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

If there was such a thing as the Chivalry Awards, perhaps the following would be this year’s winners. But chivalrous people don’t follow their ideals to get trophies or make speeches – they simply do what needs to be done, and set the examples that need to be set, in order to make the world a better place.

Instead, let’s call these The High Points In Chivalry of 2009:

The campus of the Harvard Business School

5) The Harvard MBA Oath — Having seen too many unsavory management practices, several members of the 2009 graduating class of the Harvard Business School felt the time had come to show there were still decent people in the business world. During the spring semester, class members put together a simple eight-point oath of ethics that could be applied in any sector in the world of business. The oath included statements such as, “I will manage my enterprise in good faith,” “I will understand and uphold, both in letter and in sprit, the laws and contracts governing my … enterprise,” and “I will be accountable to my peers.” Their goal was a modest one: To get just 100 members of their class to sign the oath. In the end, however, not 100, but 900 students put their names to the oath – over half of the graduating class. And as news of this movement spread, business students all over the world began to take up the cause. To date, the Harvard MBA Ethics Oath has been adopted (voluntarily) by hundreds of schools around the globe; more than 1,700 students have signed it so far, and the list continues to grow every day. It seems there are still men and women in the business world who want to be champions instead of sharks.

Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols (left) was first on the scene to help an injured fan.

4) Albert Pujols Tends An Injured Fan — At a baseball game between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the St. Louis Cardinals on Aug. 7, a fan in the stands made an enthusiastic reach for a foul ball … and would up taking a literal nose dive over the wall and onto the field. The on-call EMTs rushed to take care of fellow, but paramedics and fans alike were surprised to see a white uniform at the injured fan’s side — that of number 5, Albert Pujols. The Cardinal’s first baseman stayed with the man for more than 10 minutes as the EMTs bandaged a severe laceration on his face, then reassured the man’s son that everything would be okay as they were taken to a nearby hospital. (The incident earned Pujols the AT&T Sportsmanship Award.) Although taking time away from an important game to tend to an injured spectator isn’t exactly “business as usual” for a top-ranking pro athlete, Pujols’ fans weren’t surprised by the incident — Pujols is known for using his off season to do charity and humanitarian work in the Dominican Republic where he grew up. This incident is just a reminder that a highly successful athlete (Pujols is a multiple All-Star and MVP recipient) can also be a knight in shining armor.

President Barack Obama

3) The U.S. President Takes A Bow — On Nov. 14, President Barak Obama raised some eyebrows when he lowered his head in a traditional bow as he was introduced to Emperor Akihito during a political visit to Japan. Politics aside, this gesture was an effective reminder of the simple principle of humility. As many commentators (from both sides of the political aisle) pointed out, bowing in this circumstance was not a sign of submission or deference, but simply a show of good manners. Even the most powerful man in the world should be gracious (and confident) enough to respect the customs of hospitality when he is visiting someone’s home. (In the 14th century, the King of England once considered it a great honor when, at a royal dinner, he personally knelt beside and served the visiting King of France – not as an act of submission, but as a display of the proper devotion of a host.) In the ideals of chivalry, power and authority should always be coupled with humbleness and sensitivity.

2) A New Moon Rises Over Chivalry – The motion picture New Moon opened on Nov. 20, and this second installment in the Twilight vampire saga based on the books of Stephanie Meyer had the a lot of critics and media analysts buzzing about an unfamiliar topic: chivalry. The cinematic merits of New Moon may be up for debate, but this movie has both pop culture pundits and American teenagers discussing the ideals and practices of chivalry with a sort of dignity and clarity that hasn’t been done in decades. In many ways, the supernatural characters of the Twilight saga resemble the iconic knights of Arthurian legend: Stronger and more powerful than average mortals, and struggling to restrain both their amorous and combative instincts because of the inspiration of love and honor. New Moon’s opening broke box office records all across the board – a fine demonstration that a powerful message of chivalry can still appeal to a broad audience.

A ferry diverts course to help survivors of Flight 1549 as they wait calmly for rescue.

1) Flight 1549 Lands In The Hudson River – Americans were shocked to hear the news on Jan. 15 of a jet airliner that crashed in the Hudson River shortly after takeoff. They were equally stunned – and inspired – by the stories of the evacuation and rescue of the survivors. Passengers, crew and officers, led by Captain Chesley Sullengerber, acted and reacted with dignity, courage and compassion. Rescue personnel and bystanders alike rushed in to help with little thought to their own safety. President George Bush himself commended everyone involved and said, “the skill and heroism of the flight crew as well as the dedication and selflessness of the emergency responders and volunteers” was an inspiration to all. The incident was dubbed “The Miracle on the Hudson,” a reminder to everyone that the world is full of heroes, and that chivalry is alive and well.

This blog entry is part of the Group Writing Project: 2009 In Review, sponsored by DailyBlogTips.

Related posts:

1. Saluting First Knights
2. Bullies, Business and Chivalry
3. Podcast 35: Chivalry Takes Wing

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. Be Worthy of Chivalry
2. Putting Down Chivalry’s Baggage
3. Great Expectations: Chivalry In Tomorrow’s Knights

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

“Who pays for dinner? It’s a simple question that is loaded with a great deal of emotion in the world of dating today. Is a gentleman obligated — even required — to pick up the bill if he’s to be considered “chivalrous”? Or should a woman be allowed — even expected — to pay her fair share in the name of gender equality? In a recent newspaper survey (cited below), a large percentage of women reported that, for them, the “ultimate display of chivalry” is when a man pays for dinner. (See my sidenote comment, below.)

As well-known celebrity John Tesh explains, paying for dinner is not just a social nicety … it is a demonstration of respect and honor. And, as an example of chivalry, such actions must be made graciously — without expectations of any sort of “return favor.” Etiquette experts are mixed on the subject — some think men should always pay, some propose that whoever issues the invitation (man or woman) should pick up the bill — but the fact remains that acts of courtesy and generosity of any sort in today’s world should be applauded.

Sidenote: Perhaps, amid all this talk of who pays for dinner (as well as holding doors and offering coats), we should consider whether this sort of thing deserves to be rated as the “ultimate act of chivalry.” Simply picking up the check for a meal, nice as it is, hardly requires the sort of courage, morals or ethics dictated by the knightly code. Keeping your word … putting honesty before profit … being faithful … helping those in need … These are the sorts of things that should be expected of a man (or woman) who lives by the Code of Chivalry. Paying for dinner is a wonderfully gracious thing to do — upholding the principles of honor and integrity are much more meaningful “ultimate” displays of chivalry. But, such things are harder to pin down in a newspaper survey, of course!”

The Height of Chivalry at the Table

The question has been recently raised on blogs and radio talk shows: Has masculinity been decreasing over the past 20 to 30 years? Do men today have a good grasp on what it means to be a man?

To detect a man’s level of masculinity, one question has withstood the test of time: Who pays for the dinner when you’re out on a date? Since the answer touches on equality between the sexes, the issue raises a red flag for many women.

First, we must determine what’s the significance of a man paying for a woman’s dinner. It’s more than just a financial matter. Many men I’ve interviewed have told me that even if a woman earns a salary three times as much, they will not allow her to pay for dinner.Syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager weighed in on this topic on a recent broadcast:

When the man pays for the meal, he’s telling his date, “I’m the kind of man who wants to someday take care of the woman I marry and I may as well start in my dating life.”

Despite today’s stress on gender equality, when it comes to a romantic dinner out, according to the Daily Mail, 50 percent of women interviewed don’t expect to pay for dinner when on a date.

When women were asked: “What is the height of chivalry?” 36 percent admitted it is the man picking up the tab. So regardless of this modern world of social networking and internet relationships, old-fashioned values at the dinner table are still in style.

In fact, the same survey in the Daily Mail revealed 50 percent of the women who took part of the poll are “cursory purse grabbers.” They will act as though they want to pay and make a gesture towards their purse when the bill comes, but as soon as the guy makes a move towards his wallet, she’ll put on the brakes and gracefully let him pay … as it should be.

The survey also noted even if a date does not go well, 75 percent of men are still prepared to pay for dinner. I’m glad to hear that. Dating is not a meal earned but a meal to be enjoyed regardless of how the date turns out.

Time Magazine refers to a “fear syndrome in men” when it comes to holding the door or standing up for a woman entering a room. They’re afraid women … might be offended by such courtesies. Many women sidestep the discomfort of a man displaying manners towards her by moving first to hold open their own door or wrestling on their coats before the man has a chance to lend a hand.

Yes, things have truly changed, according to the advice given in a Time Magazine article: If the woman asks the man to go out on a date, then she should pay; if the man asks the woman for a date, then he should pay. Some would disagree and argue that for a guy to expect the woman to pay for dinner is not liberating but wimpy and cheap.

Think of it this way … perhaps the emphasis on equality in this case takes away the opportunity men have to show care for a woman … not because she’s the “weaker sex” but out of respect and honor for her.

It may be a great idea for women to give men back permission to act in a more masculine manner towards them. Yes, that includes paying for dinner, holding open a door, helping her on with her coat, standing up when she enters the room.

One site suggests that if the man pays all the time, then the man will never be on the receiving end. Perhaps that’s the point. Are you going to pay for a woman’s dinner to receive or because you’re a male who knows this is the right thing to do?

About the Author: John Tesh is a well-known TV personality, radio talk show host, celebrated New Age musician, and author of several “mind, body and spirit” books, such as Intelligence for Your Life: Powerful Lessons for Personal Growth» . Your can read more of John’s thoughts on relationships, spirituality and masculinity at his John Tesh Blog.

Related posts:

1. Traditions of the Black Knight
2. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch
3. Chivalry: The B.S. Debate – Part 1

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

“Modern society has been ingrained with a certain image of the “strong individual” — one that involves aggression, confrontation and intolerance. A man who is strong and brave doesn’t let others push him around. A woman who is confident and assertive doesn’t give up what she has rightfully earned … or so we’re frequently led to believe.

Prof. Damon Young looks at this from a different angle, however. A recent incident on a commuter train involving a teenager, a reserved seat and an iPod reminded him that selfishness is not a show of strength, and self-centeredness isn’t the same as confidence. His book Distraction: A Philosopher's Guide to Being Free» explores the moral challenges of living in a busy and crowded environment. In this essay, originally published as an editorial in the Australian Herald Sun, he advocates a return of the courtesies of chivalry that are, in fact, the ultimate demonstration of confidence and “backbone” in a civil society.”

Restoring the Confidence of Courtesy

Techology too often distracts us from human contact, and thus may contribute to a lack of civility - something we must actively combat, according to philosopher Damon Young.

Every time I board a train, I see him. And he annoys the hell of me. He’s in his 20s, he has his sunglasses on, cap pulled down, and iPod in. And he’s sitting on the seat reserved for elderly or special needs passengers.

My pregnant wife and toddler son need to sit down, but he’s not moving. He can’t see us, and he can’t hear — and he doesn’t want to. This is the normal, everyday face of public transport: it has a thousand faces, but the same sullen incivility.

Incivility is the opposite of civility, which is tied to notions like “city,” “civil society” and “citizen.”

At heart, civility is the basic requirement of politeness and courtesy for living in a built-up, densely populated urban environment — like a busy Connex train. Civility is not quite morality, because it doesn’t ask us to be genuinely good. Instead, it simply obliges us to be courteous: to recognise others’ basic claims to respect, peace, quiet and comfort.

Of course, incivility is nothing new — every age has its complaints of rudeness, thoughtlessness or tactlessness. The classical Greeks thought their youth bad mannered, and Victorian writer Henry James thought American girls vulgar. But new technologies are making incivility much simpler — and acceptable. The iPod, for example, is the ultimate tool for discourteous behaviour.

It enables a convenient, instant means of withdrawal — with portable, increasingly loud music, you can block out even the most earnest calls for help or generosity.

My, “Excuse me, would you mind moving over?” must be accompanied by shoulder-taps, or it’s lost to the din of tiny speakers.

Importantly, it’s not the iPod’s fault — the technology doesn’t make us withdraw from one another. It just makes it easier to do what we already want to do.

This is partly our modern view of life: an individualistic outlook, where the vices of greed and selfishness are praised as economically useful. And in a fast-paced, turbulent world, it’s comforting to retreat to a personal universe, complete with a soundtrack.

So when we’re packed like pilchards in a can, we hold fast to what’s ours: seats on a train, standing room by the door.

Yet these are just excuses. We’re free to act otherwise, and it’s time we did. To my mind, we need to remind ourselves of what encourages civility: strength, authority, responsibility.

Author and philosopher Damon Young

We tend to think of polite people as weak: deferential, meek, small. They say “pardon me” a lot, because they’re frail and scared. And perhaps this is true for some.

But at its finest, civility is actually a sign of a strong backbone. It takes confidence and assurance to give up what you’ve claimed — to stand while others sit, to wait while they disembark the crowded platform.

It takes a strong imagination to put yourself in the shoes of someone else — to see that the little boy or the pregnant woman might need your seat more than you do. And it takes bravery to face the world without your protective cap, glasses and iPod soundtrack.

It takes courage to live a life undistracted from your fellow citizens.

Sure, incivility isn’t going away. And Connex overcrowding is here to stay. But here’s a message to every Mr Sulky Earphones: man up, and have the strength to be civil.

You’ll feel much better about yourself.

© 2009 Damon Young, Ph.D.

About the author: Damon Young is an Honourary Fellow in Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. He is the senior editor of the forthcoming book Martial Arts and Philosophy, which includes an essay on the philosophy of chivalry by Scott Farrell. Prof. Young is also author of the book Distraction: A Philosopher's Guide to Being Free.» This essay originally appeared in the Nov. 17, 2008 edition of the Australian Herald Sun. You can read more of Prof. Damon’s writing at his blog, That Young Philosopher.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry, Aristotle, CS Lewis & Martial Arts
2. Violent Arts & Gentle Souls
3. What Ever Happened to Chivalry?

“When talking of warriors and the traditions of the martial arts, we often think of values like strength, courage and fortitude — values that would have been very familiar to, and admired by knights of the Middle Ages. Yet in today’s world, where we are so often given a message that strength and courage are synonymous with “freedom” and “independence,” we sometimes forget that the warrior’s creed dictates that commitment and responsibility are the price one pays for being strong and powerful. Ethical and moral codes of warrior cultures place more value on dependability than on independence.

Dr. Bohdi Sanders is a martial arts expert, author and philosopher who has spent a great deal of time and effort exploring the ideals of the warrior’s code in cultures around the globe. In his book, Warrior Wisdom, he examines what it means to be a warrior — on a physical, psychological and moral level. His writings show that, in the warrior tradition, strength comes with commitment, power comes with service, and honor comes with responsibility. His exploration of chivalry shows that the code of the knights of old is an expression of the timeless wisdom of the warrior.”

Duty, Wisdom and Ethics in Action

From those who have been given much, much is required. Warriors have been given specific training in martial arts and in the knowledge of self-defense. Hopefully they have also been instructed in ways to not only be able to defend themselves, but also to use their martial arts skills to defend others. Warriors have a duty to defend others when it is in their power to do so.

There are a lot of people who do not have the same training or skills that the warrior has developed over his years of training. They are not able to protect themselves, much less those around them. These people live their life depending on the goodwill of others. For various reasons, they have never developed the ability to fend off an attacker. Most have grown up in a fairly sheltered environment and really do not understand the psychology of the predator. The warrior is their only defense, other than depending on a police officer who may or may not be around when they are in need, or depending on the mercy of someone else.

The warrior, on the other hand, has studied the art of self-defense. He knows the mind of the predator and what the criminal looks for in a victim. The skills that he has trained so hard to perfect are designed to keep him and his friends and family safe from those who would prey on the innocent. He has been given much knowledge; therefore he has an ethical a duty to use this knowledge to help the weak and the defenseless when he can. Wherever you are, those around you should be a little safer because you are there.

In the words of Moliere, “It is not only what we do, but what we do not do, for which we are accountable.”

Of course this depends on the warrior’s sense of chivalry. Chivalry is mostly thought of in connection with the qualities of the medieval knights and how they were expected to behave towards women, but the ideals of chivalry also include qualities such as courage, honor, consideration for others, and loyalty to your code of conduct. I consider chivalry part of the warrior lifestyle, not just some outdated, romantic notion.

Just as there was no actual “pirate’s code,” there was also no definite set of ideals that made up the qualities of the ideal knight, but there are traits which are generally accepted as chivalrous. Were there knights who did not live up to the code of chivalry? Absolutely! There will always be those who will not be willing to live a life of excellence, but instead will lower themselves to an inferior standard. This fact doesn’t negate the fact that chivalrous ideals are good qualities to aim for and to make a part of the warrior lifestyle.

The term “code of chivalry” could be interchangeable with the term “code of honor.” It simply means a code that one lives by. Your code of honor, if you are a warrior, will have ideals that you try to live up to, whether you are dealing with the local mechanic or with the elderly lady trying to get across the street.

In meditating on your own code of honor, it may be good to consider some of the old codes of chivalry and the ideals that they fostered.

Is chivalry dead? Not to those with the warrior spirit…

The master warrior is a man of character, a man of wisdom and insight.
— Forrest E. Morgan

About the author: Dr. Bohdi Sanders is a life-long practitioner of martial arts with a black belt in Shotokan Karate, and a certified personal fitness trainer. His book Warrior Wisdom: Ageless Wisdom for the Modern Warrior discusses exactly what it takes to walk the path of the warrior in short, easy-to-read commentaries and quotes. You can read more of his writing on the Wisdom Warrior Blog.

Related posts:

1. No First Strike In Chivalry
2. Podcast 41: Robin Hood And Chivalry
3. Chivalry Gets Its Chops

“Chivalry” and “warfare” are two concepts that sometimes seem to be at odds. After all, we are regularly told that “all’s fair in love and war,” and yet we know chivalry is all about being fair and respectful to others.

