Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is.

Posted on by

[Hey, if you want to read more stuff I wrote, you could always buy my book. Or my other book.]

So Chivalry.

I’ve heard a lot of people say it’s dead. It used to be a lament, and then it turned into a joke, and now it’s just a fact that almost everybody accepts. Chivalry is dead, because it’s 2015 and nobody wants to suck your dick for holding the door open for them. And it’s true, nobody wants to do that to your hog in exchange for that minor favor. But that’s not what the fuck chivalry is. Chivalry is a complicated, difficult, and ultimately good code of ethics that you probably have a fundamental misunderstanding of. So let me set some things straight:

1. CHIVALRY IS NOT ABOUT TREATING WOMEN LIKE DELICATE FLOWERS

This is probably the main thing people fuck up about chivalry. The truth is, chivalry has basically fuck all to do with women, and everything to do with horses.

See, the word “chivalry” comes from the French word “chevalier,” which comes from “cheval,” which means “horse.” Chivalry is literally just “rules for if you have a horse.” This was an important set of rules to have in chivalry times. Horses were the Blackhawk Helicopters of the Middle Ages; if you had a horse, you could absolutely kill anybody who didn’t have a horse and nobody was going to say a god damn thing. The only thing stopping you was chivalry.

That’s what chivalry was for. Chivalry was – and still is – basically a way of saying, “okay, I have an optimized death machine between my legs, maybe I should look out for people who don’t have one of these.” So it’s not that chivalry is specifically about defending women because women are weak. It’s that chivalry is about defending people who don’t own horses, and in the middle ages women didn’t own shit.

It’s 2015 now. Women can own as many horses as they want. But there are still power structures built into society that put some people in metaphorical Blackhawk helicopters, and other people underneath those helicopters (sometimes the Blackhawk Helicopters are also literal). Real chivalry is about noticing when you have a horse and somebody else doesn’t. It’s about being careful not to trample people just because you can. It’s about holding the door for a dude in a wheelchair. It’s about actively trying to recruit more people of color in your workplace. Sometimes it really is about sticking up for women, but only if your help is wanted. And even then …

2. CHIVALRY IS NOT A POINTS SYSTEM REDEEMABLE FOR FREE SEX

There are no prizes for being chivalrous, other than the prize of being a decent god damn human. This is because the people who chivalry was invented for were so fucking rich that prizes were totally meaningless to them. In addition to horses, knights also owned fancy armor, sick weapons, and huge tracts of land. They were powerful, exciting people relatively free of disease. They weren’t exactly hard up for sex opportunities, is what I’m trying to say. They didn’t need to invent a complex code of ethics to justify getting shit for free, because they already had all the shit. What do you get for the man who has everything? How about some fucking morals.

Anyway, if you’re desperate for booty, tales of chivalry aren’t the best place to go for inspiration. King Arthur’s court is basically one endless sex disaster, what with Arthur’s accidental incest and Lancelot’s righteous wangfoolery. Tristram and Isolde is a bonerific nightmare that borders on farce. Sir Galahad, the Greatest Knight Ever, is also the biggest virgin in the universe, and he is thrilled about it. It turns out you’re not even allowed to see the grail if you thought about a boob once. The chivalric canon is not overly sex positive, you guys. In fact the only problem-free sex I can recall from my chivalric reading is the story of Sir Gawaine and Lady Ragnell, in which everything turns out for the best because – spoiler alert – Gawaine leaves the decision up to his wife. Funny how that works out, huh?

3. CHIVALRY IS NOT PERFECT, AND NEITHER ARE WE

Like most things invented in the past, chivalry has some problems. One of the problems with chivalry is that horses are no longer the height of technology. The main problem with chivalry, though, is that it can very easily cross over into paternalism, and nobody likes to be treated like a child. It is important to remember that just because you have a horse and somebody else does not have a horse, that does not make you their dad.

