.

The fact of the matter is that young males today do not have the slightest idea of what it means to be men. And yet the desire of young men to be something more than irresponsible boys or even “nice persons” remains as strong as ever, despite the efforts of radical feminists, androgynists, and hyper-egalitarians. The evidence comes from a most unlikely source. Christina Hoff Sommers in The War Against Boys» aptly draws our attention to a wonderful collection of essays called Between Mothers and Sons.» The authors are left-leaning, pacifistic, feminist, and very much children of the sixties. Yet these mothers discover in their sons something they did not inculcate: the male nature.

One such mother, Janet Burroway, describes how she nervously came to terms with her son’s adventures in the military, conservative political ideas and fascination with weaponry. She saw the sewing lessons she gave to her son in hopes of turning out a little feminist “put to use on cartridge belts and camouflage.”

In short, even many of the feminist mothers of today are finding themselves in the position of Perceval’s mother who had never let her son see a knight since “if the knights told him of their way of life he would wish to be one also.” Yet on first seeing knights pass through the forest, Perceval knew he must become one. When his mother realized “her caresses availed no longer to keep him” she supported Perceval in his decision:

Perceval’s mother learned that she could not deny her son’s nature. The attempts to deny the male nature today have proven harmful both to men and women. For the history of chivalry has taught us that the young male can become gentle, provided that he is allowed to do so on his own terms, provided that gentleness does not reflect pusillanimity but allies itself with strength and honor.

Once the male students realize that what is at stake in this discussion is nothing less than their own manhood, and once the females begin to see what men could become, this distant epoch from the past will become a source of living instruction. The moral teacher must throw down the gauntlet.

Currently, there is a great cultural battle being waged on every street corner, and in every school, and in every family in this country. It is the battle for common decency. On many fronts, the battle is being lost, but the tide has perhaps turned. The fact that the children of the ’60s generation could even be interested in a theme like chivalry is a great sign of hope. But more than being interested, they must act upon the moral principles of their nature. Just as Churchill said that World War II would be won by the unknown soldier, so the battle for common decency will not be won by one great thinker or statesman or teacher. It will be won by millions of ordinary men and women doing their duties as ordinary men and women.

The return to chivalry requires that every young man exercise his courage in becoming a gentleman and that every young woman exercise her modesty in becoming a lady.

© 2004 Dr. Terrence Moore

About the author: Terrence Moore is an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center and Principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado. “A Return to Chivalry?” originally appeared on The Ashbrook Center website, and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

Chivalry Today also highly recommends Dr. Moore’s thought-provoking article, Wimps and Barbarians, which is presented on The Claremont Institute website.

Related posts:

1. A Return to Chivalry? – Part 1
2. A Return to Chivalry – Part 2
3. Tolkien and Chivalry Today

Though often dismissed as a “cult classic,” the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a wonderful example of the uplifting potential of modern media. Although the show includes many elements of a medieval morality play (including a hell mouth as part of the stage dressing), Buffy’s cast of characters brings to mind another group of medieval literary figures assembled to protect the world by fighting the forces of evil: the Knights of the Round Table. In this capacity, the Buffy crew demonstrates the importance of faith, honor and grace among friends. As Jana Riess explains in this two-part essay, the quests of Buffy and her companions, like the adventures of King Arthur’s knights, remind us that friendships of quality and virtue are an important component of the Code of Chivalry.

In human relationship, filled with its shortcomings and trouble,
what can console us if not the faithfulness and mutable affection of true friends?

The Vampire Slayer and Faithful Friends

This sentiment by Augustine of Hippo resonates just as deeply today as it did 1,600 years ago. [The television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer] is always honest, often painfully so, about the ups and downs of human relationships and the many ways that people disappoint one another. But the series also depicts the consolation and hope that derive from those same flawed relationships. As Buffy writer and producer Marti Noxon says, the show is about “the relationships you build with people while you struggle.” Although the final destination of our journey may be elusive, “the quest and the questors, and the people that you find, who are not necessarily your family, are the only thing that lends the journey meaning.”