The truth is, soldiers today are governed by an ethical and moral standard that traces its lineage directly to the Code of Chivalry of the medieval knights. This code mandates things like respect for combatants who surrender, reasonable measures to avoid harming non-combatants, and avoidance of weapons (from crossbows to poison gas) that are considered inhumane.

Applying the ethical rules and restraints of chivalry in the heat of battle is one of the greatest challenges faced by soldiers today — and that challenge gets even greater when the soldiers in question aren’t human. As military reliance on drones, guided missiles and other high-tech, unmanned agents increases in the coming years, scientists are exploring ways to incorporate ethical constraints and “rules of engagement” into the programming software that drives these robotic weapons.

Can a military robot, in essence, learn to behave by the Code of Chivalry? And, perhaps more relevantly, what does trying to program a machine with battlefield ethics teach us about our own sense of chivalry in combat? This article, reprinted from the popular scientific journal The NewScientist, gives some intriguing insights into chivalry’s place in warfare in the 21st century.

Robot Warriors and Programmed Ethics

Technology has always distanced the soldiers who use weapons from the people who get hit. But robotics engineer Ron Arkin at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, is working to imagine wars in which weapons make their own decisions about wielding lethal force.

He is particularly interested in how such machines might be programmed to act ethically, obeying the rules of engagement.

Arkin has developed an “ethical governor,” which aims to ensure that robot attack aircraft (like the Predator, pictured, right) behave ethically in combat, and is demonstrating the system in simulations based on recent campaigns by U.S. troops, using real maps from the Middle East.

In one scenario, modeled on a situation encountered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2006, the drone identifies a group of Taliban soldiers inside a defined “kill zone.” But the drone doesn’t fire. Its maps indicate that the group is inside a cemetery, so opening fire would breach international law.

In another scenario, the drone identifies an enemy vehicle convoy close to a hospital. Here the ethical governor only allows fire that will damage the vehicles without harming the hospital. Arkin has also built in a “guilt” system, which, if a serious error is made, forces a drone to start behaving more cautiously.

In developing the software, he drew on studies of military ethics, as well as discussions with military personnel, and says his aim is to reduce non-combatant casualties. One Vietnam veteran told him of soldiers shooting at anything that moved in some situations. “I can easily make a robot do that today, but instead we should be thinking about how to make them perform better than that,” Arkin says.

Complex Scenarios

Simulations are a powerful way to imagine one possible version of the future of combat, says Illah Nourbakhsh, a roboticist at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, U.S. But they gloss over the complexities of getting robots to understand the world well enough to make such judgments, he says; something unlikely to be possible for decades.

Arkin stresses that his research, funded by the U.S. army, is not designed to develop prototypes for future battlefield use. “The most important outcome of my research is not the architecture, but the discussion that it stimulates.”

However, he maintains that the development of machines that decide how to use lethal force is inevitable, making it important that when such robots do arrive they can be trusted. “These ideas will not be used tomorrow, but in the war after next, and in very constrained situations.”

Public Debate

Roboticist Noel Sharkey at Sheffield University, U.K., campaigns for greater public discussion about the use of automating in war. “I agree with Ron that autonomous robot fighting machines look like an inevitability in the near future,” he told NewScientist.

Arkin’s work shows the inadequacy of our existing technology at dealing with the complex moral environment of a battlefield, says Sharkey. “Robots don’t get angry or seek revenge but they don’t have sympathy or empathy either,” he says. “Strict rules require an absolutist view of ethics, rather than a human understanding of different circumstances and their consequences.”

Yet in some circumstances, a strict rule-based approach is valuable. The Georgia Tech group has also made a system that advises a soldier of the ethical constraints on a mission as they program it into an autonomous drone. That kind of tool could see practical use much sooner, says Nourbakhsh: “Similar systems exist to help doctors understand the medical ethics of treatments.”

 
Reprinted from The NewScientist
© 2009 Tom Simonite and The NewScientist

Related posts:

1. The Road to Abu Ghraib
2. Episode 20: Chivalry Behind the Badge
3. Defining the Boundaries of Honor in Sales

“Every parent sees their son as a young hero, and their daughter as a darling princess. Yet perhaps it’s no wonder, in an age when parents are under increasing pressue to indulge their kids’ every wish — with fancy parties, expensive toys, designer clothes and a constant stream of verbal praise — that these youngsters are growing up oblivious to the values of chivalry, like patience and helpfulness. With all the best intentions, parents maybe raising a generation of princes and princesses, focused on “me,” instead of knights in shining armor.

A recent article in the San Diego Union Tribune addressed this trend in narcissism and the unfortunate effects it may be having on our culture. Columnist Jennifer Davies explored some simple but effective methods parents can use to instill a healthy sense of compassion, humility and self-restraint (all important elements of the Code of Chivalry) in children and teens. It’s an important reminder, for parents and non-parents alike, that someone who is a knight doesn’t demand the “royal treatment.”

Chivalry as an antidote for the culture of “me”

Jean Twenge is convinced there is an epidemic gripping the nation – a rise in narcissism among young people, especially among girls. A professor of psychology at San Diego State University, Twenge has spent years researching the increase in narcissistic behavior, such as seeking special treatment because of an inflated sense of self-worth. She attributes prevalence of narcissism to such societal forces as the Internet, celebrity culture, easy credit and parenting.

She readily acknowledges it’s nearly impossible to shield children from many of the outside influences. But Twenge, co-author of the just-published book Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement» , said there is still plenty modern parents can and should do to ward against raising self-centered and self-important children.

Praise only when true

Don’t say your kid is a fantastic artist, dancer, sprinter and so on, if he’s not, Twenge says. Those types of compliments are hollow and give a child an inflated sense of self and ill-placed confidence. Twenge says parents think this kind of praise helps build self-esteem. But the reality is most kids already have goodly amounts of self-esteem, so there’s no need to bolster it with unwarranted praise. Remember, praising your child as special is different from telling your kid you love him. “Telling you love them creates a bond,” Twenge says.

Kiss the princess stuff goodbye

Even though little girls are seemingly hard-wired to fall in love with all things princess, Twenge advises caution. Don’t buy rhinestone-embellished shirts that say Little Princess or Diva, she counsels. “If your daughter is the princess, you are not the queen. You become her subject, obeying her every wish,” Twenge says. She said princess dress-up is fine because it encourages imagination, but try to avoid treating your daughter, or your son for that matter, as royalty.

Keep control

Today, Twenge says, too many parents are too permissive and give kids too much power. Parents need to say no and mean it. Do not give your children veto power over things like bedtime or other required activities. “You have to realize you are not going to make them happy every moment of the day,” she says.

Teach empathy

Twenge says too many parents teach kids that they need to look out for No. 1 and that their needs should come first because that’s the way to succeed. Not only does it create narcissistic thinking, but it also sabotages the child in the long run, she says. If a child becomes the kind of person who thinks that no one else’s needs or opinions matter, she will have a hard time maintaining lasting relationships at home and at work. “You should care what other people think of you. If other people think you’re a jerk, that matters,” Twenge says.

This article was originally published in the April 25, 2009 Parenting 101 column of the San Diego Union Tribune.

© 2009 Jennifer Davies

Related posts:

1. Hubris and Humility: Parenting with Chivalry
2. A Hot Day’s Chivalry
3. Two Young Knights

Even in the most fearsome times of warfare and battle, like the naval fighting that occurred between Japan and its enemies at the height of World War II, the spirit of chivalry has a crucial function — not, as some might claim, to provide any sense of comfort or courtesy to the enemy, but rather to facilitate the sense of reconciliation and diplomacy that must eventually be established if war is ever to come to an end. This real-life story of two true World War II heroes and the men they served with and fought against is a fine example of how the balm of chivalry can help heal wounds that might otherwise fester for generations.

Humanity in Battle Brings Healing Spirit

British war veteran Sir Samuel Falle, one of 422 officers and sailors of the British Navy rescued by a Japanese warship during World War II, visited Japan and placed flowers on the grave of the ship’s commander last Sunday.

Falle praised the commander’s brave decision to save the men as an example of Japanese chivalry. His story could help change the negative image of the Japanese military during the war and promote reconciliation between former English prisoners of war, many of whom bear anti-Japanese feelings, and the Japanese.

On March 1, 1942, the British Royal Navy destroyer Encounter and its heavy cruiser Exeter were sunk by the Imperial Japanese Navy off the coast of Surabaya, a port in what is now Indonesia, in the northeastern Java Sea. About 450 British officers and sailors were left drifting in the water under the scorching sun.

The next day, when the men had been pushed to their limits due to fatigue, thirst and fear of shark attacks, the Japanese destroyer Ikazuchi found them by chance while patrolling that sector of the ocean. Commander Shunsaku Kudo made the decision to rescue all the officers and sailors, despite being in danger of submarine attacks, thus saving the lives of 422 British sailors.

The deck of the Ikazuchi, which had 220 crew members, was filled with the rescued British officers and sailors, who were covered in heavy oil from the water, but the crew members treated them as friendly forces by washing them and giving them clothing and food.

“I remember to this day that they gave me a green shirt, khaki trousers and a pair of tennis shoes. Then, we were given hot milk, corn willies and biscuits,” said Falle, former lieutenant of the British Royal Navy and a former ambassador to Sweden, at a press conference Sunday after paying his respects at Kudo’s grave in Saitama prefecture north of Tokyo.

According to the 89-year-old man (pictured right) – who was in a wheelchair but whose mind was keen – Kudo came down to the deck and addressed the British sailors in English, saying, “You are the honored guests of the Imperial Japanese Navy. You fought very bravely. We respect the English Navy, but the English government foolishly made war on Japan.”

“He treated us with all the chivalry possible as the commander of a small destroyer and it was a remarkable experience that has lived with me throughout my life. I can still see him standing there and addressing us,” said Falle.

In 2003, Falle visited Japan to offer flowers at Kudo’s grave, but could not locate the site. Later, Japanese journalist Ryunosuke Megumi discovered where his grave and his relatives were located, and upon hearing this, Falle decided to visit Japan again. Megumi introduced the story in Japan in 2006 by publishing a book, Save the Enemies, describing Kudo’s decision and the rescue.

“I actually expressed my gratitude in person at the grave of Commander Kudo,” Falle said, after the reunion at Kudo’s gravesite after 66 years.

The next day, a memorial ceremony for Kudo and a welcoming ceremony for Falle, hosted by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense and the Japan-British Society, were held at the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka in Tokyo.

“I am sure that Sir Falle’s visit to Japan will help in strengthening ties with Britain and bringing about reconciliation between former English prisoners of war and Japan,” said Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone.

In fact, Kudo’s decision to conduct such a large-scale rescue operation during a battle at sea, where Dutch and U.S. submarines were swarming, is noteworthy. A Japanese carrier had been attacked and sunk by an enemy submarine the day before in that area of the sea.

Some crew members jumped into the sea to save sailors who could not grab or climb a ladder or a rope by themselves. Moreover, the Ikazuchi searched for all of the survivors in the surrounding area and went wherever survivors were found.

Falle, who had imagined that the Japanese were cruel and strange, felt like he was dreaming and even pinched his arm, as he described it in his autobiography, My Lucky Life, published in 1996.

Kudo, who never told anyone, including his wife, about the event, passed away at age 77 in 1979. The heartwarming story would have been buried in history without Falle sharing publicly about his extraordinary experience.

Kiyosumi Tanigawa, the former navigating officer of the Ikazuchi, aged 92, explained the reason that Kudo did not talk about the operation even after the war.

“Under the right circumstances, with no enemy airplanes, ships or submarines, we took for granted saving enemies who had lost their combat capability and who were dying,” Tanigawa said. “I guess that Kudo might not have thought that he had accomplished a great achievement.”

Tanigawa also explained that the Japanese Imperial Navy did the same thing during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The story became famous by chance because Falle brought it to light, he said.

“Kudo was a well-tempered and silent man of worth, and a quick decision maker,” according to Tanigawa.

After experiencing life as a prisoner of war of the Imperial Japanese Army for three-and-a-half years until the end of the war, Falle started working for the British Foreign Ministry. He continued praising Kudo’s decision at commemorative events in Indonesia and the United States, as well as in England. When the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the war in Surabaya was held in 1992, he spoke at the ceremony, praising Kudo as a model of chivalry. He also submitted a report on his experience titled Chivalry to the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings in 1987.

In April 1998, one month before an official visit of the Japanese emperor to England, former prisoners of war who had been oppressed by the Japanese Imperial Army demonstrated, demanding compensation from the Japanese government and requesting an apology from the emperor.

During World War II, about 60,000 prisoners of war of the Allied powers, including British soldiers, were forced to work to build the Thai-Burma Railway. Over 10,000 died during the operation from malnutrition, malaria or cholera under poor living conditions and a shortage of food. Some have harbored strong anti-Japan sentiments ever since.

To soothe the demonstrators, Falle, through letters to the editor of the Times, called on them to give the emperor a warm welcome and promoted reconciliation with Japan by sharing his experience of Japanese chivalry. His story was printed in the newspaper on April 29, 1998, and helped ease the tide of anti-Japanese sentiment.

“I was very impressed by his attitude that he cannot die until he pays his respects to Kudo and his family for his brave action,” said Kichio Kudo, the adopted son of Kudo’s niece. He came from Yamagata prefecture in northern Japan to see Falle, representing Kudo’s relatives.

“Falle has exemplified the spirit of chivalry more than Kudo did,” he said.

© 2009 Hiroyuki Koshoji

This article was originally published by UPI Asia in a Dec. 11, 2008 report.

Related posts:

1. Pizza and Inspiration for Navy Seaman Recruits
2. Generosity and the Exchange Student
3. Chivalry and a Mother’s Courage

Many people note the decline of “chivalry” (although they’re really referring to “courtesy,” which is only a part of the ideals of chivalry) in the world of dating and relationships today. While some applaud this decline with the belief that chivalry robs women of “empowerment,” it is important to remember that this element of chivalry was born in the world of 11th century Europe — a time and place when women were truly disempowered. The new sense of “courtly manners” or courtoise that became part of the Code of Chivalry gave a new level of prestige and authority to women (at least, those of noble birth). In short, men of the court were taught to actually care about earning a lady’s good opinion — something that had been lacking in earlier centuries.

Today it is important to realize that the courtesies of chivalry can be misused as tools of dominance and manipulation by men and women alike. At its heart, however, the sense of chivalry in a romantic relationship (from a first date to a golden wedding anniversary) is the straightforward demonstration of respect and commitment — a sense of giving and selflessness that expects nothing in return. Far from abolishing chivalry, the women’s movement has simply shown that both partners have an obligation to demonstrate and expect chivalry in a healthy relationship.

In a poll conducted for the conservative Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, researcher Ashley Crouch explored the gap between the expectations and applications of chivalry among college-age men and women. Although some might say her conclusions harken back to a day when the customs of chivalry placed unfair social burdens on men and women alike, her findings do provide some valuable food for thought. She reveals a very important and often overlooked point: Chivalry is a function of caring, and without it, a relationship becomes “all about me.” Following the noble customs of chivalry and courtesy is an important means of establishing a relationship with a sense of commitment, respect and sharing.

Giving & Receiving A Sense of Respect

Who says guys can’t communicate? A recent survey I took suggests that guys are eager to offer their opinions, if we ladies will only listen. Unfortunately, when the subject is the near-extinct idea of chivalry, many women are quick to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. Yet so many of us women spend our days lamenting broken relationships and marriages and wondering, Where have all the good guys gone?

Last summer I polled college guys from across the country and abroad at the National Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington, D.C. Ninety-three percent of them said that chivalry has decreased in current times, and 84 percent of that group attribute this decline primarily or at least partly to the rise of radical feminism in society.

One man stated that feminism “devalued chivalry and made it seem sexist.” Another man proposed that the “I-don’t-need-a-man culture has crippled chivalry in the public sphere.” Yet another said that it was “difficult” to be chivalrous because some women portray chivalry as “subordinating, disrespecting, and devaluing.”

It seems that men are lodged between a rock and a hard place. If they try to be chivalrous, feminists call them sexist. Yet if they treat us the way the feminists say we want to be treated — the same as a man — we complain of not getting enough respect.

How do guys define chivalry? Three out of four responded that it had to do with respect, honor, and courtesy towards women. One man spoke openly: “Chivalry is the notion that a man has the duty to respect and serve women.”

Another man affirmed: “It is a set of manners and respect a man should show to a woman as a demonstration of respect towards her.” Another guy said women “need to understand that chivalry isn’t being put down like feminism would like you to believe, but rather is a way a woman can command respect from a man.”

Too often, however, these same men lamented that their efforts to be chivalrous were met with scorn.

Perhaps that’s why the majority of guys surveyed agreed that chivalry would be easier to practice if girls would show some appreciation. One man described it thus: “In each ‘chauvinistic pig’ is a D’Artagnian waiting to break out. Help him!”

Ladies, if you do want respect, take a stand and reclaim chivalry — for guys’ sake as well as your own. If a guy exhibits chivalrous behavior, compliment him. If a man opens a door for you, thank him.

Interestingly, most of the men indicated that it would be easier to behave chivalrously if women would show more respect for themselves. “If women date unchivalrous men,” one of the men surveyed said, “then we see that we don’t need to be chivalrous to be with a girl. Also, women should be conscious of how they act — if they don’t act like a lady, they won’t be treated like one.”

“Expect men to rise to the occasion,” another guy said.

Respect isn’t the only thing at stake for us women. Chivalry can also be better for our health. If we sit back and let good, old-fashioned male courtesy die, men will pursue relationships less and pursue hooking up more. As Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute Senior Fellow Miriam Grossman, M.D. writes in Sense & Sexuality: The College Girl’s Guide to Real Protection in a Hooked-Up World, hard science shows that casual sex makes women more vulnerable to emotional and physiological health problems, including depression and sexually transmitted infections.

Ladies, there are plenty of good guys out there, and their message is clear: Bring back chivalry.

The ball is in our court, ladies. Let’s do something with it.