Even if you have the best intentions, chivalry isn’t a code you can blindly follow for A+ results. Even if chivalry was perfect, which no moral code is, it’s impossible to be a non-shitty person absolutely all the time. Like, the Knights of the Round Table were probably the most righteous group of horse-havers ever to have horses, but Gawaine chopped a lady’s head off, Lancelot fucked his boss’s wife, and Percival was the biggest idiot ever to hold a sword. Galahad was perfect I guess, but Galahad also had a magic chair with his name written on it in fire and ascended to heaven because he found a neat cup. Galahad was a fake person. All of those dudes were fake fucking people. We made them up. The people we made up to be the ideals of chivalry were still remarkably shitty. Back here on earth, nobody is chivalrous all the time, and that’s not sufficient reason to write anybody off. We are all shitty sometimes. Also Galahad is a dickhead.

OKAY SO WHAT IS CHIVALRY THEN?

Chivalry boils down to three things: mercy, charity, and humility. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating other humans gently. Charity means giving without expecting anything in return. Humility means accepting your mistakes, and recognizing that those who don’t have your advantages aren’t your inferiors. Anybody can embody these traits – woman, man, or even horse. At this point, you may be thinking “hey, this is bullshit, these are just basic guidelines for not being an asshole!” and congratulations, you’re right. That’s all chivalry is: basic guidelines for how not to be a sack of shit. And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die.

198 thoughts on “Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is.”

  2. Speaking as a Phd in medieval studies, the most admirable interpretation of the term “chivalry” I’ve seen in 30 years.

    Reply ↓

  5. Speaking of the Middle Ages and knights, a friend of mine would absolutely love to see your style of re-writing applied to something like Game of Thrones. This is not a request, just want to know what you’d have to say on the matter.

    Reply ↓

  6. Pingback: Interesting Links for 13-10-2015 | Made from Truth and Lies

  7. You mean Chivalry isn’t just “the most efficient way to murder someone while on a horse”?

    Because if you had a horse, you had to have some skill with efficiently taking out a man while on a horse too. I mean, that’s what owning a horse implied, and the horse-owning idiots in the Arthurian Myths were badass, efficient killing machines on and off their horses.

    Reply ↓

    • chivalry has nothing to do with martial arts of the time (for more about this google hema) … it’s a moral code or … yes … a guideline to not being an asshole. Yes knights etc. knew hot to kill on a horsebach and on foot etc…. but a moral code told them not to kill everyone who insulted their horse … 😉

      Reply ↓

  8. This has a remarkably low amount of yelling in it, and I sure *love* the yelled myths written by you, but… damn, this was touching. I really feel moved by these words, especially towards the end.
    These words are so wonderfully true and, at the same time, so truly wonderful, I will now go contemplating life for a while. And I sure as hell will enjoy doing it!
    Thanks!

    Reply ↓

  9. I applaud this post and would like to add one thing to the chivalric attributes list. That is courage, which basically boils down to keeping to these morals when shit hits the fan not just when it’s all smooth sailing. Also it’s worth noting that this is about the same thing that most codes of ethics boil down to, eg. the golden way which says that you should treat other people, the definition of which has been found remarkably difficult over the years, like you wish to be treated.

    Reply ↓

    • Oddly Asatru isn’t that far off in the morals it expects it’s followers to live by, usually referred to as the nine noble virtues:

      1:Courage- You must have enough conviction in your beliefs to stand for what you believe and live your life by your own code. This does not mean that you act in rash and tactless ways. There is a difference in being courageous and in being stupid. Have the courage to live by your own code of honor, but do so with wisdom and discretion.

      2: Honesty: You should have enough confidence in your beliefs and your actions to be truthful. Truth is simply being honest about what you believe or know to be true and right. Simply put – don’t lie. This sounds very straightforward, but lying has become so commonplace that it is almost expected in today’s world.

      3: Honor- You determine your own honor, or lack of honor, by staying true to your own beliefs and living according to your own code of honor. Your personal honor is determined internally by your own commitment to live up to your predetermined ethics. It is your intentions and your actions which determine your honor, not what someone else thinks.

      4: Fidelity- The word fidelity simply means being faithful. There are many things that you can be faithful to, not all of them of honorable. Fidelity as used in the Nine Noble Virtues refers to being faithful or loyal to yourself and your beliefs, to your family, and to your friends.