As fellow questors we can teach each other quite a bit about the spiritual journey, beginning with the act of friendship itself, which serves as a potent reminder of the interconnectedness of all life. When we extend ourselves to another person, we lower the barrier between ourselves and every human being, not just the one we are befriending. In friendship we gain a taste of the infinite worth of each person and, ironically enough, the relative insignificance of each person — in essence, we begin to understand the interdependence of the cosmos. This prepares the way for spiritual awareness. “In Zen literature the word intimacy is often used as a synonym for enlightenment,” writes Zen priest Norman Fischer. “In the classical Zen enlightenment stories, a monk or a nun is reduced simultaneously to tears and laughter as he or she recognizes that nothing in this world is separate, that each and every thing, including one’s own self, is nothing but the whole, and that the whole is nothing but the self.” If intimacy is enlightenment, then friendship is a door to greater spiritual understanding.

The series offers much wisdom about how to be a friend, beginning with the fundamental premise that human beings are to treat one another with respect. The show rejects the idea that using another person is permissible. In the fourth season, when Faith, in Buffy’s body, declines to allow Riley to risk his life to help her thwart a vampire attack, she tells him emphatically, “I can’t use you.” (season 4, episode 16) It’s a double entendre, because she’s communicating more than a simple refusal to allow him to help. She’s also subtly confessing the lesson that she has only recently learned: people cannot, should not, use one another for selfish reasons. It’s a lesson that Buffy also learns (or relearns) in the sixth season, when she finally ends her violent and demeaning sexual relationship with Spike. (season 6, episode 15) Using him is killing her, she says. To cement this truth, she calls him by his given name, William, for the first time. It’s a recognition of his innate humanity, which she has violated.

Friendship on Buffy is a laboratory for another value that the show consistently emphasizes: forgiveness. Despite their courage and wisdom, all of the series’ main characters are deeply flawed. Although he has a loving heart, Xander can be plagued by jealousy and slow to forgive. Willow, too, is sometimes beset by insecurity, and her stunning descent into darkness in the sixth season is a culmination of many of the fears we saw in earlier episodes such as “Nightmares” (season 1, episode 10) and “Restless” (season 4, episode 22). Giles sometimes allows his head to rule his heart to such an extent that Buffy finds his suggestions repulsive — such as advising that she sacrifice Dawn’s life in the fifth season to serve the greater interest of averting the apocalypse (season 5, episode 21). Finally, Buffy, in her turn, is not always a good friend. Too self-absorbed at times to even recognize the pain her loved ones might be experiencing, she can get so wrapped up in her own Slayer duties and personal crises that she takes her friends entirely for granted. It is precisely the characters’ faults and blemishes that make the show interesting, however, and their continuing saga allows us to draw parallels with our own spiritual journeys.

Although many of us labor under the romantic illusion that true spirituality is something that only solitary monks sitting lotus-legged in a desert chanting “Om” can cultivate, the fact is that the vast majority of us don’t have the luxury of solitary contemplation. We walk our spiritual paths in the company of others — partners, friends, children, parents. We learn our most endearing lessons about god and human nature from them, because we offer our most unguarded, raw selves to our friends and family. It is also from them that we must learn the importance of forgiveness, because hurts between strangers simply don’t have the lasting significance — or the potential for pain — as the betrayals of our own Judases … Suffice it to say that some of our most meaningful spiritual growth happens in the company of friends. And to learn those lessons, we have to be willing to forgive each other. As the 19th century Protestant minister Henry Ward Beecher said, we would all be wise to keep “a fair-sized cemetery, in which to bury the faults” of our friends.

© 2004 Jana Riess

This article is excerpted from the book What Would Buffy Do?» by Jana Riess, ©May 2004, Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. The article appears here by express permission of the publisher and may not be reprinted or reproduced without permission.