© 2008 Ashley Crouch

About the author: Ashley Crouch is a student at the University of Dallas and a former intern at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. This article is reprinted by permission from the CBLPI website.

Related posts:

1. Be Worthy of Chivalry
2. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch
3. Courtesy And Acknowledgement

Fans of historical novels often cite Ken Follett’s Pillars of the Earth as a classic portrayal of the Middle Ages. Follett recently published an eagerly awaited sequel to that book, World Without End, which delved even deeper into medieval culture.

Journalist Chris Waddle wrote an excellent review of Follett’s latest medieval romp. And while his review has nothing directly to do with “chivalry,” it does provide some interesting food for thought about the similarities between the medieval world and the 21st century.

But there is a connection: Critics often say that chivalry has no relevance in today’s world; that it was an idealistic concept, born in a time of violence, superstition and repression, which is best left on the pages of history. But as Waddle discovered, while the Middle Ages was a violent, superstitious and corrupt time, it was not as different from modern society as we’d like to think. Peering back into the world of the 14th century, we find some very familiar institutions, challenges and attitudes looking back.

How can we think chivalry is irrelevant in a time that is so reminiscent, in so many ways, of the era which gave rise to the principle of chivalry in the first place?

Book Review: World Without End by Ken Follett

There’s something about the Middle Ages.

Think about our time. Think about their time. You can recognize the people, know them, feel with them.

The peopling inside the literary construction of World Without End» , though, is not done with your neat beginning-middle-end storyline. The plot sprawls from England to the Battle of Crecy to Florence and back via Avignon, Chartres and Paris.

Ken Follett is an international writer of modern suspense thriller-dillers. Except when he isn’t.

His previous exception is the renowned Pillars of the Earth» . That epic sends a wonder-of-the-age cathedral soaring skyward in countryside England during the 12th century, because a prior and his monastery peer wonderfully out from medieval gloom.

Religious and most other institutions two centuries later lose the light or can’t yet find their way forward in this sequel.

But a hodgepodge of children in the World grow up around a secret and come into their own by their mature years, each in his or her own way. Well, some do fall by the wayside.

The characters remind you of the All Saints’ Day hymn brightening this time of year:

Can’t identify with the 14th century? Picture yourself in a Brueghel painting. You see a familiar populated-landscape, not a distant portrait.

Fall in line with Chaucer’s pilgrims marching off to Canterbury. You’ll know the way figuratively.

Or share stories while hiding from the plague with Boccaccio’s characters in The Decameron. Even the ribaldry will seem familiar.

Expect to compare the economic threat of our time, the lack of confidence in government and the demand for creative self-reliance.

Examine the peril of infants, the challenges of childhood and the sometime brutishness of old age.

Notice both eras are super-religious and steadfastly profane at the same time. Churches ever seek reformation while the irreligious constantly stimulate a renascence in art, science and trade.

We hold in common our foreign wars, more appealing to heads of state than to us plain folk. Then and now, government can grow overbearing.

And there’s the Black Death, the great antagonist in World Without End. We have AIDS but also cancer, heart disease and diabetes — more pronounced because of our life span and life habit.

Technology sets us apart from our ancestors, not our daily and mortal lives. Even so the engineering solutions in the cathedral town of Follett’s Knightsbridge inspire us.

At its length this is a lifestyle more than a book. So it should be.

We’re not reading about a distant time, a distant place, a distant folk. We’re experiencing ourselves through a novel.

So easily could we be medieval.

© 2008 Chris Waddle

About the author: Chris Waddle is director of the Knight Fellows in Community Journalism and president of the Ayers Family Institute for Community Journalism. You can read more of his writing at his blog OneJournalist.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry in Timeline – A Behind-the-Scenes Look
2. Tolkien and Chivalry Today
3. A Trip To ATM

In movies and literature, the vampire and the knight in shining armor might seem like polar opposites. The knight is a bright, shining champion, while the vampire is a dark, dreadful monster. But take a closer look — today vampires are immensely popular, and like the brutal Gothic warriors of the Dark Ages, the character of the vampire is undergoing a transformation. The current breed of vampire, from Angel (the “vampire with a soul” from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) to Edward Cullen and the vampire clan made famous in the book Twilight (the poster from the movie release is pictured below), vampires are being infused with new life for a new generation.

In today’s stories, vampires still drink blood, avoid sunlight and have mystical powers — but they also struggle to redeem themselves for evils of the past, use their powers to protect the weaker mortals in the world around them, and abstain from their famous lust for blood in favor of unconsummated romance. Strength, duty, sacrifice, restraint … In short, these vampires are acting an awful lot like knights in shining armor.

This tendency hasn’t escaped literary critics like NPR reporter Lynn Neary, who recently commented on the latest trend in chivalry in the world of “those who walk the night.”

Today’s Vampires Cast Reflections of Chivalry

A new generation of vampire heroes has stepped out of the moonlight and into the cultural spotlight — dominating best-seller lists, movies and TV with its dangerous mystique. The modern-day vampire gentleman is eerily alluring in all the old-fashioned, bloodsucking ways, but now he reins in his baser instincts in an impressive display of control.

There have been hundreds of depictions of vampires over the years, but Bela Lugosi in the 1931 film Dracula still defines the role. Lugosi leaned over his pretty female victims without remorse and — without the aid of special effects, blood or fangs — managed to be really, really creepy.

Eric Nuzum, author of The Dead Travel Fast,» says vampires have been around in one form or another since ancient times. And while vampires cannot see their own reflections in the mirror, they are a perfect reflection of the culture that creates them.

“You look at vampires from any given era and you see what they thought was frightening,” Nuzum says. “You see what they thought was sexy, and what they thought was forbidden.”

The Southern Gentleman Vampire

The latest craze is the romantic — or even chivalrous — vampire. In HBO’s True Blood» series, vampires prowl openly through small-town America and even campaign for their civil rights.

Sookie, a young, pretty waitress, falls for a vampire named Bill, and, just like any young woman, her interest only intensifies when her friends object to her new crush:

“You don’t know how many people he’s sucked the blood out of,” Sookie’s friend warns.

True Blood is based on Charlaine Harris’ Southern Vampires book series. Harris creates a fictional world inhabited by good and bad vampires alike. She constructs Bill as a genteel vampire who protects Sookie from the worst of his kind — even as he tries to reign in his own baser instincts.

Harris says Bill’s restraint makes him all the more alluring: “I could rip you limb from limb, but because I think you’re so great, I’m going to be very, very careful. That’s got to be kind of intoxicating,” she says.

Abstinence Only?

Edward, the hero of Stephenie Meyers’ Twilight » series, has stolen the hearts of “tween” girls everywhere. Fans of this conscientious young vampire live vicariously through his romance with Bella, his high school sweetheart.

Edward and his clan refuse to feed off humans, and Meyer explains that this choice is what makes him so popular.

“These are vampires,” Meyer says. “They are these creatures who exist to hunt humans. They are evil and they choose something different. They find another way. And I think kids respond to the idea that it doesn’t matter where I am in life; I always have a choice.”

Nina Auerbach, author of Our Vampires, Ourselves» , believes every age gets the vampire it wants.

“Vampires aren’t supposed to be restrained,” Auerbach says. “They’re all our hungers. That’s why they’re vampires.”

In the 1960s and ’70s, she says, vampires took young women away from their narrow lives and transformed them. But when AIDS came onto the scene, even the fictional prospect of uninhibited bloodsucking fell out of favor. Though Auerbach says this is completely understandable, she finds this latest crop of vampires kind of … boring .

“These are very abstinent vampires,” Auerbach says. “If he truly loves you, he will not do it to you.”

Whether they terrify, entrance or court their victims, vampires are always on the prowl. Waiting for that moment when the moon comes out, and the cultural spotlight shines on them again.

© 2008 Lynn Neary

About the author: Lynn Neary reports on books and publishing for the Cultural Desk at NPR. This piece is a transcript of a report that originally appeared in the October 31, 2008 broadcast of All Things Considered.

Related posts:

1. A Life-Saving Quest
2. Episode 21: C.S. Lewis and Chivalry in Prince Caspian
3. Episode 17: The Dark Knight and the Code of Chivalry

Managers and business executives often use the image of a predator to describe their own style of leadership philosophy. Managers who want to inspire aggression and vigor often call their team members “sharks” and their organizations “wolf packs.” We think of predators as powerful and ruthless in their pursuit of prey, which maybe why managers eagerly employ predatory images when trying to condone a “succeed at any cost” approach to business. A predator would never let anything as arbitrary as honesty, loyalty or trust get in the way of success — or so we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps this is why the predator is often seen as the antithesis of the “knight in shining armor” in a competitive environment.

Author Cesar Millan, however, knows a thing or two about leadership among predators. Cesar is best known as the dog-handler to the stars from his show Dog Whisperer on the National Geographic Channel. He uses an innovative, instinctive approach to dog training based on pack dynamics rather than pain or intimidation. Cesar knows exactly how to establish himself, literally, as the top dog in a pack of predators — and he’s become a sought-after consultant not just among celebrities who have problem pooches, but also among successful corporations looking for ways to establish strong leadership principles among their executives.

Cesar’s latest book, Be The Pack Leader, examines how badly humans have misapplied pack behavior in an attempt to create effective leadership techniques through deceit, intimidation and deception. But Cesar says that predators don’t behave this way, and successful leaders can’t afford to either. As Cesar points out, real predators don’t lie, equivocate or misrepresent themselves — to become a leader among predators you must be absolutely honest and trustworthy. This excerpt from his book reveals just how important the principle of faithfulness is among leaders of all kinds, from dog walkers to executives and politicians. Ceasar reminds us that a real predator has a lot in common with a knight in shining armor.

A knight can be the leader of the pack

If you ever wonder where the American people came up with the idea that the dog should be out in front of the walk, take a look at a film, video or photograph of any President of the United States getting off Air Force One. Who’s the first one out of the plane? Who’s the first one into the White House? Ronald Regan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush — all of them trail behind their dogs on the White House lawn. In the animal world, position means a lot. And in all of these images, the dogs are going first. In my lifetime, I haven’t seen a powerful breed dog in the White House yet. I’ve seen Labradors. I’ve seen lots of terriers, a lot of the softer breeds. But a Rottweiler? A pit bull? Not since JFK have you seen a German shepherd in the White House nor Rhodesian ridgebacks, or Belgian Malinois, or mastiffs. If you had a powerful breed in the White House no one would ever get to meet with the President. Why? Because if Presidents can’t control their terriers or happy-go-lucky labs, how could they control a powerful breed? You’d have 10 secret service agents trying to handle one dog, because it would be a dog without a pack leader.

I got a lot of applause during one seminar when I suggested that everybody write letters to Congress and suggest that before anyone gets sworn in as President, he or she has to learn how to walk a powerful dog. Maybe even a pack of dogs! It would be a test they’d all have to pass. All world leaders of all countries should be able to do it. If that actually happened, then all of our human pack leaders would have to practice calm-assertive energy, because that’s the only energy that dogs naturally follow. I believe we’d have a lot more balanced people running the world if they based their leadership on calm-assertive energy.

You see, animals don’t follow unstable pack leaders; only humans promote, follow and praise instability. Only humans have leaders who can lie and get away with it. Around the world, most of the pack leaders we follow today are not stable. Their followers may not know it, but Mother Nature is far too honest to be fooled by angry, frustrated, jealous, competitive, stubborn or other negative energy — even if it is masked by a politician’s smile. That’s because all animals can evaluate and discern what balanced energy feels like. A dog cannot evaluate how intelligent a human is, or how rich, or how powerful or how popular. A dog doesn’t care if a leader has a Ph.D. from Harvard, or is a five-star general. But that dog can definitely tell a stable human from an unstable one. We humans continue to follow the unstable energy of our leaders — which is why we don’t live in a peaceful, balanced world.

Being a pack leader is not about showing “who’s boss.” Natural pack leaders do not control their followers by fear. They sometimes have to challenge or display their authority, but most of the time they are calm, benevolent leaders. Remember, dogs are predators. They are social animals, but they are also social carnivores — and deep in their DNA is the wolf in them that wants to hunt and kill prey.

President Theodore Roosevelt once said:

People ask the difference between a leader and a boss … The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads and the boss drives.

In order for your dog to follow, you cannot be just a boss. You must be a guide, an inspiration, a true leader, from the inside out.

© 2008 Cesar Millan

About The Author: Cesar Millan is the founder of the Dog Psychology Center in Los Angeles, and the star of Dog Whisperer on the National Geographic Channel. He is author of several books on canine handling and psychology, including his latest, Be The Pack Leader.»

Related posts:

1. A Leader Defined
2. Leadership and Chivalry
3. The True Secret of Leadership

In just a few days, the 2008 Olympics will begin in Bejing, China. These Games have, and will continue to allow the world to focus on both the possibilities and challenges faced by today’s global society. Among all the debate, celebration and protest over the 2008 Games, it is interesting to note that these things are not unique to this session of the Olympics. In fact, more than 70 years ago, an editorial in the British newspaper, The Guardian, made some statements that bear an eerie similarity to some being made today. It is interesting to look back and recall the concerns voiced just prior to the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin.

Similarly, this historical article gives us a chance to contemplate the association between chivalry and the Olympics. As the author points out, the Games were originally conceived in the highest spirit of chivalry — as a means of transcending bigotry, nationalism and corruption in pursuit of a more noble goal: friendship. Human nature being what it is, of course, striving to reach that goal continues to be problematic, but no matter how many times we stumble, we persevere nonetheless. In a race with no finish line, the only way to fail is to quit trying.

“What is the point of this article?” you may ask. It is a crucial demonstration, I think, that any worthy, noble goal — from the values of chivalry to the Olympic dream — can be coopted and subverted by those with a political cause to advance. That was true in the Middle Ages, and it remains true in the modern world. But if our response to that corruption of noble ideals is to hide them away … to cancel the Olympic games or to proclaim the obsolescence of chivalry … then our ideals may as well be dead. We have to “put ourselves out there” rather than locking chivalry away in a glass case like a relic from the ancient past. We have to continue to strive and compete — and risk failure — if we are to establish free trade in ideals that can inspire others. The challenge is simply to never allow idealistic goals to blind us to suffering and oppression. To never turn our backs on those in need, simply for the sake of “putting on a good show.”

In Games, Knightly Ideals Were The Original Gold Medal

Forty years ago this year the first modern Olympic Games were held, revived by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, with a triple purpose. He wished to spread throughout the world the social benefits of sport as observed in Great Britain and the United States. He wanted to foster through sport the instincts of nobility and chivalry. And he believed that by the friendly mingling of athletes from many countries the peace of the world would be reinforced. He said:

Coubertin’s first hope has been fulfilled. The Olympic Games have had a great effect in promoting the physical health of a world which is being progressively industrialised. The other hopes have not been fulfilled. They have not kept bright the flame of chivalry. Sport has run away with us and has become a wild, nationalistic race. Coubertin’s Free Trade in athletes has become an athletic war. And Coubertin’s hope that the athletes of the world, by meeting at Olympic Games, might form an international body of friends is still far from fulfilment.

To-day the Olympic Games begin a new phase. This year at Berlin for the first time we are to see them confessedly exploited as an advertisement for a political party. The conduct of the Games and their setting are to be a demonstration of the excellence of Nazism. Houses in Germany have been whitewashed, and there has been other whitewashing as well. German Jews have been given no chance to fit themselves to represent Germany, but a few selected Jews have been included in German teams for the sake of window-dressing.

All over Europe it is being said that whatever dangerous designs Germany may be harbouring will be postponed until the Olympic Games are over. There will be no trouble at the Games; even if events are won by negroes, as is not improbable, the Nazis know on which side their bread is buttered. But the ordinary man is cynical; he believes that Germany is using the Games for her own ends.

The German railway office in London has for some time been displaying in its window the words Pax Olympica. Inhabitants of Berlin, it is said, are speaking of “the Olympic pause.” Which is it to be? If it is only a pause, then the Olympic Games may remain in public estimation the greatest of the world’s athletic festivals, but faith in them as an instrument for world peace and understanding will have been destroyed.

© 2008 The Guardian

REPRINTED FROM THE AUGUST 1, 1936 EDITION OF THE GUARDIAN

Related posts:

1. White Knight of the Olympics
2. Disrespect: The New Chivalry?
3. Episode 29: Campaigning to Live with Chivalry

There seems to be a natural divide between youth and adulthood, and looking across that chasm creates a certain degree of confusion and misunderstanding of those who stand on the other side. But in today’s world, more and more it seems like adults are trying to reach across that divide to hold onto “youth culture” for a variety of reasons — to avoid responsibilities of adulthood, to keep a youthful self-image, and (sometimes) to achieve a level of acceptance and rapport with their own children by demonstrating that they’re still in touch with the “hip” crowd.

As adults try to relate to the younger generation and teenagers step outside once-traditional boundaries of social customs, one of the things that seems to be getting lost is the sense of dignity, respect and decorum that once guided young men and women in their interactions.

You might think that (for better or worse) young people would applaud the disappearance of “stoggy” traditions of chivalry, but as Youth Radio commentator Alana Germany points out, putting chivalry in abeyance has not led to a culture that provides women with a new sense of freedom, liberty and empowerment, but rather has created a values system in which rudeness and vulgarity have become the norm, and women can easily become more objectified than ever. As she points out in this essay, which is a companion piece to an excellent on-air feature segment, chivalry is a necessary shield to guard the dignity and rights of women — and it is the responsibility of the older generation to make sure the traditions of chivalry don’t get eclipsed by the expectation that “anything goes.”

Formality and the folly of stylish rudness

No wonder chivalry is dead. Hardly anyone under the age of 21 knows what it means. In fact, I’d say disrespect is the new chivalry.

My mom grew up in a time when she says men constantly showed respect for women; always opening doors, pulling out chairs and referring to women as “Miss” instead of the typical “ay, girl” of today. This “new” approach to courtship really started to bother me. I’d be walking down the street or through the BART train station and, “Hey, lil’ mama!” would come out of nowhere.