      5: Self Discipline- These virtues or qualities are not perfected overnight. It takes discipline to live according to your own personal code of ethics.

      6: Hospitality- Treat others with respect and dignity. You must see other people as people who deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy. Regardless of who they are what matters is that you treat everyone with respect and courtesy. You should treat others with hospitality not because they deserve it, but because that is how you behave towards other people.

      7: Self Reliance- Your first and foremost duty in life is to take care of yourself and your family. If you are reliant on someone else for your needs you may be put in a position of having to choose between your morals and ethics and your survival.

      8: Industriousness- Industriousness simply means the willingness to work hard at whatever you do. If something is worth doing, do it well. Do it with pride and do it to the best of your ability. This doesn’t just apply to your vocation, but to everything you do. Approach everything you do with care and attention to detail; and strive for excellence in it.

      9: Perseverance- No one is perfect and you will make mistakes. Always keep striving or you will never reach your goals, at work, at school, or in life. If you let a few naysayers make you turn away from your goal your being dishonest with yourself and depriving yourself of what you want.

      Reply ↓

  11. Thank you! If you ever get insecure about wether your brash writing style can convey meaningful, uplifting truths, reread this. Sharing this with everyone I know!

    Reply ↓

  12. The real trouble with basing your code of morals on something like horseback riding, is that you’ll never be completely aware of the trail of horseshit you leave in your wake.

    Reply ↓

    • No, you’ve got that backwards, that’s the whole *point* of chivalry. A moral code of “don’t be a sack of shit” specifically for the people who are leaving a trail of horseshit in their wake, aware or otherwise.

      Reply ↓

  15. I got this link off a gaming forum I frequent, and I thought it was great. 🙂 It’s a very interesting take on Chivalry, so thank you for writing it!

    Reply ↓

  16. Pingback: Chivalry Isn’t Dead, You Just Don’t Know What the Fuck it is. | Myths RETOLD

  18. I work on one of the big Medieval history journals, and the amount of times I spend yelling ‘do you even know what chivalry *is*?’ to people. So yeah. THANKYOU.

    Chivalry: a set of behaviour codes imposed on a bunch of rich super-soldier death machines who liked to get drunk and smash up half a village so they’d get disowned by their peers and kicked out of the service of the lords that employed them if they did that kind of thing. There are lays and jokes and ballads written about knights that behaved in a very ‘chivalric fashion’ around the beer and innkeepers daughters.

    Reply ↓

  19. Wait, so now all the little girls with ponys are the new knights? They had better be nice to all the have-nots. What a fun idea.

    Reply ↓

  22. I raise my glass…or, well, my jar of tube cookies to you, sir. I never quite expected to see something like this here, but am I ever glad I read it.

    Reply ↓

  23. “Anybody can embody these traits – woman, man, or even horse.”

    Going to have to make sure a lot of women read this then and get up to date that respect goes both ways, and using “I want chivalry, but can be a sack of shit in return” is right up there with “be a ‘real’ man” ….

    Reply ↓

  24. A spectacular load of self-serving bullshit. You’re obviously arguing chivalry is being a social justice warrior, constantly checking your own privilege and apologizing for it. Every part of this article, delicately crafted to perfectly match the current Marxist-feminist narrative.

    “Woman is simultaneously the ultimate victim of both society and every man, but is also strong and doesn’t need your support, but you should support woman anyway, because you’re guilty, but don’t you dare expect a thanks, because by being subservient, you’re really only slightly making up for having a penis and therefore being guilty of male privelege….oh but this isn’t just about women, because it’s really just white people who are guilty, so it’s all races and sexes, but white men. Check your privilege, cis scum.”

    There, summed it up for you in your actual language.

    Reply ↓

    • “I’m a straight white dude who feels personally attacked every time someone suggests there’s any bias anywhere in favor of people who have characteristics I also have, because I don’t like admitting there are some things that are unfair in my favor, and those things are, in fact, unfair; therefore I feel the need to spend my time trying to trample all the non-horse-havers in internet comment forums.”

      There, summed up your comment for you in your actual language.