Related posts:

1. Buffy’s Round Table: Part 2
2. Jedi Knights
3. Creatures of the Knight

In the conclusion of her article, Ms. Riess looks at how the Buffy crew deals with the knightly virtue of mercy and forgiveness, and reminds us that a hero’s sense of courage, honor and resolve is established, in large part, through her (or his) choice of friends.

Chivalry Through Thick and Thin

(Forgiveness is) a lesson that the characters put to good use in the last few episodes of the fourth season, a story arc that offers superb examples of the power of friendship on Buffy. Adam, that season’s superdemon “Big Bad,” strikes a deal with [the vampire] Spike (season 4, episode 20): if Spike can bring the Slayer to Adam — alone — then Adam will deactivate the chip in Spike’s head that prevents him from killing humans. Spike sets out sowing seeds of enmity among [Buffy and her friends]. This episode (called “The Yoko Factor” to allude to the Beatles’ final separation from internal divisions) shows how the insecurities and personal differences that have been festering all season come to full, destructive fruition for Buffy and her friends. Spike suggests to Xander that his friends really think he’s useless and that he should go off and join the army to do something with his life. He tells Willow, who has kept her growing relationship with Tara a secret from most of her friends, that Buffy and Xander have been gossiping about her forays into witchcraft and a lesbian relationship. He insinuates that they think Willow is “bring trendy” and going through “a phase.” Spike makes Giles feel as though Buffy doesn’t need or want him in her life anymore. Although the [characters] should realize immediately that Spike is playing them off each other by preying on their weaknesses and insecurities, they have drifted so far from one another that they immediately believe what he says. Their hurt feelings erupt in a terrible fight at Giles’s house, and Buffy summarizes just how severe things have gotten when she remarks that she is “starting to understand why there is not ancient prophecy about the Chosen One … and her friends.”

The next day, after a conversation with Spike, Buffy realizes the truth of his involvement in planting discord. She calls a meeting with Giles, Xander and Willow, who sheepishly come to understand that Spike has “made with the head games” (season 4, episode 21). [Buffy and friends] also acknowledge that defeating Adam is going to take all of their combined skills. “Hey, no problem!” jokes Xander. “All we need is combo Buffy. Her with Slayer strength, Giles’s multilingual know-how, and Willow’s witchy power.” Although he makes this suggestion in jest, the others realize that he’s on to something; and Willow crafts a complicated enjoining spell that will merge those qualities (along with Xander’s stout heart) into a single Buffy warrior. When the über-Buffy spell kicks in, Buffy is already fighting Adam and getting the worst of it. Things change immediately when she is endowed with her friends’ powers: she engages their abilities as well as her own and proves more than a match for Adam.

Friendship saves the day. “You could never hope to grasp the source of our power,” the über-Buffy tells him. Of course he won’t; he can’t. Adam has been created to be a mighty and solitary demon, almost a reversal of the Biblical Adam. In the book of Genesis, God creates the world, saving humankind for last, and regards it all as good. God realizes that no human being should be alone and creates Eve to be a helpmeet — the Hebrew actually means “an equal helper” — to Adam. Her name is derived from the Hebrew word for life, and the text explains that she is to be “ the mother of all living.”

In Buffy, by contrast, the psychologist Maggie Walsh has created her hybrid Adam out of demon and human parts; and her creature actually murders her immediately upon gaining consciousness (season 4, episode 13). Just before slaughtering her, he calls her “Mommy,” demonstrating a subversion of the Biblical order: she is the mother of her own destruction. This Adam will always be alone, because his goal is annihilation. Although he calls Riley his “brother,” he seeks to dominate and control Riley — not exactly a recipe for friendship. And so he has no experience to draw on when faced with the über-Buffy’s enjoined power. Her friendships have made her stronger than he could ever be.