One time when I was walking home by myself, two young guys ended up walking a couple blocks behind me. The entire time they were behind me they shouted, “Yee yee,” trying to get my attention. Yee is like signature slang in my hometown — Richmond, Calif. Although I’d heard it used a lot around town, I’d never heard it used as a mating call. I mean, when did the standard “excuse me Miss” become “ay bay-bay” or “hey, sexy” and now “yee”? This question, coupled with my annoyance at being harassed almost every time I stepped out the door prompted me to write this story, and I’m glad I did.

I got to talk to my mother and a few other elders of the community. Listening to how boys used to approach dating, I felt even more annoyed with my male peers. My mom told me stories about how her date would have to come inside the house and meet the entire family. When addressing the parents, it was all, “Yes ma’am, yes sir.” If the parents didn’t approve of the boy, my mom wouldn’t go out with him. It may still be like that in some towns, but that isn’t the case here. Now anything goes.

Our generation needs to raise its standards, but that won’t happen unless we are taught to. This is almost a hopeless cause though. I was taught to maintain high standards, but my mother is over 50, and she raised me based on the standards of her time. For the young mothers having babies at 15 and 16, this is their time. If this culture of disrespect is all they know, they won’t teach their children any different; the cycle continues.

Writing this piece was my way of calling out for help and trying to end the destructive pattern so many teens have become accustomed to.

© 2008 Alana Germany

About the author: Alana Germany is a commentator for Youth Radio. This article appeared as a companion piece to her feature segment Disrespect Is The New Chivalry as part of the series What’s The New What for NPR.

Related posts:

1. A Return to Chivalry? – Part 1
2. Great Expectations: Chivalry In Tomorrow’s Knights
3. A Return to Chivalry – Part 2

An article about the Presidential campaign might seem an odd place for a journalist to wax nostalgic about medieval philosophy and the ideals of chivalry. But New York Times op-ed writer David Brooks found himself longing for elements from the “olden times” after being deluged by campaign coverage in the modern media. He took a break from it all to reflect on a different set of priorities and ideals in the following article.

Interestingly, his article stirred up a storm of angry (or at least critical) letters from Times readers. (There is a link to the Letters column at the bottom of this page.) Readers were incensed that an educated, modern journalist would imply that the represive, superstitious culture of the Middle Ages would be perferable to the world of modern America.

But that doesn’t seem to be what Brooks is saying. In this piece, he is simply raising the concept that, perhaps, in totally eclipsing wonder with reason, we’ve lost a little something in the mix. What he seems to be asking is, “Can we be scientific, rational and logical — and still be idealistic and inspired?” It is a question that applies aptly to the principles of chivalry in today’s world.

Restoring Ideals and Idealism

Over the past 15 months, I’ve been writing pretty regularly about the presidential campaign, which has meant thinking a lot about attack ads, tracking polls and which campaign is renouncing which over-the-line comment from a surrogate that particular day.

But on my desk for much of this period I have kept a short essay, which I stare at longingly from time to time. It’s an essay about how people in the Middle Ages viewed the night sky, and it’s about a mentality so totally removed from the campaign mentality that it’s like a refreshing dip in a cool and cleansing pool.

The essay, which appeared in Books & Culture, is called C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem, by Michael Ward, a chaplain at Peterhouse College at Cambridge. It points out that while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God. The medieval universe, Lewis wrote, “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”

Lewis tried to recapture that medieval mind-set, Ward writes. He did it not because he wanted to renounce the Copernican revolution and modern science, but because he found something valuable in that different way of seeing our surroundings.

The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it “all fact and no meaning.” When we say that a star is a huge flaming ball of gas, he wrote, we are merely describing what it is made of. We are not describing what it is. Lewis also wanted to include the mythologies, symbols and stories that have been told about the heavenly actors, and which were so real to those who looked up into the sky hundreds of years ago. He wanted to strengthen the imaginative faculty that comes naturally to those who see the heavens as fundamentally spiritual and alive.

There’s something about obsessing about a campaign — or probably a legal case or a business deal — that doesn’t exactly arouse the imaginative faculties. Campaigns are all about message management, polls and tactics. The communication is swift, Blackberry-sized and prosaic. As you cover it, you feel yourself enclosed in its tunnel. Entire mental faculties go unused. Ward’s essay has been a constant reminder of that other mental universe.

The medievals had a tremendous capacity for imagination and enchantment, and while nobody but the deepest romantic would want to go back to their way of thinking (let alone their way of life), it’s a tonic to visit from time to time.

As many historians have written, Europeans in the Middle Ages lived with an almost childlike emotional intensity. There were stark contrasts between daytime and darkness, between summer heat and winter cold, between misery and exuberance, and good and evil. Certain distinctions were less recognized, namely between the sacred and the profane.

Material things were consecrated with spiritual powers. God was thought to live in the stones of the cathedrals, and miracles inhered in the bones of the saints. The world seemed spiritually alive, and the power of spirit could overshadow politics. As Johan Huizinga wrote in The Autumn of the Middle Ages,

The most revealing map of Europe in these centuries would be a map, not of political or commercial capitals, but of the constellation of sanctuaries, the points of material contact with the unseen world.

We tend to see economics and politics as the source of human motives, and then explain spirituality as their byproduct — as Barack Obama tried artlessly to do in San Francisco the other week. But in the Middle Ages, faith came first. The symbols, processions and services were vividly alive.

Large parts of medieval life were attempts to play out a dream, in ways hard to square with the often grubby and smelly reality. There were the elaborate manners of the courtly, the highly stylized love affairs and the formal chivalric code of knighthood. There was this driving impulsion among the well-born to idealize. This idealizing urge produced tournaments, quests and the mystical symbols of medieval art — think of the tapestries of the pure white unicorn. The gap between the ideal and the real is also what Cervantes made fun of in Don Quixote.»

Writers like C. S. Lewis and John Ruskin seized on medieval culture as an antidote to industrialism — to mass manufacturing, secularization and urbanization. Without turning into an Arthurian cultist, it’s nice to look up from the latest YouTube campaign moment and imagine a sky populated with creatures, symbols and tales.

This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2008 Op-Ed section of the New York Times.

Reader response to Mr. Brooks’ piece appeared in the following week’s New York Times Letters to the Editor.

About the author: David Brooks’s column has appeared on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times since September 2003. He is also currently a commentator on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Mr. Brooks is the author of Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There and On Paradise Drive : How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense, both published by Simon & Schuster.

Related posts:

1. C.S. Lewis: A Pioneer of Chivalry Today
2. Episode 16: Characters of Chivalry: Jedi Knights and Medieval Detectives
3. Chivalry Without End

Justice. Mercy. And what lies between. These virtuous qualities are at the heart of our perception of knightly character, yet they often seem to be in conflict. Do we impose strict punishment on someone who inadvertently breaks a rule without harming anyone? Do we look the other way when someone violates the law simply because “everyone does it”?

Author Robert Fulghum has a marvelous way of finding metaphors for life’s hard questions in the simplest of situations. In this essay, excerpted from his latest book What On Earth Have I Done?, he explores the crucial matter of justice vs. mercy through the eyes of a school crossing guard, and reminds us that chivalry exists, not in a conflict between two black-and-white ideals, but rather in an ever-shifting balance between two important qualities that keep our world both safe and civil – the ultimate goal of the Code of Chivalry.

Walking the thin line between the law and forgiveness

The idyllic image of an overly-enthusiastic young crossing guard maybe comical, but this situation also provides a lesson in elementary matters of justice - and mercy.

“Would you like to use my feet? My shoes are 12 inches long?”

An offer I made to three girls across the street from me who were absorbed in measuring the distance from a sign to a parked truck. The girls were fifth graders — safety patrol members in charge of the elementary school crosswalk at the corner nearest my house.

“Yes,” they shouted in chorus, and one of them raised her red STOP flag and escorted me safely over to the scene of a possible crime.

Here’s the situation: A sign on a tall post on the corner says, No parking within 30 feet.

A pickup truck with a construction company’s logo on it is parked closer than the girls think it should be. The girls are empowered to report the license numbers of any vehicles breaking the law while they are on duty — usually those driving too fast or not stopping for children. It’s been a slow morning, and the only opportunity for the girls to exercise their authority is this parked truck. And it is not an incidental issue. The truck does ever-so-slightly block their view of incoming traffic.

What to do?

So I carefully walked up the curb, foot-in-front-of-foot, from sign to pickup, and sure enough, the truck is 27 feet away from the sign. Aha! Busted! One girl, the sergeant in charge, has her pad and pencil at the ready. Wait — not so fast — the girls are not in agreement.

What will happen to the guy if they turn him in? Will he be arrested and taken to jail? Is three feet over the line really such a crime? Does “30 feet” mean exactly 30 feet or “somewhere around” 30 feet?

And there may be mitigating circumstances. “My mom does this all the time.” “Maybe he’s somebody’s dad.” “Maybe he’ll be right back and we can talk to him.” “Yeah, maybe just warn him about not doing it again.”

“But the law is the law, and he’s broken the law.” “Yeah, but only by three feet.” “Besides, it’s almost time to go to class — maybe he’ll be gone when we come back.” “Does it really matter?”

They did not ask my advice. And I didn’t want them to ask. On their own they were sorting out elementary issues of human community. That’s why they are in elementary school. Underneath the specific issue lay the fundamental ones: What is right? What is wrong? What is the law? What is justice? And what part should mercy play in figuring the equation?

They were not leaving until they decided what to do.

But I quietly went my way — out of sight and, I hope, out of mind.

They were doing just fine by themselves. They didn’t need me, only my big feet. And only then because they wanted to establish some objective facts. Good on them.

What did they decide? I don’t know. They and the truck were gone when I came back. But I do know that how they were deciding was admirable — using their minds to figure out the right thing to do. They could have ignored the infraction and gone to class. But they knew their job and accepted the responsibility. I went on home feeling that their corner of the world was in very good hands.

All too soon they will confront conflicts around drug and alcohol use, sexual experience, women’s health rights, and political leadership. I trust they will continue to do what they did this morning — get the facts and use their minds in a collaborative way in the name of justice. Make a judgment and act on it — knowing that it’s never simple or easy.

If I could have said anything to them I would have pointed out that they, like the driver of the truck, were in the construction business — responsible for building and maintaining a just world, one small decision at a time. Taking care of their corner.

And as to their question: “Does it matter?”

Yes, it matters a great deal.

©2008 Robert Fulghum

About the author: Robert Fulghum is a popular essayist and bestselling author of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten and numerous other books. This essay is from his book What On Earth Have I Done? Stories, Observations And Affirmations» .

Related posts:

1. The Seven Knightly Virtues
2. Wave to the Trash Man
3. The Seven Knightly Sins

We often hear people — especially young people — using today’s “singles’ scene” as a demonstration that chivalry is both dead and obsolete. People out on a first date routinely treat each other with flippant disrespect — using profane language in conversation, for example, or not bothering to dress for the occasion — perhaps in an attempt to prove that they’re not stuck in old-fashioned social conventions, or perhaps just because they’re supremely bewildered about what is expected of them while they’re on a date.

Columnist Esther Kustanowitz addresses dating in today’s world in her blogs and writings about Jewish culture in America. When a friend recently related a dating horror story to her, Ms. Kustanowitz decided to look into the concept of chivalry to see if it was as dead as she, and other women of her generation had been led to believe. In considering the “chivalrous” customs of a bygone era, she began to realize that respectful treatment — regardless of gender — is a crucial element in a long-lasting relationship. If we can’t treat each other with a little common decency, is it any wonder that today’s young people are having trouble feeling connected as they play the “dating game”?

Looking For Connections In Courteous Courtship

Once, I went out with this guy who was really traditional — not Jewishly, but when it came to dating. He believed in chivalry: If we drove somewhere, he would always run around to my side and open the door, even though it took longer and I was perfectly capable of opening it myself. I used to worry about encountering a mud puddle, anxious that he might try to put his coat over it and encourage me to walk on it, resulting in an extremely well-intentioned disaster for both me and the coat.

He also insisted on walking between me and the curb, because he said that was the tradition in days of old, to protect the woman from the dangers of the road. “But what if someone comes at me from the other side and pulls me into an alley?” I wondered. (We’re not together anymore.)

I’m a pretty big sucker for romantic gestures, but there’s something so antiquated about a level of consideration that puts the “court” back in courtesy. I’m all for courtesy. If someone wants to hold the door for me, b’vakasha (please). I hold doors for many people — men and women — in the course of a given day, and I’m pretty sure I’m not dating most of them. If “all the people of Israel are responsible for one other,” then why wouldn’t we treat each other with respect, regardless of our marital status and with or without chivalry?

According to Wikipedia (the modern writer’s research tool, indispensable despite questions as to its accuracy) chivalry is “related to the medieval institution of knighthood … usually associated with ideals of knightly virtues, honor and courtly love.” Originally from the French (chevalier: one who rides a horse), today, chivalrous is “used to describe courteous behavior, especially that of men towards women.”

Today’s chivalry, if it exists at all, would have to be very different in action, if not in principle, from its medieval progenitor. One JDatersAnonymous.com reader said that for her, chivalrous behavior would consist of “asking for a woman’s number and calling her.” She related that she had e-mailed someone on JDate, who responded with “I’m not a computer person. You call me.” She found this e-mail “disturbing.” “Whatever happened to chivalry?” she asked. “Whatever happened to the man asking for the woman’s phone number and calling her? I find that JDate and other online sites are killing romance and chivalry.”

While I might find it personally inconvenient (or even annoying) when someone claims to “not be a computer person” in today’s technology age, I understand that not everyone prefers the same mode of communication. Some people are not “phone people,” but they get over it because they have to in order to communicate. If the profile interested her and if she felt comfortable, I advised her to be a little more forgiving. If it was so important to her that he make the first call, she should offer her number. Or she could tell him that she’s more comfortable handing out her number after a few e-mail exchanges. That reframing still indicates her interest, but also conveys that she’d like him to initiate communication.

Another reader went on a date with someone who did not pick her up and didn’t offer to buy her a beverage or anything to eat. To her, chivalry was simply “when the male picks the female up and walks her home. It means she feels cared for. It means she is offered a bite to eat (does not need to be expensive) or at least a drink.”

If chivalry is dead, it’s because of a conspiracy— with shots coming from the men in the book depository and the women on the grassy knoll and maybe some Communist sympathizers — rather than a lone gunman. We wonder how today’s more equal social and economic ladder between men and women changes the rules of courtship. Some women are uncomfortable with chivalry, while others expect it. Men never know what’s expected of them. And everyone’s confused.

Maybe chivalry is not about holding a single door open or paying a dinner check. It’s about being made to feel like someone would ride a horse to get to you, and then treat you with respect even above the normal level they’d show a stranger, transforming your relationship with that person to a different level, one that’s more special — a love for the ages and a courtship of connection.

About the author: Esther D. Kustanowitz took a class in Arthurian Romance in college and always suspected it would come in handy someday. She is a widely published writer who blogs at MyUrbankvetch, JDatersAnonymous and Jewlicious, among other places. She is also the senior editor of PresenTense Magazine. This column originally ran in the NY Jewish Week.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch
2. A Little Lesson in Chivalry
3. Paying The Price

Chivalry is frequently portrayed as a repressive social standard, harkening back to a day when men hid their feelings under an uncrackable “stiff upper lip” shell, and women were taught to please husbands, fathers and sons at the expense of their own happiness. In contrast, today the message seems to be that being happy, sincere and open means “letting it all out” by completely abandoning the emotional or social constraints of generations past.

But as author and journalist Dick Meyer recently discovered when he tried to take his son to a professional sporting event, abolishing every shred of restraint does not create a pleasant public environment. A standard of decency, dignity and courtesy — all aspects of the knightly virtue of nobility — is necessary in order to keep social gatherings from declining into absolute barbarism. Before anyone proclaims the total obsolescence of chivalry, we might well consider what the world would look like if everyone abandoned the ideals of nobility and courtesy, and simply “let it all out.”

Lamenting the lost value of a simple code of public conduct

I went to my last professional football game this month. My son and I braved frigid, remote FedEx Field to see our beloved Chicago Bears, the fallen Super Bowl champions, humiliated 24-16 by the struggling Washington Redskins. It wasn’t the depth of our despair that will keep us away from football stadiums for good but the depravity of the fans.

I suppose depravity is a strong word. But what better describes drunken adult men, egged on by other grown beer-swillers, belly-shouting the most spectacular obscenities imaginable as they stand next to a 13-year-old boy? Every play was a competition to produce a more vile insult or a different suggestion about which Bear body part might be stuffed up which orifice. When the Redskins scored their first touchdown, four young women — I’m guessing they were in high school — turned around and did a little stripper’s dance that made my son blush as I cringed. Even putting aside their ages, it was too cold to bare flesh.

Within 10 minutes of kickoff, I knew I had made a terrible mistake taking my son to the game.

The looming aggression and violence was more troubling than the foul language and drunken boorishness. Some of the men near us were enraged and barely in control of themselves. When Bears quarterback Rex Grossman went down with a knee injury, two obese drunks behind us bellowed that they hoped the [expletive] [expletive] would never walk again. They did this over and over, adding slurs and suggested tortures.

I had already pointed out to these gentlemen that there were kids around. They glared at me, furious. It was obvious to me that if I pursued it, there would be a fight or a screaming match.

My son wore a Bears jersey concealed under his layers of fleece and down. A man two rows in front of us who looked like Cpl. Klinger from M*A*S*H took it upon himself to needle my son every time something bad happened to the Bears, which happened a lot. He would turn and stare at him and wave goodbye in a threatening way. I know he was trying to be funny, ribbing us in good spirit. But when I asked him to stop, he just shook his head. The very nice man next to me, a season-ticket holder, told me that if I just waited until the second half, the guy would be too drunk to stand.