      Reply ↓

    • Glad I wasn’t the only one that saw what this article was actually saying. I was surprised the word “privilege” wasn’t actually in there- I guess the author was trying to be subtle…

      Reply ↓

    • Chivalry by this definition has nothing to do with apologizing for privilege, but everything to do with recognizing that it exists and not abusing it. To pretend that privilege doesn’t existop would be foolish. There will always be those with horses and those without. This article is just saying you don’t have to be a sack of shit about it.

      Very well said, by the way. Excellent article!

      Reply ↓

  25. How, exactly, is chivalry equivalent to seeking to increase diversity reports, possibly passing up on people with higher qualifications because you’re seeking to hire more people with different levels of melatonin to your workplace? That’s not chivlary, that’s being PC.

    Reply ↓

  26. What a great article! Thanks a ton for that. So many things spelled out nice and clearly.

    “The people we made up to be the ideals of chivalry were still remarkably shitty.” This speaks to society at so many levels.

    This should be required reading!

    Reply ↓

  28. Wow! I see the writer throws away credibility by being too emotionally involved in claiming that people don’t know what Chivalry is. Yet, the writer’s conclusion reinstates the modern day application of Chivalry. The only difference is that this author thinks that modern day Chivalry is used for sex points, which is a hasty generalization. I think the writer needs to be able to show rationality and calm thinking, especially before trying to talk about humility because he or she does not show any.

    Reply ↓

  30. Chivalry was a way for people on top to feel better about thriving in a cruel and twisted society based on feudalism. There are plenty of similar societies in history in which a group of privileged people used rhetoric to feel justified for living in a system based on other people’s suffering. That’s why chivalry was revived again in the antebellum South. Sure, it probably lead to individuals who shared the same philosophy to swap niceties, but it was symptomatic of the inhumane sociopathy that affected their society on the whole.

    Reply ↓

    • Piety is a way for people to feel better about their cruel way of managing people who don’t believe in the same things. This covers a lot of territory! The same can be said about Ayn Rand Libertarianism, Scientology, and Daesh. We are a whitewashing animal.

      Reply ↓

  31. While the intent of this article is informative and the condensation of several centuries of a rather complex system is admirable, the educational value of this piece is brought down by the expletives that are sprinkled throughout. Popular media is meant to be absorbed and digested quickly, then likely shared among peers; the expletives whittle away credibility and perpetuate the usage of these words in any level of discussion. Expletives and emoticons should not be required when good writing is employed.

    Reply ↓

    • …because, clearly, this was intended for dissemination among students as an academic article in a peer-reviewed journal.

      You must be new here.

      (And if the ideas are sound, don’t you think the fact that the use of humor and common language will probably make it stick in a lot more people’s heads than a lecture is a point in its favor?)

      Reply ↓

    • I see I was mistaken in being educated by this piece. Obviously because Chris Chan finds cussing inappropriate, it’s up to others to write in a way that he deems proper, and the rest of us to only engage in ‘level discussion’ if it is properly pretentious. I was clearly wrong to be entertained and informed. How fucking unfortunate.

      Reply ↓

    • I’m not even going to waste my time on explaining why neither I nor Ovid should have to pander to your delicate fucking sensibilities. Fuck you.

      Reply ↓

    • He’s just saying that the cussing isn’t necessary and that it tends to distract from what he’s actually saying. Is that so terrible?

      Reply ↓

  33. Eh. Yes and no.

    Yes, knights and nobles were the ones who had horses. Yes, they had customs for their behavior. Yes, these norms went on to form the basis of “chivalry” in its poetic form.

    No, chivalry was not simply about “protecting the weak”. It was (and is) largely a romantic notion and a product more of poets and writers than actual aristocrats or mounted warriors. It’s like “patriotism” or “sportsmanship”. It was a vague ideal then just as it is today, and might’ve served as the basis for things like jousts and duels… but no, it wasn’t about “I’m on a big warhorse so I’m going to be nice to everyone.”

    The author’s first couple paragraphs were ehhhh, but then they just went bonkers.

    4/10. Fail.