As in most mythological sagas, Buffy is a heroine who both does and does not walk alone. She faces the lonely destiny of a Slayer, but she faces it with a stalwart gang of fiercely loyal companions. Our friendships enrich our lives immeasurably; we play off one another’s strengths and compensate for each other’s weaknesses. As we progress in our spiritual development, we have to determine our levels of independence or interdependence and understand that the sum of our friendships is almost always greater than its parts. Buffy’s friends give her strength and courage, saving her life on numerous occasions and — even more than that — offering the kind of love that makes life worth living. As Buffy and [her friends] sing in the sixth-season musical episode (season 6, episode 7), “What can’t we face if we’re together?”

© 2004 Jana Riess

This article is excerpted from the book What Would Buffy Do?» by Jana Riess, ©May 2004, Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. The article appears here by express permission of the publisher and may not be reprinted or reproduced without permission.

Related posts:

1. Buffy’s Round Table: Part 1
2. Jedi Knights
3. Episode 32: Chivalry Makes Happy Campers

Ms. Gisonni addresses a very important but little-discussed aspect of generosity in today’s world: Too often, generosity is approached as a “duty” or an “obligation” rather than as a deliberate and voluntary choice. Her essay is a reminder of the importance of freely-given generosity as part of a chivalrous, knightly spirit.

When my father was alive, I was always acquiring pieces of his wardrobe — mainly robes, flannel shirts and hats. He was the type of person who would gladly give away all his worldly possessions, though he didn’t have much. If a friend was fond of something of his, he would say, “Here, take it. It’s yours!” without expecting anything in return. He wasn’t particularly attached to material things, so if it could make someone else happy, he’d give it away.

Sometimes the people who are the least fortunate financially are also the most generous. It seems that the more you have, the more you want to keep what you have. You become too attached to the material world and forget about all the people in it.

Most gifts are given out of guilt or obligation. We toss them back and forth for holidays or birthdays, like a grass-stained softball that’s waiting to be caught by a person who feels it’s rightfully theirs. Even charitable gifts can become more of a duty than an act of love. When I was growing up, my church dictated that 10 percent of the family’s income should be donated to the church. When donations were low, they were quick to remind us by devoting an entire sermon to the subject. And so, people gave out of guilt and in fear of being denied at the gates of heaven!

True generosity, however, comes from the heart and can take many forms — money, gifts, love, compassion, physical assistance, time, food, services, advice, or even an open ear. When you give unconditionally, it’s like releasing thousands of molecules of love and compassion into the universe that attach themselves to people, places and events. And, if you give anonymously, those molecules multiply exponentially!

Whatever you put out in this world comes back to you tenfold. It may not come back in the same form you sent it, but the universe will surely reciprocate, in some shape or form, in this lifetime or the next.

When I receive a gift, I can feel the love that surrounds it. It makes me happy and thankful. When I give a gift, I feel the same love, because that person’s happiness and gratitude is my gift. Giving is receiving, and receiving is giving. They are one and the same.

Five ways to choose generosity in your life:

• Give someone a gift, just because.
• Don’t brag about what you give.
• Never expect anything in return for your generosity.
• If you think someone could use some help, offer before they ask.
• Each morning, ask yourself how you can serve humanity — then do so.

© 2003 Debbie Gisonni

About the Author: Debbie Gisonni is The Goddess of REAL Life™. Through her books, articles and CDs, and her popular seminars, she helps people connect their sometimes forgotten inner power with the real life issues they face every day — from the tragic to the trivial. Her mantra is: “SNAP out of it!”™ Debbie is the author of, Vita’s Will: Real Life Lessons about Life, Death & Moving On, Snap Out Of It! 25 Choices To Be Happy, and the column, Be Happy, read by over 150,000 people. You can learn more by visiting her website at www.reallifelessons.com which is highly recommended by the staff at Chivalry Today. No part of this article may be reproduced without written permission from the author.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Wrapped in Curses
2. Do You Create Liars?
3. Hubris and Humility: Parenting with Chivalry