There simply was no code of conduct, no social superego, that discouraged this behavior, even around children. Worse, some people were there precisely to get drunk, angry, loud and vile. The idea that fans would have manners or courtesy in any form seems archaic and silly.

Americans have been worried for a decade about the social isolation known as “bowling alone.” But if the social bonding generated by “watching together” is like the atmosphere at the Bears-Redskins game, it’s understandable why many people prefer to watch alone.

There is nothing unique about Redskins fans in my experience. I took my son to a game at Chicago’s field a few years ago, and it may have been worse, simply because it wasn’t so cold out that day. I thought that experience might have been an anomaly, but the friends I have surveyed tell me it isn’t. When I went to a Cleveland Browns game without my son, I wasn’t as disturbed by the drunken meanness, but there was still plenty of drunken name-calling.

Professional football to a large degree is a gigantic beer-delivery mechanism. The club level of FedEx Field is set up to ingest beer. To watch football on television, you have to endure the same idiotic beer ads again and again. Judging from their content, these ads are not targeted at men but at oafs. The characters in today’s beer commercials are boy-buffoons capable of little more than watching television and pouring down the suds. Gone are the athletes, outdoorsmen and debonair smoothies.

So perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised to be surrounded by oafs at a football game. I suppose there’s a place and purpose for public aggression, drunkenness and lewdness. Certainly the Romans enjoyed it in their decline. But I’m not sure how all the nice, well-behaved American football fans put up with it. Attending a professional football game is no longer an activity for a family.

© 2008 Dick Meyer

About the author: Dick Meyer is the editorial director for digital media at NPR, and previoulsy worked as producer for The CBS News with Dan Rather. His most recent book about American culture and politics is Why We Hate Us.» This article originally appeared in the Dec. 22, 2007 edition of The Washington Post.

Related posts:

1. Girly Sportsmanship
2. Chivalry Rounds the Bases
3. The Athlete’s Code of Chivalry

Humility is one of the most overlooked, but critical values of the knightly character. Although in many cultures of history, warriors were expected to have a “high opinion” of themselves, one of the things that marks the virtues of chivalry from many of the values systems that came before it is that the knights who followed this code were expected to be humble and mild-mannered — to put others ahead of themselves instead of expecting praise and glory. Even today a truly heroic individual doesn’t get much respect if they’re perceived as egotistical or self-important — a reminder of how much influence chivalry still has on our culture.

Author Jill Rigby explores the concept of bringing humility back to today’s society in her books and her innovative Manners Of The Heart educational program. She contends that today’s system of “self-esteem education,” while well intentioned, has gone too far in teaching children that they are the center of the world – an outlook that is perhaps the antithesis of humility. In this essay, excerpted from her new book, Raising Respectful Children In A Disrespectful World,» she argues for a return to a culture that is in concert with the principles of chivalrous humility — namely, a values system that focuses on the long-term goal of self-respect through service and discipline, rather than the short-term goal of self-esteem through entitlement and unearned praise. As she says, people with self-respect put others ahead of themselves, and that humble approach is one of the core values of a knight in shining armor.

Raising Noble Children Amid a Culture of Self-Esteem

Parents today are still being told that the secret to raising healthy children is to build their self-esteem — praise ’em in the morning, praise ’em in the noontime, praise ’em when the sun goes down. We’ve been told to never deny our children anything and to stand against anyone who dares to correct our little ones — all with the goal of helping our kids feel good about themselves.

As a result of this emphasis on self-esteem, 20-somethings are returning home rather than facing the world on their own. College kids are flunking out because they don’t know how to manage their schedules. Kids are growing up without problem-solving skills because their parents think love means solving all their problems for them. Many adolescents have no respect for authority because their parents didn’t command their respect. Instead, these parents gave too much and expected too little.

In our attempt to build self-esteem in children, we have reared a generation of young people who are failing at life, haven’t a clue who they are, and are struggling to find a reason for living. These kids fall for the latest craze, healthy or unhealthy. It doesn’t matter, as long as they’re in the middle of it. They would rather die than give up their cell phones. And they feel that others have an obligation to serve them.

Roy F. Baumeister, professor of psychology at Florida State University, was a proponent of self-esteem in the early ’70s, but he has since changed his views. Thirty years later Baumeister now recommends:

I agree. Rather than seeking to build self-esteem in our children, we need to focus on building self-control and self-discipline, which will develop self-respect.

Many people use the words self-esteem and self-respect synonymously, but I believe the two are worlds apart. When we seek to help kids feel good about themselves (the goal of self-esteem), we teach them to focus on themselves and how they feel and what they want. I believe this perspective keeps children from participating in the world; it encourages them to see everything as if looking into a mirror, so that they grow up believing, “It’s all about me.”

So what’s the bottom line between self-esteem and self-respect? Self-esteem is “me centered,” while self-respect is “others centered.”

The quest for self-esteem has turned the world upside down. Shifting to the pursuit of self-respect will turn the world rightside up again. Why? Because kids with self-respect put others ahead of themselves. They feel an obligation to others and a responsibility to society. Bullies can’t rock their foundation because kids who have self-respect know who they are and what they stand for. They have a balanced view of the world. They confidence is balanced with humility; they exhibit humble confidence.

If you are parenting to build self-respect in your children, you’ll focus on who your kids are becoming rather than on how much you give to them. You’ll teach them how to serve others rather than to expect to be served. You’ll teach them to contribute to the world rather than to expect the world to give to them. You’ll teach your kids to do their best, whether that means being number one or not and to work towards goals so they can experience the satisfaction and confidence that a job well done brings.

© 2006 Jill Rigby

About the author: Jill Rigby is the author of Manners of the Heart and Raising Respectful Children in a Disrespectful World. Jill is a popular speaker and workshop leader focusing on interpersonal respect and family values in her Manners of the Heart program, which is offered to schools, business and parenting organizations. She uses music, humor and practical suggestions to help parents and educators grasp the critical importance of these life lessons.

Related posts:

1. Knights, Not Royalty
2. Courtesy And Acknowledgement
3. Chivalry and the Cowboy Code

I’m often asked for recommendations of books about chivalry and the epic adventures of King Arthur and his knights. While I enjoy talking about my favorite King Arthur books, when I saw that acclaimed librarian Nancy Pearl provided just such a list in her bibliophile’s compendium, Book Lust,» I knew I had to share her recommendations with Chivalry Today readers. (After all, when a librarian has her own action figure – complete with “amazing push-button shushing action,” — she definitely commands respect!) It’s the perfect summer reading list for chivalry fans.

Note: See all the titles mentioned in this article at the Chivalry Today Bookshop»

Summer Reading for the Round Table

Ever since Thomas Malory wrote his 14th century epic Le Morte d’Arthur,» the legend of King Arthur has been a powerful draw for readers of all ages, so it’s no surprise that writers, too, have found it to be a rich lode of inspiration and subject matter. Authors have taken a wide variety of approaches to the legend, from the traditional view of Arthur and his (Knights) of the Round Table as exemplars of medieval life and chivalric customs, to interpretations of the historical Arthur, to fantastical novels of witchcraft and white and black magic. In other words, there’s an Arthur for every age and taste.

Once you read Rosemary Sutcliff’s romantic and well-researched Sword at Sunset» (one of my very favorite novels), in which an all-too-human Arthur leads his fellow Britons in a fight to the death against the invading Saxon armies, knowing full well that a loss will mean the coming of the dark and the end of civilization, you’ll never be able to picture Arthur in any other way.

T.H. White’s quartet of Arthurian novels, collective entitled The Once and Future King,» inspired the Broadway musical Camelot. The Sword in the Stone — aimed at young readers and filled with sly humor — opens the series. It introduces the young orphan Wart, who innocently pulls the famous sword Excalibur from the stone in a churchyard and becomes the High King. In The Queen of Air and Darkness, The Ill-Made Knight, and The Candle In The Wind, the tone grows darker, as White depicts a world in which even the most chivalrous knights and powerful wizards are unable to change their fates.

The Arthur legend is also the basis for other historical series, such as Jack Whyte’s Camulod Chronicles, including The Skystone» ; The Fort at River’s Bend» ; Uther» ; and others; Sharan Newman’s Guinevere» ; The Chessboard Quee» ; and others; and Rosalind Mile’s Guenevere: Queen of the Summer Country» ; and Bernard Conrwell’s darkly realistic series of men at war during the Dark Ages, The Warlord Chronicles, including The Winter King» ; Enemy of God» ; and Excalibur» .

The Mists of Avalon» by Marion Zimmer Bradley is one of the most enduringly popular novels about King Arthur. Bradley retells the legend from the viewpoint of the major female characters: Arthur’s mother Igraine and his half-sister Morgaine, his wife Gwenhwyfer, and the Lady of the Lake, Vivian. The central conflict here is religious — between the matriarchal Druidic beliefs and the more patriarchal, newly influential Christianity.

Although Stephen R. Lawhead’s Pendragon Cycle was set in Camelot during the Middle Ages, his Avalon: The Return of King Arthur» posits a rebirth and return of Arthur in the modern world.

©2007 Nancy Pearl

See all the titles mentioned in this article at the Chivalry Today Bookshop»

About the Author: The New York Times calls Nancy Pearl “the talk of librarian circles.” Readers can’t get enough of her recommendations while bookstores and libraries offer standing room only whenever she visits. Since the release of the best-selling Book Lust,» in 2003 and the Librarian Action Figure modeled in her likeness, Nancy Pearl has become a rock star among readers and the tastemaker people turn to when deciding what to read next. In 2004, Pearl became the 50th winner of the Women’s National Book Association Award for her extraordinary contribution to the world of books.

Related posts:

1. Episode 22: Zombies, Time Travelers and King Arthur
2. Recommended Knight Reading: Books about Chivalry for the Younger Set
3. A Taxing King Arthur Parabel

Women’s rights and gender equality are often cited as causes for the supposed “death” of chivalry. Somehow, we’ve been led to believe, modern society cannot encompass the notion that women should be treated with both respectful equality and courtesy at the same time. But this young author, who writes for the Baylor University campus newspaper, has a stunningly simple idea: Maybe the notion that men and women are created equal doesn’t eliminate the obligations of chivalry — maybe it means that women should be equal to men when it comes to being helpful, compassionate and proactive in making a better world for everyone. Her experiences being confined to a wheelchair for a period of time made her see that cynical baggage about the death of chivalry is an unnecessary burden on society. Who says a woman can’t hold the door for a woman — or a man, for that matter?

The Universal Rewards of Helping Others

A car accident confined me to a wheelchair for a couple of months during 2004. I was helpless, and taking me anywhere was a burden.

I vividly remember one trip with my mom to the doctor’s office. She struggled to push me through two sets of double doors while trying to avoid running me into a wall or whacking one of my broken limbs with a door. Just inside the office, a woman sat and stared at our struggle.

Although I’m sure we looked amusing and pathetic, I wasn’t embarrassed. Instead, I was humiliated for that woman and her lack of action.

If a man had noticed our spectacle, we probably would have had a door or two opened for us. Why is chivalry only considered a male trait? And why don’t we train little girls like we do boys to look for opportunities to be chivalrous?

Instead of blaming men for abandoning chivalry, women should take on the trait. And have men really abandoned chivalry? I sit on the fence when it comes to this debate.

Women are quick to point out how little boys should be more feminine by telling them not to slug their friends in the shoulder or torture turtles, but to instead pass the time with their hands folded in their lap. But maybe it would do some good for girls and women to act chivalrously.

Conveniently, most of us women don’t think in these terms. Instead we want to get together and lament with the old “where have all the cowboys gone?” sob story. It’s always easier to blame someone else instead of taking action yourself.

You may think chivalry withered away a long time ago. But there’s still tons of “nice guys” out there. If you disagree, well, you’re sadly jaded, and maybe it’s time you get some help with that baggage. Maybe you’ll get lucky and find a man nearby to carry it …further proving my point.

This correlation of chivalry and masculinity stretches all the way back to the days of lords and ladies. Back in medieval times, a man had to work hard (a lot harder than today) for the privilege of hanging out with a young bachelorette. If a man wanted to go out with a girl (which he could hardly even opt to do, as most marriages were arranged), he had to ask her father. If the father granted permission, the young couple could see each other — under the close supervision of a chaperone. This trend evolved, but it continued in some shape or fashion right up into present-day America.

Maybe you could attribute a decrease in modern chivalry to the women’s liberation movement. Women aren’t as helpless now as they once were, so maybe this spurred a lessening in the amount of chivalry. If that’s the case, chivalry was a small price to pay for the rights modern Westernized women enjoy.

Either way, the least we girls can do to celebrate the role of women is to treat others respectfully, courteously and chivalrously. And maybe open the door for the woman pushing her daughter in a wheelchair while we’re at it.

© 2006 Anite Pere

About the author: Anita Pere is a junior journalism major from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, attending Baylor University.

Related posts:

1. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch
2. A Little Lesson in Chivalry
3. Courtesy And Acknowledgement

Honor is perhaps one of the most perplexing concepts associated with the ideals of chivalry. We expect someone of knightly character to be honorable, yet disgraceful behavior, from drive-by shootings to brutal campus hazing rituals, are often excused under the guise of alleged honor.

James Bowman has literally written the book on the history of honor. In this essay he takes an interesting look at the concept of honor as it is used (and often misused) in today’s world, and as it was understood in the culture of the 19th century as well. He is obviously skeptical about the prospect that we can (or even should) revive the standards of honor from an age of the past, but through his research he has made a crucial point with regards to chivalry and the warrior’s code: Honor should never be mistaken for ego, and the ultimate purpose of a code of honor in any context is to remind us that we should always hold ourselves to a higher standard than mere legality. That, in the end, is what defines the notion of honor.

A Civilized Remedy for Savage Customs

A culture of "honor" can bind together soldiers, students, or colleagues who must face serious challenges. A leader must ensure that the concept of honor doesn't turn into license for brutality or rule-breaking.

When he was a young cadet at West Point, just before the turn of the past century, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was the victim of a savage hazing incident. The perpetrators were court-martialed and he was called to testify at their trial. MacArthur refused to identify them, though he was himself threatened with expulsion for doing so. “Never lie, never tattle,” his mother had taught him. He stuck to that.

At about the same time, and especially in the South, colleges and universities were introducing “honor codes” whose principle was “Never lie, always tattle.” In the century or more since they came into existence, it would be fair to say that they have had a mixed record of success.

It helped, however, when students still came to college already equipped with some idea of what honor was. Honor was once the hallmark of that now exotic-seeming creature, the gentleman. Ladies had honor too, but it was different from the gentlemanly kind, and more defined by what they didn’t do than by what they did.

When I went up to Davidson College in 1966, it was still an all-male institution, and people could talk without embarrassment of the “Davidson gentleman.” I don’t think anyone could do that today. But Davidson still has an honor code.

What the Victorian designers of that and other honor codes were doing was essentially an extension of what the Victorians had done with honor itself: They had taken a primitive form of tribal discipline that had survived into the modern era and tried to update it according to Enlightenment principles.

Always in the past, honor had been more or less at odds with religion, morality, and law. The custom of dueling, for example, had survived into the 19th century in spite of the repeated condemnations of all three. In parts of the antebellum South, especially South Carolina, dueling was to college kids what football is today.

Elsewhere, however, that old-fashioned idea of honor was already undergoing its transformation.

Beginning with the American Founding Fathers, who decoupled honor from aristocracy, and such Romantic writers as Sir Walter Scott, honor went from being something tribal and pre-civilizational — which it still is today in many parts of the world — to a code of conduct that had made its peace with morality and even religion.

The idea of the Christian gentleman as it had evolved by the close of the 19th century, especially in the English-speaking world, was one of the great achievements of Western culture, but it couldn’t last. The First World War began the destruction of the gentlemanly ideal — and Vietnam completed it. Nowadays, gentlemanliness is thought of as naive and impractical at best, a mask for oppression at worst.

Looking back on that grand Victorian project, we are likely to be impressed by how much of its legacy is still around, from the Geneva Conventions to college honor codes. But, having forgotten the social context that brought both into being, we now treat them as if they were laws rather than a collective expression of trust that men — and now women — of honor can be relied upon to enforce high standards of behavior on themselves, without legal constraint.

Honor is passé in the Western world today. Some see it as too “judgmental,” too much at odds with the spirit of equality that has introduced us to honor’s ersatz and forever-unsatisfying substitute: self-esteem. This fact cannot but have a powerful effect on the coherence and the usefulness of honor codes.

Yet now that we have been forcibly reminded of honor’s existence by a challenge from a culture where it still takes its most primitive and virulent form — where women are the victims of “honor killings,” and where suicide bombers murder innocents in the name of the honor of their religion’s prophet — the honor code can serve another purpose.

We can, that is, take the optimistic view and regard it as one of the impressive ruins of a great civilization that are still lying around us and that may serve as reminders of another idea of honor, one that was invented by our great-great grandparents and that was, while it lasted, an altogether finer and more beautiful thing.

© 2006 James Bowman

About the Author: James Bowman is author of the book Honor: A History» . He is also a writer for the American Spectator, The New York Sun and The New Criterion. He also recently conducted a film study course called The American Movie Hero at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C.

Related posts:

1. New Frontiers of Chivalry
2. Traditions of the Black Knight
3. What is Chivalry?

A warrior’s code isn’t a thinly veiled license to attack others. In the 11th century, the Code of Chivalry (then a relatively new concept) established the doctrine of a “just war,” that is, the idea that a nation only puts its warriors on a course to war for a cause that is right and morally justifiable — to defend the helpless or stop persecution, for example. (But not, in contrast, to “defend its honor” or win loot.)

Here’s an essay that brings that notion down to the individual level — an examination of the sticky question: If following the Code of Chivalry means I can’t throw the first punch, does that mean I’m supposed to let myself get hit before I can put up a fight? Or, as Pellinore asks in Camelot: “I say, Arthur! Do you mean to say a chap has to wait till he’s killed before he can attack?”