    Reply ↓

    • And you’re oversimplifying twice as much as the writer did. I doubt this was meant to be a purely academic definition of a term (and who are all these people in the comments all of a sudden, behaving like they’re owed a Serious Academic Article and somebody voicing a thought on their own blog is a failure of expectation?). It’s partly a response to the way it gets thrown around in the modern context – and apart from the fact that poets and bards didn’t exist in an artistic vacuum separate from the values and principles (whether failed or upheld in matter of fact) of the societies they lived in, and the honor/shame-based culture as a check on the behavior of people who were legally near-untouchable has some substance… can’t we just take a minute to be pleased that there’s one more intelligent, articulate person advocating thoughtful goddamn decency to a readership?

      Reply ↓

      • “can’t we just take a minute to be pleased that there’s one more intelligent, articulate person advocating thoughtful goddamn decency to a readership?”

        He’s not, and that’s the point, it’s a false/made up premise based on false/made up arguments, all based on a false/made up narrative coming to false/made up conclusions. All with the apparent, i should say obvious, intention to further a specific narative and a weak attempt to redefine the meaning. It’s pathetic.

        Reply ↓

  34. This was such a pleasant read ! ( as for the second point – food for thoughts re- the so-called “friend zone”)
    Also the slip of the term chivalry seems to come from the confusion fin’amor ?

    Reply ↓

  35. The chivalric code only applied to the high born…English knights would take French knights prisoner whilst raping and murdering the ordinary residents of a town…they would then treat their fellow knights with chivalry before ransoming them…

    Reply ↓

    • Eh, no. When they did that, they were NOT following the rules of chivalry. Saying that, since they did that, it must have been in the rules, would be like claiming that Geneva Convention says you should torture prisoners, because Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay exist.

      And you could just as well come up with the opposite examples, such as Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses ordering all high profile Lancaster leaders/nobles who fought in the battle killed during/right after the battle or tried and executed, while the lower ranked soldiers could be left alone.

      You can’t say “well these were clearly the rules, because some people did those things.”

      Reply ↓

  36. Pingback: Just a little (link) love: SQUIRREL edition | A Gai Shan Life

  37. Chivalry is partly about having class, showing class, and a recognition of the divine feminine in interactions with women. This article does none of that. Being crass has it’s time and place, this is not it. Please elevate your language in regards to women and bring the sacred back into sacred sexuality.

    Reply ↓

    • And it’s up to you to determine what the time and place for certain language is on another person’s blog because… ?

      Reply ↓

    • The language of this article is probably remarkably polite compared to how medieval mounted and armored warriors, i.e. knights, talked among each other.

      Reply ↓

  38. Sorry, this article misses the point of chivalry and it’s just a bulshit reintepretation. It wasn’t made to protect people ‘without a death machine’ between their legs. These people were usually lowly soldiers and frankly, chivalry didn’t give much of a damn about those people in those time. Chivalry IS dead because the historical aspects have gone away. We don’t have private armies, and we don’t have feudal monarchies.

    Reply ↓

    • A couple of other people have made this point as well, and I think it’s a good one. Chivalry was a top-down system, invented by royalty, and so it mainly only cared about peasants and whatnot inasmuch as they were property of the nobility. That’s true. Now, however, if we want to combine the original purpose of chivalry (regulating the behavior of invincible death machines via reputation) with the values espoused in the chivalric epics and the fact that nobody’s really supposed to own anybody anymore, I think we end up with something like what I’m advocating.

      Reply ↓

    • No, concrete people did not care about peasants and lowly soldiers (while some other concrete people did). “Chivalry” didn’t care or not care, since a system of rules is not sentient and cannot feel. But as a set of rules, it meant you were supposed to protect the helpless and not abuse your position, among other things not rape or kill unarmed peasants because you feel like it. Whether everyone actually followed it is a whole other matter.

      Reply ↓

  39. Pingback: Friday I'm In Love - Gamerwife

  40. Pingback: Friday Links (robotic telescope edition) | Font Folly

  41. I have to take exception with the idea that “in the middle ages women didn’t own shit”. Now, that’s not accurate.

    The majority of people didn’t own shit, men and women alike. Among the wealthy few, (unmarried) women could own property (though inheritance laws were often skewed in men’s favor), manage it as they saw fit etc.
    Married women had it a lot worse, but all in all they did have economic rights in many places.