It’s an age-old and universal quandary for followers of the warrior way. Martial arts expert Lawrence A. Kane, author of The Way of Kata,» shows us that Oriental martial arts emphasize the defensive responsibility of a master warrior. (Interestingly, Western martial arts emphasize this as well with sword-fighting techniques like the Absetzen, which combines a block and thrust as a single movement, and is hailed as the highest form of martial skill.) It’s a reminder that, despite mastery of combative techniques, a chivalrous warrior never shows aggression or escaltes a hostile situation, no matter what martial tradition he or she follows.

A gentle but strong philosophy of chivalry in martial art

Karate is first and foremost a defensive art. This essential tradition is best described by Gichin Funakosi’s famous saying, “There is no first strike in karate.” While this statement is absolutely true, it is also commonly misunderstood.

To be clear, karateka (practitioners of karate), like most martial artists, are taught to avoid seeking conflict. This convention helps practitioners of potentially lethal arts behave in a manner appropriate to interaction within polite society, something I think we’d all agree is a positive thing indeed.

What many don’t realize is that defensive techniques, when executed properly, are designed to be just as “fight stopping” as offensive ones. Here is where the confusion lies.

The ancient masters understood that if they were to only block an adversary’s attack he would continue to strike until either they did something more effective to stop him, or they were beaten to a bloody pulp. Consequently, every martial application, including defensive ones, were designed in such a manner that they could be used to end a confrontation as quickly as possible.

To many, “no first strike” implies waiting for an adversary to attack, then trying to successfully counter when you are already injured or out of position. In order to decipher the true intent of Funakoshi’s statement, we must understand three Japanese terms: 1) go no sen, 2) sen no sen, and 3) sen-sen no sen.

Go no sen means “late initiative,” blocking and riposting after an enemy has already attacked. It is a great learning method because it breaks advanced techniques down into small movements, but it is not practical on the street.

Sen no sen means “simultaneous initiative,” intercepting the adversary’s blow just after it begins. This is an intermediate form of karate, using quickness and power to simultaneously attack and defend, cutting off the opponent’s strike before it makes contact.

Sen-sen no sen means “preemptive initiative,” cutting off a blow before it even starts. Practitioners sense that an attack will be forthcoming and then cut it short before the aggressor has a chance to transform the mental desire to attack into physical movement.

Sen-sen no sen, cutting off an attack before it is fully in play, looks an awful lot like a first strike, yet it is still a defensive movement. This is what Funakoshi really meant: Striking to cut off an impending attack is okay, while instigating unwarranted violence is not. If you can walk away from a confrontation you absolutely should do so. Most rational people would agree that picking fights is simply a bad idea. In fact, the more dangerous you really are, the less you should feel a need to prove it.

To clarify further Funakoshi wrote:

Notice that he wrote, “at that time attack him” as opposed to, “after he strikes launch your counterattack.” Sen-sen no sen is fully consistent with this approach.

Clearly martial artists should only engage in physical violence if there is no other choice. In the 6th century B.C. Sun Tzu wrote:

There are many peaceful ways to settle a disagreement, any one of which is preferable to a physical confrontation (but) that does not mean that you must stand around waiting to get hit before you can act in your own defense.

© 2007 Lawrence A. Kane

About the Author: Lawrence A. Kane has studied and taught a wide variety of martial arts over the last 30 years, including karate, kobudo and medieval weapons forms. He is the author of Martial Arts Instruction (2004) and The Way of Kata,» (2005).

Related posts:

1. Chivalry, Aristotle, CS Lewis & Martial Arts
2. Chivalry and the Warrior Lifestyle
3. Violent Arts & Gentle Souls

The image of the warrior as a champion or protector is central to the ideal of chivalry. Yet when that ideal is taken to an extreme, chivalry may become a license to make someone being defended feel helpless.

This is the “dark side” of chivalry that educator Jackson Katz works to eliminate in his lectures to college athletes and military personnel. As he points out in his book, The Macho Paradox,» there is a thin, tenuous line between coming to the defense of someone in need, and treating that person like property. The noble cause of chivalry can be, and too often still is used as an excuse for making girls and women feel out of control of their own destinies. Like any good thing, chivalry can be taken to an unhealthy extreme.

Fortunately, as Katz explains, there is a solution. Those who value chivalry should always make sure that their efforts to “protect those in need” go beyond the confines of gender or family loyalty; chivalry should be extended to everyone. Additionally, in order to avoid making someone feel “disempowered,” everyone should be given the chance to become a protector or a champion according to their means: Those who may not be able to act as a “champion” on a physical level should be respected for the intellectual or emotional skills they possess, which can also be used to help those in need.

When The Champion Becomes the Abuser

For men who are committed to working against gender violence, the question about when and if it is okay to “protect” women from other men is the source of ongoing introspection. If a man — because he is stronger, knows better how to use a weapon or is more accustomed to physical confrontation — is in a position to protect a woman from a violent man, then shouldn’t he? In principle, it is not just about protecting a woman as a woman. It is about the moral imperative of protecting a vulnerable person from harm.

But there is more to it. In theory, men should be confronting other men about their sexist attitudes and behaviors toward women. For years, feminists have urged men of conscience to do just that. The reasoning is straightforward. If you are a member of a dominant group, you have a responsibility to challenge other members of your group who are acting in oppressive ways. If you do not, then your silence it tantamount to complicity in their abusive behavior.

One pitfall in the effort to make the mistreatment of women a personal issue for men is the risk that it will tap into some men’s traditional chivalry without challenging their underlying sexism. It is one thing to talk about the problem of men’s violence against women in personal terms, couching it in words that acknowledge a man’s concern for his mother, daughter, wife or lover. The women and girls who are victimized are not nameless, faceless statistics; they are loved ones. But when the focus remains exclusively on the personal, it may only encourage family loyalty, without truly challenging men to confront the larger problem of sexual inequality and male dominance.

Yet another pitfall in this thinking is that women’s right to control their own destiny gets lost in the debate about how men should behave. As victim advocates point out, one of the most painful effects of being battered or sexually assaulted is the experience of a loss of control over one’s body. So if a man steps in to defent or avenge the victim and he has not checked in with her about what she needs, no matter how well-intentioned he might be, he is also depriving her of the right to take back control of her own life.

What lurks just beneath the surface of the debate about chivalry is the question of men’s ownership of women and the historical reality that for centuries, men have controlled women through force. This force has come in many guises — both at the institutional level, by the church or the state, and at the individual level, by physical violence or sexual coercion. So the question is ever-present: What if a man’s impulse to intervene for women derives not from caring and altruism, or a sense of fairness and equality, but from a deeply held belief that women are, in a certain sense, men’s possessions? What if he is coming from a place where an attack on “our women” is functionally equivalent to an attack on him, or his honor?

This is the dark side of chivalry. Under the guise of “protecting” or “defending” women, it prioritizes men’s needs. Besides, if women are always dependent on men to protect them, they will never achieve genuine equality with men, which puts us right back where we started.

© 2007 Jackson Katz

Read Jackson Katz’s 10 Things Men Can Do To Prevent Gender Violence
 
About the Author: Jackson Katz, Ed.M., is one of America’s leading anti-sexist male activists. An educator, author and filmmaker, he is internationally recognized for his groundbreaking work in the field of gender violence prevention education with men and boys, particularly in the sports culture and the military. He is the co-founder of the Mentors In Violence Prevention program, the leading gender violence prevention initiative in professional and college athletics. This article is excerpted from his new book, The Macho Paradox.»

Related posts:

1. Chivalry: The B.S. Debate – Part 2
2. Post On Chivalry
3. Paying The Price

The words of medieval authors can have amazing relevance in today’s world. That shouldn’t be surprising. Medieval knights had to make a living, just like people today do, and those medieval knights were involved in sports, management, politics and law just as much as anyone in the 21st century is. Maybe that’s why author Kate Jones found a parallel between the symbolism of the surcote (the colorful garment worn over a knight’s armor) and the values of social justice in today’s world. We all prefer to avoid conflict, but the surcote is a reminder that a knight doesn’t hide when a difficult job needs to be done. She was kind enough to share her thoughts with us in this essay.

A Knight Never Goes Out Without a Coat of Chivalry

A coat is given to a knight in significance of the great hardships that a knight must suffer to honor chivalry, for likewise as the coat is above the other garments of iron, and is in the rain and receives the strokes before the hauberk and other armours, right so is a knight chosen to sustain greater travaille than a lesser man. And all the men who are under his nobility, and in his guard ought to be when they have need to have recourse to him. And the knight ought to defend them after his power. And the knights ought rather to be taken, hurt or dead, than this happen to the men under their guard. Then as it is right and great chivalry, therefore the princes and barons in such great travaille to keep their lands and people.

 

 
This is part of a longer treatise on knighthood and chivalry, written in the last years of the 13th century by Ramon Lull,» a knight who later underwent a series of visions and became a lay Franciscan. In it he details the various parts of a knight’s equipage and what each part stands for; the entry on the surcote was the one which appealed to me.

The duties of a knight included the protection of those weaker than him as well as the duty to serve his master by martial means. Lull as well as Geoffroi de Charny» (another chivalric author, writing in the mid 1300s) were very clear that this would at times involve personal discomfort and indeed danger; Charny was emphatic on his opinions of knights who slept late in soft beds, ate rich food, and indulged in other such unnecessary comforts. Contrariwise he was fulsome in his praise of those who were willing to undergo physical discomfort:

Many of the accoutrements of a knight — the sword, signifying justice; the hauberk, signifying strength against vices; the spurs, signifying diligence and speed — carry over well into our modern lives. Justice is still justice, though it’s carried out differently; diligence is as important in the most mundane of modern jobs as it was for the knight in the height of the Middle Ages. But the surcoat? What of that?

There are indeed times still when it’s necessary to go through some physical discomfort, indeed danger, to do the thing that’s right. The soldiers on the front lines in Iraq; police officers and firefighters everywhere. But for most of us, the necessity — the opportunity — to put ourselves in danger for someone else’s sake come rarely enough.

Perhaps, then, what’s needed is not so much the willingness to endure physical as emotional discomfort — the willingness to risk mockery and disdain to stand up for the unpopular person, the unpopular opinion, the unpopular stand: as long as that stand is the one that’s right. The courage to go to your manager at work to confirm someone else’s testimonial that she was sexually harassed; the nerve to go to the teacher, or a counselor, to tell them what you know about the bomb threat that emptied school out last week. The audacity to stand up to someone making bigoted comments and tell them that they’re wrong, even though you know perfectly well that everyone else they’re talking to agrees with them and you’ll just get laughed at, or worse.

Or worse was the fate Martin Luther King, Jr. faced in his stand against injustice. Even before his April 4, 1968 assassination, he faced arrest and death threats, violence directed against his marches, and at one point his house was bombed. But he kept up in his strategy of nonviolence and continued to march despite the death threats.

Nonviolent civil disobedience was the strategy embraced by Mohandan Gandhi as well, not only in his well-known quest to free India from British domination but also in his involvement in the civil rights movement in South Africa. His principles inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as Steven Biko and Aung San Suu Kyi. And he, too, was assassinated, on January 30, 1948.

We don’t all have to aspire to such great heights. Just doing the little things — extending the hand of friendship to someone who’s different or standing up next to them when they’re facing injustice — makes a difference.

I have a hard time with this; it’s a thing I’m working on. Plain and simple, I’m afraid — of getting laughed at, or worse. I can sit down and think about it, and know that I’m pretty unlikely to get beat up; and that if I do get laughed at, well, that’s their problem, not mine, and I can survive a little laughter. It’s still tough. I don’t always have the nerve to speak up. But sometimes I reach out and pull my surcote closer around me, and then I can speak what’s on my mind.

And when I do? I’ve heard people say “yeah, she’s right” and “yeah, that’s a nasty thing to say” and “maybe this isn’t the kind of conversation to be having here.” And then I’ve accomplished two things — I’ve stopped someone saying bigoted things, and I’ve done a bit to convince myself that I can.

Charny spends quite a bit of time after the above quote going on about those who, through overly pampering their bodies, come to fear possible physical harm a little too much.

I suspect that in the same way the overly-strong avoidance of conflict will make one fear any conflict at all, even when it’s the best thing to do. I know I’ve had that problem, and it’s been a lot of work getting to the point where I can say anything.

But I put on that surcote; I pull it close around me to protect me from those who’d do me harm. And to remind me that sometimes it won’t protect me, and it’s my duty to face those hardships anyway, in order to honor chivalry and do the right thing.

© 2007 Kate Jones


Buy the books mentioned in this article at our Bookshop»

About the Author: Kate Jones is a writer who enjoys topics of chivalry and morality. Her blog is called Seeking Chivalry.

Related posts:

1. Re-Knighting Chaucer’s Knight
2. Elementary Justice
3. Knights and Fireflys

Okay, so love, compassion and chivalry can transform an athlete into a “nice guy,” but we all know where nice guys finish, right? Despite the ultra-agressive rhetoric often used to sell the image of the athlete-warrior, Joe Ehrmann shows us that the vaunted quality of “toughness” may actually be an impediment to success — both in sports and in life. He also reminds us that reputation (an important part of the knightly code) extends far beyond the playing field.

Putting Chivalry Into Play

How is all of this taught within the context of football?

From the first day of practice through the last day of the season, Ehrmann and his best friend, Head Coach Biff Poggi, bombard their players with stories and lessons about being a man built for others.

They stress that Gilman football is all about living in a community. It is about fostering relationships. It is about learning the importance of serving others. While coaches elsewhere scream endlessly about being tough, Ehrmann and Poggi teach concepts such as empathy, inclusion and integrity. They emphasize Ehrmann’s code of conduct for manhood: accepting responsibility, leading courageously, enacting justice on behalf of others.

“I was blown away at first,” says Sean Price, who joined the varsity as a freshman and is now a junior. “All the stuff about love and relationships — I didn’t really understand why it was part of football. After a while, though, getting to know some of the older guys on the team, it was the first time I’ve ever been around friends who really cared about me.”

Helping Others

Four hours before each game, the Gilman players file into a meeting room for bagels, orange juice and Building Men for Others 101. Ehrmann and Poggi tell their players they expect greatness out of them. But the only way they will measure greatness is by the impact the boys make on other people’s lives.

Ultimately, the boys are told, they will make the greatest impact on the world — will bring the most love and grace and healing to people — by constantly basing their actions and thoughts on one simple question: What can I do for you?

That explains the rule that no Gilman football player should ever let another student — football player or not — sit by himself in the school lunchroom. “How do you think that boy feels if he’s eating all alone?” Ehrmann asks his players. “Go get him and bring him over to your table.”

There are other rules that many coaches would consider ludicrous. No boy is cut from the Gilman team based on athletic ability. Every senior plays — and not only late in lopsided games. Coaches must always teach by building up instead of tearing down. As Ehrmann puts it in a staff notebook: “Let us be mindful never to shame a boy but to correct him in an uplifting and loving way.”

Whenever Ehrmann speaks publicly about Building Men for Others — usually at a coaching clinic, a men’s workshop or a forum for parents — someone inevitably asks about winning and losing: “All this touchy-feely stuff sounds great, but kids still want to win, right?”

“Well, we’ve had pretty good success,” Ehrmann says. “But winning is only a byproduct of everything else we do — and it’s certainly not the way we evaluate ourselves.”

Win for Life

Unless pressed for specifics, Ehrmann does not even mention that Gilman finished three of the last six seasons undefeated and No. 1 in Baltimore. In 2002, the Greyhounds ranked No. 1 in Maryland and climbed to No. 14 in the national rankings.

Much more important to Ehrmann is the way that his team ends each season when nobody else is watching. Before the last game, each senior stands before his teammates and coaches to read an essay titled, “How I Want To Be Remembered When I Die.”

Here is something linebacker David Caperna — reading from his own “obituary” — said last year: “David was a man who fought for justice and accepted the consequences of his actions. He was not a man who would allow poverty, abuse, racism or any sort of oppression to take place in his presence. David carried with him the knowledge and pride of being a man built for others.”

The most important coach in America sat back and smiled. Win or lose on the field of play, Joe Ehrmann had already scored the kind of victory that would last a lifetime.

To Be A Better Man:

• Recognize the “three lies of false masculinity.” Athletic ability, sexual conquest and economic success are not the best measurements of manhood.
• Allow yourself to love and be loved. Build and value relationships.
• Accept responsibility, lead courageously and enact justice on behalf of others. Practice the concepts of empathy, inclusion and integrity.
• Learn the importance of serving others. Base your thoughts and actions on “What can I do for you?”
• Develop a cause beyond yourself. Try to leave the world a better place because you were here.

© 2007 Jeffrey Marx and Parade Magazine

About the author: Pulitzer Prize-winner Jeffrey Marx is the author of Season of Life: A Football Star, A Boy, A Journey to Manhood, a book about Joe Ehrmann, published by Simon & Schuster in 2004.

Joe Ehrmann is the founder of Building Men & Women for Others. He is an inspirational and dynamic speaker and seminar leader, who works with organizations and associations to promote growth, teamwork, effectiveness and individual responsibility. As an educator, motivator, professional speaker and coach for over 25 years, Joe is a champion of causes, change and compassion. Whether through keynotes, workshops or seminars, Joe conveys his unique heartfelt messages with a passionate delivery that inspires introspection and action.

Related posts:

1. Knights of the Gridiron: Part 1
2. The Athlete’s Code of Chivalry
3. The Road to Abu Ghraib

We think of knights as warriors and rulers, but we don’t often think of the knight as an athlete. Yet knights had their own type of sport called a tournament — not the stylized jousting matches we see in the movies, but a rough-and-tumble game that was essentially football on horseback with each player carrying a sword. The games were played over acres of land covered with trees, rivers and hills, which meant the temptation to cheat must have been almost unbearable. Going out-of-bounds or bringing extra players onto the field (or maybe even sneaking a real weapon into the game instead of an approved “rebated” safety weapon) would have been easily accomplished. We may think of jousting as an honorable and noble sport, but chivalry was often eclipsed by the lure of financial reward and personal renown. Chronicles of medieval tournaments are rife with descriptions of unsavory, brutal, scandalous behavior in the pursuit of “the prize.”

Modern athletes struggle with the same issues, and perhaps no sport is quite as subject to the lure of unprincipled behavior as professional football. While there usually seems to be a fundamental divide between the “athletic integrity” and “victory is its own reward” philosophical camps, former NFL star Joe Ehrmann is teaching players, coaches and administrators alike that you don’t have to give up one to get the other. Ehrmann’s approach to athletic excellence incorporates trust, humility, compassion and a keen awareness of the responsibilities that accompany success — athletic ideals that can be traced back to the Code of Chivalry. Had Ehrmann lived a few centuries ago, he surely would have been seen as a beacon of honor and chivalry in sports; athletes today are lucky to have such a dynamic example of the knightly virtues to follow.

Chivalry, Athletics and False Masculinity

Young faces usually filled with warmth and wonder are now taut with anticipation and purpose. Eyes are lasers. Hearts are pounding. This is nothing unusual for the final minutes before a high school football game. But a coach and his players are about to share an exchange that is downright foreign to the tough-guy culture of football.

The coach, Joe Ehrmann (pictured at right), is a former NFL star, now 55 and hobbled, with white hair and gold-rimmed glasses. Still, he is a mountain of a man. Standing before the Greyhounds of Gilman School in Baltimore, Ehrmann does not need a whistle.

“What is our job as coaches?” Ehrmann asks.

“To love us!” the Gilman boys yell back in unison.

“What is your job?” Ehrmann shouts back.

“To love each other!” the boys respond.

The words are spoken with the commitment of an oath, the enthusiasm of a pep rally.

This is football?

It is with Ehrmann. It is when the whole purpose of being here is to totally redefine what it means to be a man.

This is lofty work for a volunteer coach on a high school football field. It is work that makes Ehrmann the most important coach in America.

In his eighth season at Gilman, Ehrmann’s résumé is anything but ordinary for a defensive coordinator. After 13 years in professional football, most of them as a defensive lineman for the Baltimore Colts, he retired in 1985 and began tackling much more significant challenges. As an inner-city minister and founder of a community center known as The Door, Ehrmann worked the hard streets of East Baltimore. He also co-founded a Ronald McDonald House for sick children and launched a racial-reconciliation project called Mission Baltimore. Now he’s a pastor at the 4000-member Grace Fellowship Church and president of a national organization that supports abused children.

“He’s a lot of things to a lot of people,” says Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. “He’s really an opinion leader. And what I love about Joe — it’s not just the messages. It’s the messenger. He’s a very unique man. Gentle. Principled. Committed. And effective.”

The Challenge for Men

Aside from the X’s and O’s of football, everything Ehrmann teaches at Gilman stems from his belief that our society does a horrible job of teaching boys how to be men and that virtually every problem we face can somehow be traced back to this failure. That is why he developed a program called Building Men for Others, which has become the signature philosophy of Gilman football.

The first step is to tear down what Ehrmann says are the standard criteria — athletic ability, sexual conquest and economic success — that are constantly held up in our culture as measurements of manhood.

“Those are the three lies that make up what I call ‘false masculinity,’” Ehrmann says. “The problem is that it sets men up for tremendous failures in our lives. Because it gives us this concept that what we need to do as men is compare what we have and compete with others for what they have.

“As a young boy, I’m going to compare my athletic ability to yours and compete for whatever attention that brings. When I get older, I’m going to compare my girlfriend to yours and compete for whatever status I can acquire by being with the prettiest or the coolest or the best girl I can get. Ultimately, as adults, we compare bank accounts and job titles, houses and cars, and we compete for the amount of security and power that those represent.”

We compare, we compete. That’s all we ever do. It leaves most men feeling isolated and alone. And it destroys any concept of community.”

The Solution

Ehrmann offers a simple but powerful solution. His own definition of what it means to be a man — he calls it “strategic masculinity” — is based on only two things: relationships and having a cause beyond yourself.

“Masculinity, first and foremost, ought to be defined in terms of relationships,” Ehrmann says. “It ought to be taught in terms of the capacity to love and to be loved. It comes down to this: What kind of father are you? What kind of husband are you? What kind of coach or teammate are you? What kind of son are you? What kind of friend are you? Success comes in terms of relationships.

“And then all of us ought to have some kind of cause, some kind of purpose in our lives that’s bigger than our own individual hopes, dreams, wants and desires. At the end of our life, we ought to be able to look back over it from our deathbed and know that somehow the world is a better place because we lived, we loved, we were other-centered, other-focused.”

© 2007 Jeffrey Marx and Parade Magazine

About the author: Pulitzer Prize-winner Jeffrey Marx is the author of Season of Life: A Football Star, A Boy, A Journey to Manhood,» a book about Joe Ehrmann, published by Simon & Schuster in 2004.

Joe Ehrmann is the founder of Building Men & Women for Others. He is an inspirational and dynamic speaker and seminar leader, who works with organizations and associations to promote growth, teamwork, effectiveness and individual responsibility. As an educator, motivator, professional speaker and coach for over 25 years, Joe is a champion of causes, change and compassion. Whether through keynotes, workshops or seminars, Joe conveys his unique heartfelt messages with a passionate delivery that inspires introspection and action.

Related posts:

1. Knights of the Gridiron: Part 2
2. The Athlete’s Code of Chivalry
3. Knights, Not Royalty

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. A Knight’s Journey

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. A Little Lesson in Chivalry
2. Episode 30: Reclaiming The Sword and The Code of Chivalry
3. Chivalry Today: It Needs A Woman’s Touch

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

In the second part of her article, Sheena Becker points out that chivalry isn’t as “dead” as we are sometimes led to believe. The image of the gentle hero, who puts words ahead of violence and never strikes in anger or vengeance, still inspires us. She also reminds us that the best way to keep chivalry alive is to simply live by the code.

How Can Chivalry Be Brought Back To Life?

Clearly the new movements to bring chivalric values back into society prove that this practice is not entirely dead. Even the fact that it is such a debated topic proves the hope of this ideal is not entirely lost or forgotten; why would something truly dead be debated?

In Brad Miner’s book The Compleat Gentleman: A Modern Man’s Guide to Chivalry,» he says, “More than two centuries later, the spirit of chivalry has not been entirely eradicated from the human heart, even in our pacifist, feminist, postmodern age.” One way in which chivalry is by no means dead is in the popular fantasy genre of books and games. The modern-day classic trilogy, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien is a prime example of how our literature popularizes knightly conduct in its heroes. Tolkien had a great respect for the tradition of chivalry and his books convey this opinion so beautifully that The Lord of the Rings has inspired a majority of the fantasy books on the shelves today. This legacy of books has preserved chivalry in its glory so that it continues to live on in the imaginations of all who read it.

When we look at the origins of the code of chivalry, we see most prominently the knights who swore an oath to live by these values. The reasoning behind it was so that they could use their power and authority over common folk wisely and in a just manner. The code of chivalry tells us that “When you are given greater power or authority you should treat that with a greater respect and integrity… [Thus,] We see the code of chivalry alive and well most strongly in the world today in those people who take their roles in society and their level of authority seriously and treat their roles respectfully and with integrity.”

Are We In A New Age Of Chivalry?

The spark of chivalry is still there in people when it could have died long ago. Could this conceivably be because it is needed again? Chivalry was created during the Middle Ages to counter and overcome the attitudes of cruelty, ignorance, and injustice that were unfortunately the standard in that age.

Perhaps history is repeating itself and a dose of courtesy and respect is needed from everyone; with war, crime, and political issues left and right, the knightly virtues of solving things with words before violence, and always with honor, is appealing to many people. In order for chivalry to be encouraged in our society first the stereotypes must be corrected. Trying to support an idea viewed by many to be demeaning to women would never make an impression. We have to show that chivalry is an act of mutual admiration and respect rather than condescending.

To prove this, women must take an active and equal part in displaying knightly virtues, courtly love, and honor while men must take on the mantle of their knightly forefathers, and by example, protest the stereotypes that chivalrous values are womanly. But how can we encourage this good nature in others? Farrell says simply, “You can tell all the stories you want, you can preach and encourage and threaten and cajole, but the best way to pass on our values and ethics is simply to live the life we want to encourage in others. Nothing will undermine the value of chivalry more greatly than somebody who says to live by the code of chivalry and doesn’t themselves.”

When we encourage chivalry we will not do any harm to our society as long as it is properly understood. In reality, I believe it could do wonders for our morals and behavior which have, as a whole, been degrading as time has worn on. Chivalry is not dead despite accusations of being sexist and womanly, it has been falsely blamed and yet has risen above its accusers as the ideal standard for respectful behavior. Chivalry is needed in our society, now more than ever, and we should certainly encourage this quality in all persons.

© 2006 Sheena Becker

Related posts:

1. The Chivalry Debate: Part 1
2. Hubris and Humility: Parenting with Chivalry
3. Introduction to Chivalry Today

Chivalry is dead! … Or maybe it isn’t. It depends on who you talk to. For some, the actions of courtesy and manners we often associate with chivalry are considered outdated relics of an age when men dominated Western society. For others, chivalrous courtesies are a welcome antidote to the rudeness and intolerance that abounds in the world today. The divide between these two approaches to the image of chivalrous “gentlemanly manners” provides grounds for a lively debate as to whether chivalry should be allowed to fade away, or should be revived in our younger generation.

The question of chivalry’s demise (or not) intrigued high school senior Sheena Becker enough that she decided to write a research paper on the topic. Her coverage of the questions regarding the “old code” reveals that there is, in fact, a great deal of value to be found in restoring and preserving the ideals of chivalry in the modern world.

Should the “old code” be allowed to rest in peace?

Have you ever seen a man hold a door open for his lady companion? You might think this shows good manners, but to others this act of chivalry could be considered offensive. Chivalry is a term commonly attributed to knights of the Middle Ages and paralleled with legends of King Arthur and fairy tales.

In truth, chivalry is an actual written code that was indeed a standard for knights concerning knightly virtues, courtly love, and honor. Now when most people think of the practice of chivalry the aspect of courtly love stands most prominent. A man who is considered chivalrous is one who holds doors open for a lady or offers his jacket; this stereotype has earned the practice a sexist label.

But how true is this stereotype? How can modern women possibly have a place in a code created in a mostly male-ruled era? This is only one aspect of a question that has inspired many to debate; Is chivalry truly dead? If so, can it be revived or is this hope of idealism lost to the pages of history?

Is Chivalry Sexist?

The stereotype of chivalry today implies that women are the weaker sex and need special treatment. A good part of chivalrous men tend to believe that women are less competent than men and thus need consideration and extra care. It is human nature to protect and provide for, in this case, the more “delicate” sex who some view as incapable of taking care of themselves. This is the stereotypical reasoning for chivalrous acts and deeds. However, people who are against the stereotype try to explain the “true meaning” behind the practice. Scott Farrell, director of the Chivalry Today educational program, says, “Chivalry is not an act of courtesy or deference or the result of a condescending attitude; chivalry is respect and mutual admiration which such an act conveys.”

People today will often describe the chivalry of old as just “woman-worship.” Obviously this is referring the aspect of courtly love, but was courtly love in those times extreme enough to be named “woman-worship”? These opinions most likely stem from a misunderstanding of chivalry, or a misinterpretation. Robert Briffault, in his book The Troubadours says: “By modeling the forms of love on those of knightly service and homage and by giving it a special ritual and language … they brought about a change so unprecedented that its effects have been incalculable. It was a genuine act of moral creation, the most original in the Middle Ages, a kind of love entirely detached from all idea of generation and the reproduction of species. Woman became a religion.”

This quote could easily be seen as being in favor of the “woman-worship” theory. Yet, when looked at in the context of the time this can shows us how, as Farrell says, “In the 12th and 13th century this notion of chivalry and courtly love brought about an understanding that was fairly revolutionary, which was the concept that people could fall in love and choose their own mates, their own life partner, of their own volition. Previously that had been done by family arrangement… Courtly love [had] brought around this new idea that men and women could be responsible for their own destiny.”

Clearly this brings forth the truth of this quote in that chivalry was not at all “woman-worship,” but instead a radical new idea for both sexes. Controlling one’s destiny was something that before only the church could have claimed control over, making this new idea an extreme one for the era.

Do Women Have A Role in the Code of Chivalry?

In our modern world men and women share equality for the most part, this is very different from the feudal structure of the middle ages in Europe where women had much less influence. What role did women play back then, and can they participate in chivalry alongside men today?

Initially women were one of the causes for the knightly order and in turn the code of chivalry. After the Roman Empire crumbled young men roamed the countryside in search of a fight and posed a considerable threat to women. When the order of knights was established it was more advantageous for these young men to adopt the code of knightly virtues; as new knights they helped bring to an end the disorder they once caused. Once the code was in use, women were the reason for the men to conform to the code, after all, why would most men be chivalrous if not for someone’s approval or a reward? The women were the source of approval and bestowed affection as the desired award.

In her article Women and Chivalry: Damsels in Distress No Longer!, April Apperson-Farrell says, “Basically, women were the intellectual custodians of the knightly virtues, and they were responsible for maintaining and promoting the code of chivalry.” But today a woman can be an active participant rather than just a referee. New movements are happening and people are trying to bring chivalrous values back into our lives. No longer are the oaths sworn to a liege lord or king, but as a matter of pride these rules are held as a standard to better one’s self. Women are completely capable of following the codes concerning knightly virtues, honor, and loyalty to God and country; as for the courtly love, they can show the same courtesy to men in their own way. The root is respect, admiration, gratitude, and a sense of generosity, as long as the act shows these qualities, it is chivalry. To say a woman cannot be chivalrous is to fall prey to the sexist stereotypes, and convey the implication that women are weaker than men and unable to hold themselves to a higher standard as is a male.

From another view, it can be said that women already participate in the code to a certain degree. During the 1800’s “politeness became ‘feminized’ and ‘domesticated,’ … The ‘abandonment of self to please others’ was now considered ‘womanish,’ and ‘pleasing’ was no longer a principal attribute of the gentleman,” according to Michele Cohen in the article “‘Manners’ Make the Man: Politeness, Chivalry and the Construction of Masculinity: 1750-1830.” In this light, already some of the stereotypical characteristics of women actually go back to the code of chivalry. This also shows us an example of how men have fallen away from these specific values, for when the trait became labeled as womanly, men naturally shied away from it to preserve their reputation of masculinity.

© 2006 Sheena Becker

Related posts:

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

When we talk about sports, we tend to think of Greek athletes rather than knights in shining armor. We often forget that many knights spent their time, at least in part, on the “tournament circuit,” participating professionally in the martial sports of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Too often we think of the Age of Chivalry as sort of an “athletic vacuum,” where spiritual fitness eclipsed physical fitness. We forget that our approach to sport as a demonstration of character can be traced back to the days of knights in armor, where the jousting tournament became a metaphor for the tribulations of the spiritual quest. When we look to athletes as role models today, we’re holding them to a standard of nobility rooted in the Middle Ages. In this essay, Professor Broekhoff delves into the origins of this long-standing relationship between chivalry and sports.

Learning the physical side of the knightly code

Public education, if one can speak of such education in the Middle Ages, was a function of the Church. In the monasteries and cathedral schools, the curriculum consisted of the septum artes liberales (seven liberal arts), which were divided into the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. In this curriculum there was no place for physical education, although the following lines from a “students rule book” give evidence of some concern of physical well-being of the students:

In its attempt to shape the nobility according to the ideals of the Church, the clergy emphasized the importance of the artes liberales in the education of the young pages and squires. Such efforts are reflected in the Miroires aux Princes (Mirrors for Princes), in which famous clergyman presented an ideal education for the prince as a model for all noblemen. In his treatise De Eruditione Filiorum Nobilium, for example, Vincent de Beauvais stresses humility, discipline and obedience as desirable characteristics of the young nobleman, but he also points out the human movement reveals the style of the body.

If ideally the young nobleman should be well versed in the artes liberales, the practical situation left much to be desired. From all evidence, the illiteracy among the medieval aristocracy was widespread. It is said, for example, that the illustrious Bertrand de Gucsclin, constable of France during the Hundred Years War (c. 1337-1429), hardly knew how to write his own name. The long and arduous training to prepare the knight for his physical duties was obviously not conducive to intellectual pursuits. Eustache Deschamps, the 14th century poet and chronicler, bewailed the fact that in his search for physical prowess the knight does everything for his body but nothing for his soul. Even during the late Middle Ages many amorous knights needed a clerk to record their poetry.

The education of the young knight was in reality for the most part physical education. Petrus Alfonsus (1062-1140) was probably the first to define the aristocratic curriculum by introducing the septum probitates as the knightly equivalent of the septum artes liberales¹. These probitates or knightly arts which formed a compendium of the noblemen’s education are admirably described in Johannes Rothe’s (1936) Der Ritterspiegel (Knight’s Mirror), near the beginning of the 15th century. (The poem describes riding, swimming, shooting, climbing and dancing as well as these, which apply more directly to our image of chivalry):

It is not difficult to see in this program of knightly education the reflection of the feudal ideals of chivalry in which physical prowess played a major role. From a practical point of view, the nobleman’s life depended on his physical skills and endurance. As Jusserand² remarks, dressing in a harness (armor) in these days was a physical exercise in itself. The reports of the chroniclers leave little doubt that the medieval knights were indeed in excellent physical condition. According to his biographer, Bousciacaut, famous chevalier and Maréchal of France, could in his youth turn a summersault in full armor, except for his helmet, and scale the inside a ladder equipped in harness by pulling himself up by the arms³.