    Reply ↓

    • That’s a totally fair point. I definitely oversimplified when I said that women didn’t own shit. But, like you said, a married woman had little or no control over her own property, and young women had even less control over who they married or when they were married off, so there was still a definite power imbalance. That’s really what I was trying to point to.

      Reply ↓

  42. Another driver of the chivalric code is the problem of within group violence when the knights are armed with weapons that decimate (metaphorically and literally) other members of the group. This was done (in part) by codifying and constraining within group violence (“observe all the Church’s [and your Lords] directions”) and directing violence outward (“make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy”).

    Perhaps we can construct a chivalric code for a society with widespread (sometimes mandated) concealed firearms?

    (quotes from Wikipedia)

    Reply ↓

  43. It was an era of rule by mafia/biker gang, one gang would roll up to another town and kick butt on whatever gang owned it, guess what, you now pay tax to our gang/godfather, don’t have enough to feed your family? tough, eat shit but pay me. Towns built walls not so much to keep out major siege armies, but the horde of 30 40 bikers on horseback. We could probably compare to the warlords in Somalia or tribes of Afghanistan.

    Reply ↓

    • I’m glad you said that! Our gangstas are not so very different from the roving bands of soldiers-of-fortune or unattached knights. And they are not so different from the various gangs that are fighting it out in the failed states of our current world. Males offer their strength to other males in return for a kind of protection, forming a posse, which can then take on other posses. Feudalism has returned to the modern world wherever the rule of law has crashed.

      Reply ↓

    • Or to the majority of modern states – just replace knights with police and soldiers armed with guns. The tax thing is still largely true, especially in those counties that balk at social security.

      Reply ↓

  44. Wow this article is the biggest pile of self righteous, nonsensical garbage ever.

    Well done to the bellend writer for wasting five minutes of my life.

    Reply ↓

    • And you spending more time writing a hateful comment in response to the ‘waste of time’ is somehow not a waste of time??

      Reply ↓

  45. this is a sweet bit of writing. I love it, I have shown it to all my friends.

    One thing, though — I know it was just an example, but think before holding a door open for someone in a wheelchair, because you probably shouldn’t. If you’re going through first and they’re behind you, sure, don’t slam the door in their face.

    However, rushing forward to open the door for someone in a wheelchair in front of you, especially without asking if they want/need your help — ah, there’s your paternalism! This person knows themselves, their chair and knows how to get through doors with chairs far better than you. Offering help is not a bad thing, but consider that they probably have their shit together and do not move through the world relying on strangers to swoop in and do shit for them.

    While we’re at it, if someone is in the middle of going through a door with any kind of assistive mobility device — chair, walker, cane, definitely do not fucking help them by holding the door open. They have worked out a system for getting through doors, and you fucking with it can end up with someone falling or their chair veering dangerously.

    That’s your PSA for today, kids.

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t give a rat’s tuchas if the person is in a wheelchair or not, I hold the door for them because it is the polite goddamned thing to do. goddammit.

      Reply ↓

  46. Pingback: OUR SUNDAY LINKS | GUTS Canadian Feminist Magazine

  47. Pingback: Let’s Read Life and Death: Chapter Two | So Big Chrubil

  48. Pingback: Courtly Love isn’t about Love, You Piece of Shit | Myths RETOLD

  50. Pingback: The Roots Of Chivalry - CURATIO Magazine

  51. Pingback: Thoughty Thursday: Things that made me go hmmmm on the interwebz, October 11-17, 2015 | Writerly Goodness

  52. Great article!

    Just two things: Gender Chivalry (call it muscle density chivalry if this gets your underwear into knots) is still a subset of chivalry, as long as it’s not some stupid redeemable points system of course. And anyway, why would you assume most people who are nice to those with less statistical upper body strength are doing it for sex? Way strawman argument.

    Still, love the article. Very informative and useful. Be nice 🙂

    Reply ↓

  53. Pingback: Don’t call yourself a gentleman and a scholar either! | nullrend

  54. Pingback: Linkroll Oct 2015 | snazzerdoo

    • “Friendzoning,” or being rejected, happens to both sexes. Another example of the double standard being vomited by the gormless parrots of the internetz hall’s of social justice.