The education of the knight, however, went far beyond the immediate objectives of the development of scale and physical fitness. The knightly art provided, above all, an opportunity for the development of knightly character and the traits that were admired in the true nobleman. In this respect, the educational setting was of utmost importance. Until his seventh year, a son of the nobility remained home under the care of his mother. After this, he was often sent away from home to start his knightly education at the court of a powerful baron or sometimes of even the king. For seven years he served his lord as a page, and during this time he was initiated in the knightly arts and customs. At 14 years of age, the young noble was promoted to the more prestigious position of squire. As such, he took care of his knight’s horse and served as a shield bearer in battle. Some of the sons of the poorer nobility remained as squires for their entire lives, because they lacked the money to equip themselves properly. Ideally, however, the squire was dubbed a knight at 21 years of age, after another seven-year period of service⁴.

The division of the time of education into seven-year periods, the seven liberal arts and knightly arts, form an expression of the medieval tendency to regulate everything according to certain ideals. This spirit of casuistry, in which everything is isolated and referred to an ideal solution, was highly developed in the Middle Ages. All things had their proper places, and all forms of behavior were governed by definite rules. As Huizinga indicates, this strict casuistry and the establishment of formal rules were the only means of creating a semblance of harmony between warfare and the chivalric ideal⁵. The seven-year periods, however, remained an ideal classification from which there was frequent deviation. For example, Gautier⁶ sets the average age of admittance to knighthood before the 13th century at 15 instead of 21!

That custom of barons, suzerains and kings to educate the sons of their vassals dates back to the beginnings of chivalry and certainly enhanced the bonds of friendship and loyalty among the nobility. When Charlemagne slaps his nephew Roland in his face with a glove, the ultimate affront of among knights, Roland jumps furiously forward to avenge this insult. At the last moment, however, he restrains himself, remembering that Charlemagne “l’a nourri petit enfant “(nourished him as a child ). When Roland dies, his last thoughts are of his royal uncle, who educated him⁷.

The education of the chevalier was an education through example. The initiation into knighthood via the stages of pages and squire was hard but never out of touch with reality. The young nobles witness the tournaments and battles firsthand and continuously imitated the heroic feats of their lords. The competitive spirit among them was fierce, and it was not uncommon for a squire to lose his life in a duel in which he tested the methods of his fencing instructor with too much abandon. But there were always the lighter sides of courtly life in the less dangerous pastime of hunting with falcons and playing the board games of chess and checkers. Pages and squires frequently mixed with the ladies and learned courtly manners by serving at table. The presence of women ameliorated the sober atmosphere of physical training and yielded the cultural forms expressed in the courtly ideals of chivalry.

From Chevalier to Modern Gentleman

The chivalric ideals that put such a heavy stamp on medieval society were clearly reflected in the education of the knight. Throughout the upbringing of the young nobleman, physical education formed the integrative force which worked beyond the acquisition of physical skills and endurance to develop in him the characteristics of the true chevalier. The historical significance of this aristocratic education, according to Adamson⁸ is that it paved the way for the Humanism of the classic revival. The courtier of Castiglione, for example, was a world apart from the medieval chevalier; yet, chivalric ideals and the knightly arts were at the core of his education.

Far beyond the gentil homme of the Renaissance, the chivalric code as a “doctrine of courtesy” kept influencing the educational ideas of the socially prominent of Europe. The knightly arts featured prominently in the curriculum at the German Ritterakademien and found their way in the Philanthropina of the 18th century, announcing the advent of a renewal of physical education. Similar lines could be drawn to the English public schools and the emergence of the modern ideal of the gentleman. From a cultural-historical point of view, these developments show an interesting parallel with the ideals that arose in the chivalric Homeric society extending to the kalokagathia ideal in the 5th century B.C., even if only the bare outlines are visible.

Conclusion

The chivalric ideals of physical prowess, loyalty, generosity, courtesy and glory have not lost their significance for modern society, but they are no longer the integrated ideal of a social elite. The disappearance of a distinct social group comparable to the medieval chevaliers coincided with the diffusion of the chivalric principles.

by Jan Broekhoff Ph.D.
© 2006 Earle F. Zeigler, Ph.D.

About the Author: This essay is excerpted from the new book Sport and Physical Education in the Middle Ages, a collection of scholarly writings about sports and athletics in history, by Prof. Earle F. Ziegler. Along with fencing and jousting, the book traces the development of hunting, gymnastics, ball games and board games throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

1. Schoelen, E., Erziehung und Unterricht im Mittelalter (1965) p. 208
2. Jusserand, J.J., Les Sports et Jeuix d’Exercise dans l’Ancienne France (1901
3. Painter, S, French Chivalry (1940) p.39
4. Cornish, F.W., Chivalry (1901
5. Huizinga, J., The Waning of the Middle Ages (1954) p. 246
6. Gautier, L., Chivalry (1960), p. 125
7. Gautier, L., Chivalry (1960), p. 106
8. Adamson, J.W., “Education” in The Legacy of the Middle Ages (1951), p. 282

Related posts:

1. My Approach to Chivalry Today
2. Chivalry & The Arrow of Light
3. Chivalry and the Warrior Lifestyle

The crew of Serenity, on the TV show Firefly, provided a much more intriguing look at the ideals of chivalry than some critics have claimed.

We know what chivalry really is, and we know chivalry and honor are integral elements in some of the greatest western and science fiction stories ever created, so we must now ask: Did Joss Whedon’s “western in space” fail because chivalry and Serenity are mutually exclusive?

Malcolm Reynolds (the captain of the ship Serenity and the main character of the Firefly series, pictured with cast, third from right) may not be as honorable as a Star Fleet officer or as worthy as a Jedi knight, but there’s no denying that he has a moral compass, even if its needle wavers from time to time. If Mal was devoid of chivalry he would be nothing but a brutal space pirate, and Firefly would be quite a different show. But Serenity’s captain possesses an innate sense of chivalry that cannot be entirely dislodged, even by the horrors of war and the pain of disillusionment.

When given the opportunity to make a quick profit, save his own skin or exploit others’ weaknesses, Mal instead fights a duel for a woman’s honor, teaches a girl to see herself as more than property, bypasses a payoff to deliver medicine to the suffering and puts his crew at risk to rescue passengers from kidnappers. At the conclusion of the pilot, “Serenity,” Simon asks Mal if the captain would commit cold-blooded murder by shooting a sleeping man. Mal replies:

Perhaps a clearer summary of chivalry has never been uttered. Of course, there’s no question that Mal’s motives in these situations are sometimes cloudy — but in the tradition of internally conflicted western heroes, this is what makes him such an interesting character.

And this brings us to one final aspect of Firefly that, perhaps more than anything else, cements the presence of chivalry within the universe of the show: the concept of “ennoblement.” Throughout the brief run of the show, the crew of Serenity faces a variety of situations that place them in both physical and moral danger. Without a sense of chivalry and honor, the characters of Firefly would simply take their profits and run, laughing all the while at anyone who would be so naïve as to be hindered by conscience, duty or affection — but that’s not the case. What we see is that Serenity’s crew struggles toward honorable deeds — sometimes uncertainly and often reluctantly, but in the end they are all changed for the better by a greater awareness of chivalry.

The character Jayne, perhaps the darkest and most brutal character on TV's Firefly, also provides the most interesting look at the effects of the ideals of honor and chivalry.

The most vivid example of ennoblement in Firefly involves the show’s most ignoble crewmate: Jayne Cobb, the ship’s ruthless gun-for-hire (played by Adam Baldwin, pictured at left). In “Ariel,” Jayne is prepared to betray the fugitive passengers, Simon and River, to collect a reward. The greed of a corrupt law-enforcement officer is, in fact, all that prevents Jayne from carrying out his duplicitous plan. When Mal discovers Jayne’s betrayal, the captain is furious; Mal puts Jayne in the airlock and is determined to jettison him into the vacuum of space as Serenity leaves the planet. Jayne tries to deny his actions, to apologize and to justify his deception — all craven attempts to save his own skin. The only thing that prevents Jayne’s summary execution is his final request for an honorable (if fictional) epitaph: “Make something up. Don’t tell the (the rest of the crew) what I did.”

This is a very different Jayne than the one we see in “Out of Gas” and “Jaynestown,” whose fickle loyalty has an obvious (and fairly low) cash value. But as a result of his exposure to honorable people throughout Firefly’s story arc, Jayne begins to develop a sense of honor — his concern for his reputation has risen above his concern for his own well being, and this is a tremendous, essential change for such a character.

A tacit understanding of chivalry drives Jayne to transcend his baser nature, just as it does for nearly all of the characters in Firefly. Courage, loyalty, compassion, faith and mercy —the virtues incorporated into the code of chivalry — can be seen guiding, affecting and transforming the Serenity’s crew, turning brutality into strength and avarice into responsibility, despite (or perhaps because of) contact with corrupt Alliance officials, brutal Reaver pirates, untrustworthy petty crime lords and any number of other disreputable desperadoes who populate Firefly’s ’verse.

Critics who cannot see chivalry in Firefly have lost sight of the fact that this ancient code of honor is deeply woven into the fabric of the marvelous characters who fly aboard Serenity. Chivalry is as crucial to the structure of Firefly as a foundation is to a skyscraper: Both are buried beneath the surface, invisible to the casual observer, but each is an indispensable part of a magnificent creation.

If chivalry played any part in Firefly’s failure, it was merely because the concept, as treated by Joss Whedon, may have proved too complex for viewers who could not, or would not rise above stereotypical notions of old-fashioned characters, stories and motives based on a code of chivalry more suited for bedtime stories and singing cowboys than for a metaphorical drama depicting the challenges of maintaining honor in a void. Viewers who came to Firefly with open minds and discerning intellects, however, discovered a synergistic, genre-bending universe where knights in shining armor sometimes wore brown coats, where a futuristic frontier became a proving ground for an ancient code of honor, and where lost shepherds, space hookers and roguish space-freighter captains could discover chivalry by finding Serenity.

• Buy Finding Serenity» and Firefly DVDs» in our Shop
• Read a review of Finding Serenity at the Troynovant literary review website
• Read SF author Robert Franson’s review of Firefly

Related posts:

1. Knights and Fireflys
2. New Frontiers of Chivalry
3. Women’s Roles Part 2: Chivalry & Today’s Heroic Lady Role Models

The characters from the TV show Gunsmoke depicted an image of chivalry on the frontier, and the cowboy as an American "knight in shining armor" for an entire generation of viewers.

What do honor and chivalry have to do with drama? Simply put, acting with honor is easy when things are good; it’s what happens to the code of honor when things go bad that makes a story interesting. For the knights of King Arthur’s Round Table, there was no challenge in being chivalrous in the luxurious halls of Camelot; what marked them as “great” knights was whether they could maintain their honor when tested in the real world as they set forth on various quests. Having honor in a perfect world is not very difficult — and it doesn’t make very interesting stories.

This is why the ideal of chivalry transfers so well to the stories and characters of the Old West. Living in a protected, established society like the antebellum South or the Eastern seaboard, characters like Matt Dillon (played by James Arness, pictured with Dennis Weaver on Gunsmoke), Ben Cartwright or Seth Adams would have had no trouble sticking to the principles of chivalry. What creates interest is what these honorable characters do when confronted with lawlessness, savagery and corruption. And needless to say, not all western heroes proved entirely chivalrous — William Munny, Wyatt Earp, Paladin are reminders that if westerns are marked by the clash of honorable values and an untamed environment, they are equally marked by heroes who fight an inner battle against their own dark, brutal natures. The character of the flawless, white-hatted cowboy rode into the sunset with the 1940s kiddy westerns of Gene Autry and Roy Rogers.

And if chivalry in a vacuum is a mark of the western, it is just as much (if not more) of a mark of science fiction. Can honor, morality and chivalry stand up to the challenges faced by human beings as they move into the frontiers of the future? This is the premise that creates tension and drama in nearly all science fiction stories.

The claim that chivalry has no place in sci-fi (as Wright states) ignores two of the most influential entries in the science fiction genre in the past 50 years: Star Trek and Star Wars.

Captain Kirk and the adventurers of Star Trek carried out a mission not unlike quests pursued by King Arthur's knights: To help those in need without allowing their superior strength to harm or overwhelm.

Consider Star Trek (the original television series, that is): A cadre of adventurers (pictured at left) on an extended quest through unknown, often savage territory. It’s a premise that could have come right out of the stories of King Arthur. (In fact, more than a few parallels can be drawn between the crew of the Enterprise and the Knights of the Round Table.) Yet without chivalry, Kirk, Spock, Scotty and all the rest would be indistinguishable from the villains they encounter. But they have a 23rd century version of the code of chivalry called the Prime Directive that obliges them to protect and respect what they could otherwise simply dominate or assimilate.

Star Wars is, at its heart, a tale of chivalry and the quests of the "Jedi" order of space knights.

Similarly, the world of Star Wars would be radically diminished without the principle of chivalry — after all, many of its main characters are knights. Obi Wan explains, “For over a thousand generations the Jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice.” His words inspire Luke to take on the challenge of rescuing a princess — a quest that any of the Knights of the Round Table would certainly have jumped at. Without chivalry, Luke would have rejected the risks of the hero’s journey and simply spent the movie racing T-16s with his adolescent pals through Beggar’s Canyon on Tatooine.

Science fiction is about possibilities. If the code of chivalry seems a bit different when represented in a science fiction milieu, it’s because audiences are being challenged to see the old code of honor in the light of new possibilities. The protected becomes the protector, technology demolishes social order, science threatens spirituality, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few … How do such philosophical, theological and technical suppositions affect the understanding of what it means to be just, honorable and moral?

The code of chivalry is still present in the utopian and apocalyptic worlds of science fiction for those who can stretch their imaginations enough to see it.

Related posts:

1. Episode 23: Chivalry, Jedi Knights and Star Wars On Trial
2. Jedi Knights
3. Chivalry With Serenity

The show Firefly has a small but devoted fan base. Normally I try to avoid commentary regarding specialty subjects on the Chivalry Today website, but when a popular contemporary book includes a chapter with “chivalry” in the title, I think it is fair to address the subject here. You don’t need to be a “browncoat” (i.e., a regular Firefly fan) to enjoy this piece — the underlying topic is how chivalry shapes our modern sense of what it means to be a leader, a role model and a hero.

The short-lived television series Firefly» has become the focus of a great deal of speculation, criticism and analysis. Fans find the show’s 14 episodes (including three that never aired) engaging and visionary; detractors consider Firefly inconsistent and illogical. Much speculation has ensued regarding the rationale behind the Fox network’s decision to cancel the show practically before it broke atmo, and one of the more intriguing of these hypotheses is found in an essay entitled Just Shove Him In The Engine, or The Role of Chivalry in Firefly by John C. Wright, in the book Finding Serenity.» (Read a review of Finding Serenity at the Troynovant literary review website.)

Wright speculates that Firefly failed to find an audience due to an inherent discrepancy between the genres of sci-fi and the western as regards to the principle of chivalry. Science fiction, Wright says, is progressive, while westerns are traditional; trying to meld the two is like trying to fuse oil and water. In combining these two genres, he says that Firefly creator Joss Whedon “did not add … an element of chivalry into this space western,” but he posits “(chivalry) is in the marrow of the western.” Science fiction must abandon chivalry, but westerns must include chivalry — Wright assumes this Catch-22 doomed Firefly to failure. He concludes by saying today’s audiences are “delighted with radical egalitarianism, and disgusted by chivalry.”

Can this really be true? Are modern TV viewers actually disgusted by chivalry? And is this heroic ideal from the days of “knights in shining armor” completely absent from the genre of science fiction in general, and from Firefly in particular?

Perhaps an in-depth look at the principles and applications of this often misunderstood concept will lead us to a different understanding about the relationship between Firefly and the code of chivalry.

Chivalry in History

Wright’s assumption rests in part on the premise that chivalry is defined by the obligation of a hero to give shelter and defense to the weak and vulnerable. “Protect the womenfolk and young ’uns,” as the cowboys might have said. This, however, is an overly simplistic view of the role of chivalry in both history and drama.

The code of chivalry is a product of the medieval period of Western Europe. Although the principles of chivalry can certainly be found in medieval epics such as the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, these stories have been highly romanticized over the centuries. Chivalry based on nothing but reverence of women (an interpretation that comes largely from the 19th century Victorian era) would have been quite alien to the knights of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries. For a more authentic, down-to-earth understanding of how medieval knights viewed the concept of a code of honor we must turn to another type of source material: manuals of chivalry.

Manuals of chivalry are literally “how to” books on military training and martial doctrine, not guides for falling in love and winning the hearts of the ladies. Perhaps the most famous of these manuals is La livre de chevalerie,» written in the mid-14th century by Geoffroi de Charny, a French knight and one of the most respected warriors of his time.

Is Charny’s book all about defending the honor of ladies or rescuing maidens? Actually, of the 42 chapters in Charny’s book, only five address the topic of male/female relations. The vast majority of Charny’s text is focused on the qualities of a “worthy” warrior. Indicative of the range of subjects addressed in the book are topics like: “The scale of prowess and types of men-at-arms,” “How to study the art of war,” “The great influence of a valiant lord” and “(How) a good man-at-arms can be pleasing to God.”

It’s important to remember that real knights, warriors by profession, wrote and read these manuals of chivalry. Courtesy and respectful treatment of ladies was certainly a part of the code of chivalry, but only a part. Books such as Charny’s indicate that knights were far more concerned with the notions of loyalty, fortitude, trustworthiness, justice and courage than they were with championing and winning the hearts of damsels in distress.

From the ideals of chivalry Western culture has taken much of its understanding of the dramatic character of the modern hero — readers and viewers often don’t even realize how elemental this medieval code is in today’s image of the hero. Because of the basic sense of chivalry that still pervades our culture, today’s heroes in all genres resemble King Arthur or Sir Gawain far more than they do Achilles, Odysseus or Romulus.

An understanding of the authentic values of chivalry is crucial to determining whether or not this code can be found in the realm of Firefly.

© 2006 Scott Farrell

Related posts:

1. Chivalry With Serenity
2. Real Knights, Real Chivalry: Part 1
3. New Frontiers of Chivalry