      I’ve friendzoned many women in my life. It’s funny to see all the bedroom dwelling, socially inept cry about this word.

      Reply ↓

      • Show me organized communities of women who rail against the “injustice” of the “friendzone” like the PUA/Incel/Wizard/Red Pill communities, and I’ll revise my opinion about it being my fellow men being either really grossly entitled or sadly, pitifully yet willfully misguided. Until then, I’m not buying this “both sides!” argument and I don’t think anyone who doesn’t already have an axe to grind about the terrible, horrible no-good SJWs is buying it either.

        Reply ↓

  56. Anyone else getting sick of articles that paint all the motives of men as being for sex. Who’s writing them? Misandrists? Whoever it is has no clue.

    Also, your last paragraph, that’s exactly what I thought chivalry was. Another term for it is common courtesy.

    Reply ↓

  57. Sorry, but this article is a megaton of horseshit. I’m not going to comment though because I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Oh, I’ve done this wrong, haven’t I?

    Reply ↓

  58. Pingback: A cool quote to forget about how I haven’t been posting. | Sincerely, A Grad Student

  59. Pingback: Manners: Anyone who isn’t an “A” | Dream by Day

  60. Pingback: Top 5 Sword Fights in Fantasy Films | Another Head Full Of Fantasy

  61. Pingback: Link Archive 10/1/15 – 12/1/15 | Death Is Bad

  62. Pingback: Matty Groves Must Give Good Head | Myths RETOLD

  63. I’m confused…

    “CHIVALRY IS NOT ABOUT TREATING WOMEN LIKE DELICATE FLOWERS”

    “Chivalry boils down to three things: mercy, charity, and humility. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating other humans gently.”

    Are women not ‘other humans’?
    Just curious whether or not I should treat them gently, like delicate flowers.

    Reply ↓

    • Depends, are these women in a situation of peril or being abused or are they themselves using social and legal advantages to abuse others?

      Like in everything, there is no default possition, you just have to judge every situation by itself and act as fairly to tge weak as possible, regardless to the gender.

      Reply ↓

  64. Pingback: One Night Stanzas » Blog Archive » Procrastination Station #148

  65. You kinda forgot the third staple in Chivalry, the one of putting God over any terrenal Lord. Which kinda is why it had to die after Humanism basically colluded with it.

    Reply ↓

  66. Pingback: Chivalry - it ain't dead. You're just dumb. | Breach Bang Clear

  67. Pingback: Paternity Leave, Trump Menstrual Pads, & Sleep Orgasms | Sex with Timaree

  68. Pingback: Meaningful consent and the meaning of consent in Game of Thrones - Fandom Following

  69. this is too perf i think i’m gonna end up quoting this a lot for our class haha (with a little censorship bc teacher)

    Reply ↓

  70. I’d add one caveat to that first item… the horse gave you the ability to kill anyone not on a horse, but it was the armor (which was almost as fucking expensive as the horse) that made you unkillable while you did it. If you’re up on a horse just wearing leather and linen, you’re still pretty easy to take out – a few farmers with sticks can whap you in the head or the arm or the leg and make your life suck. But if you whap a guy in plate, with chain & padding underneath, he’s gonna laugh, turn his horse around, and put a hoof-shaped mud hole in your chest.

    Reply ↓

  71. Very good and true article. However, it would be much better without the vulgarity. I would love to hit share and send it to people but I cannot as that would be very inappropriate. However, you are very correct and true. Overall good article.

    Reply ↓

  72. What the fuck is wrong with these fucking tone police dickheads whining out of their cockholsters about “expletives” and “vulgarity”? Shove it up your own ass and twist it, you self-righteous asshats.

    Reply ↓

  73. You should do an exploration of bushido as well. Moral codes are interesting.

    Also, you leave out quite a few virtues that chivalry I believe adopted, such as valor/courage, justice, faith, etc. I don’t really know what the official list is, but I’m unsure only listing mercy, charity, and humility paints the whole picture.

    Reply ↓

  75. Pingback: On Chivalry - ***Dave Does the Blog | ***Dave Does the Blog

  76. What is Chivalry? Basically being rich enough in the medieval period to fight from horseback. That’s what the word means.

    Everything else is Victorian Romance.

    Reply ↓

  77. I’ve always said that the worst thing about atheism (and modern activism) is that it has successfully destroyed the old moral codes (sometimes through misinformation and poor comprehension) and it didn’t replace them with anything.
    We could stand to bring back a code of morality. In a world of “NO RULES”, you just end up with Hillary Clinton.

    Reply ↓

  78. Protecting the weak only applies to Christian pilgrims headed to the levant. The other three monastic vows issued by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Gormund are poverty, chastity and obedience. I’m not sure why any modern women wants a broke guy that doesn’t put out.

    Reply ↓

  79. Pingback: Horoscopes by the Fishing Guide to the Stars starting 11.12.2015

  80. Only one you left out which I feel was relevant to modern age interactions is FRANCHISE. And yes, you get to smile tolerantly while someone asks if you want fries with that.

    But the idea of Franchise was a bit revolutionary at the time, and fit well with the other precepts.
    Essentially franchise is free will and autonomy within a a broader set of laws and boundaries. And the fact that chivalry actually includes something that essentially says “Help someone the way they say they need help instead of assuming you know what they need better than they do” is pretty awesome. Anyone that has ever been at the receiving end of assistance or service knows the special hell of being infantilised by your helpers, as they ignore all the relevant things in order to do what they want, and call it help. Thus someone saying “I need help to get this cartload of apples over to the other side of this river” will not feel “helped” if you instead say “NO, what you need to do is sell your apples on this side of the river” and then sit back expecting praise.
    You actually need to listen and respect the wishes and direction of the person you are dealing with.

    So…anyway… Franchise. It matters more than ever.

    Reply ↓

  81. Pingback: Book Review: Yu Yu Hakusho Volume 6 - Bryce's Blog

  82. Pingback: Meaningful Consent and the Meaning of Consent in Game of Thrones - The Fandomentals

  84. Technically there is one perfect moral code. It is perfect because it was created by the Creator and adhered to by His Son. Unfortunately people screw that up time and time again. Even those like me that actually pay attention to the great commission given by Christ; are still human and have a major screw up tendency. Your writing on chivalry is great, too many do misunderstand what chivalry really is. Sheesh people don’t even get the concept of “race” right.

    Reply ↓

  86. Chivalry is dead and clearing the author of the article also doesn’t know what the fuck it is.

    Also apparently doesn’t know much about combat, being on horseback didn’t make you invincible. There’s weapons in every culture to handle people on horseback.

    Basically a giant shitpost.

    Reply ↓

  88. I see you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional bucks every month because you’ve
    got hi quality content. If you want to know how to
    make extra $$$, search for: Ercannou’s essential adsense alternative

    Reply ↓

  89. Pingback: The scourge of the “gentleman” | Purely a figment of your imagination

  90. You’re way off. Nobody is arguing that simply being a good person entitles you to sex. It has to do with the fact that in today’s age, being a good person in general has it’s disadvantages, especially as a man in relationships. As a chivalrous man, you’re portrayed as weak and unmasculine to women. You become looked at as that unnatractive provider that is easily replaceable because you put her on a pedestal. Being a chivalrous man in general gets you nowhere because you end up getting used. You rarely get appreciated and you feel empty. We hear all these stories about nice guys finishing last, we later get told it’s not true by women, until it happens to us… We become that nice guy that provides and does everything for his girl while she’s having sex with some guy she’s calling “daddy” in their messages. Social media really fucked things up for men, period.

    Reply ↓

  92. Truly, this article is really one of the very best in the history of articles. I am a antique ’Article’ collector and I sometimes read some new articles if I find them interesting. And I found this one pretty fascinating and it should go into my collection. Very good work!

    Reply ↓

  93. I just got to this astonishing site in the relatively recent past. The experience was unquestionably astonishing. On the off chance that lone I have the opportunity. Thanks for sharing this informative post with us, Keep sharing it in the future also. Veranda

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *