The ‘Chivalry’ Fallacy

No, “chivalry” isn’t dead…you’re just not automatically entitled to it!

Back in January, comedian Steve Harvey appeared on CBS’s The Talk to peddle more of his trademark ramblings on love, marriage, and dating. Citing the success of a fifteen-year marriage to his wife Marjorie, Harvey encouraged men in heterosexual relationships to obey the whims of their girlfriends and wives, no matter what.

As reported by Atahabih Germain, Harvey’s advice went as follows:

Keep your damn mouth shut. Just shut up. Don’t say nothing. It’s best you don’t say nothing. Ain’t no trying to fix it.

When Talk cohost Akbar Gbaja-Biamila inquired about instances where a husband is objectively right, Harvey berated him and speculated that Gbaja-Biamila (and his wife, Chrystal) won’t make it to their own fifteen-year marital mark.

At another point during the episode, Harvey explained his viewpoint that men should always pay for dates with women by default. According to Harvey, the burden should be on the man because he’s showing a woman that he appreciates how she’s giving him her time and company. To which The Talk’s five cohosts — Gbaja-Biamila, Sheryl Underwood, Natalie Morales, Jerry O’Connell, and Amanda Klootz — all gave Harvey a literal standing ovation. The audience cheered in agreement.

I nearly puked.

Back when I lived in Los Angeles, I recall a therapy session where I’d narrated to my psychologist, Dr. Medvene, an occurrence at a major bus stop in Van Nuys. I will now “re-narrate” it for all of you.

At that location and time-of-day, the quantity of people waiting for the next bus had ballooned — as is often the case across major transit arteries throughout L.A. As this route’s next hourly bus proceeded to approach our curbside stop, I could see the group of riders through the windows who were preparing to descend onto the street.

I noticed how the first person poised to exit the bus was an elderly woman. She was clearly holding a cane, which indicated to me that she might have some awkwardness disembarking from the bus steps.

Around me, at this bus stop, I could also see my fellow pedestrians. Circling like vultures. Waiting to swarm the bus.

This is a common dynamic of Los Angeles bus culture.

I could see what was coming. And I had a split second to decide how (or even if) I would jump into action.

So I stood directly in front of the bus door — with enough space between me and the door for the driver to open it — and created a physical barrier with my arms. I was doing this in order to keep people from stampeding, as I could see that the elderly woman was going to be the first one in the path of such an incoming onslaught.

As the door opened, and she slowly stepped downward (guiding herself with her cane), someone from the crowd blurted out at me, with a sneer:

“Oh, so you’re trying to grab the first seat for yourself?”

And, equally as ornery, with my eyes still glued to the elderly passenger who was making her way onto the pavement’s flat surface, I sneered back at my heckler:

“No, I’m doing crowd control so that none of you plow over her!”

And then, once her feet were safely on the ground, I pointedly backed away as the remaining passengers spilled out of the bus. And I let all of the ornery vultures around me board the bus before I did — just to prove to them how I wasn’t trying to “take the best seat” for myself.

I ended up standing in the aisle, as I’d voluntarily relegated myself to the back of the pack as we’d all finished boarding the bus. But here I was — a disabled person myself — willing to make that minor sacrifice in order to keep people from mowing down someone else who clearly needed much more mobility assistance than I did.

Back in Dr. Medvene’s office, as I finished sharing this memory with her, I expressed my anger and frustration toward the bus stop vultures. For some ridiculous reason, I felt half-guilty about being “called out” by one of my hecklers — even though my motivations weren’t the least bit selfish.

And Dr. Medvene, in an attempt to affirm my behavior, opined:

“No…I’d say that’s chivalry.”

But then — because…TRIGGER WARNING — I had to pipe up and correct her:

“Well, it had nothing to do with chivalry,” I clarified. “I would have done the exact same thing for an elderly man with a cane. Or for young children. Or for any person who appeared as though they needed assistance walking.”

And she agreed with me. But I could tell, on some level, that she was probably humoring me.

Dr. Medvene’s backhanded compliment may have come from benevolent intent, on her part. But it harkens back to this antiquated standard that our society seems to automatically expect from men (or boys) of any age.

Men/boys need to treat the women (and girls) in our lives like queens. We need to be polite and gallant around members of the opposite sex. We must hold the door open for them (but not for other men), buy them flowers and candy, nod in agreement with whatever they say (“Happy wife, happy life,” right?), and learn to be deferential to women/girls in most areas or instances. We ought to swoop in and save them from anyone else with a penis who expresses the slightest bit of verbal dissent toward them.

Gag me.

It’s important to acknowledge that this shallow version of “chivalry” can be promoted by men and women alike.

With men, it’s those who want to make themselves feel like heroes and providers. They need a damsel-in-distress whom they can dote over…often, because they view her as a sex object, and they hope to put themselves in a position where they can become the recipient of her affection.

With women, it’s those who view themselves as inherently more valuable/worthy of accolades than men are. They want that royal treatment, around the clock — whether it’s from men/boys who are partners, family members, platonic friends, casual acquaintances, or complete strangers on the street.

It leads to the common refrain, where indignantly self-entitled people scoff:

“Is chivalry dead?”

First, let’s point out how this value system of reductionism implicitly marginalizes nonbinary people — as well as disenfranchising many binary members of the LGBT+ community.

It is partially based on cultural misogyny — the idea that women need a male savior to make decisions for them. That women and girls are somehow objects to be coveted and sparred over by men and boys. Such a flawed premise assumes that female individuals are incapable of self-sufficiency or the license to make decisions for themselves. By default, it’s a recipe intended to keep power and influence concentrated within the clutches of male supremacy.

But it has also partially become a rhetorical mantra of neofeminism (aka “female exceptionalism”) — the belief that women/girls should automatically be entitled to more reverence, affection, and respect than men/boys should receive. This appears to be predicated on the premise that male persons have screwed up our planet so badly that we should be worshipping at the feet of female persons who deign to bestow their wisdom, morality, and virtue upon us.

Gag me, again. In two different directions.

This is why I take the position I do on the age-old question of “Who-should-pay-for-dinner?” As I reason in my Medium piece entitled “The Dutch Oven of Dating” — when in doubt, “Go Dutch.” If you ask out another person on a date, be prepared to pay for both of you.

If you extend the invite, you should be the host…regardless of your genitalia.

Why isn’t this already common sense? (or, as much as I hate the term: “conventional wisdom”)

What’s with this pathological desire of many people to define COMPLETE STRANGERS — let alone the people whom they theoretically care about — by their chromosomes?

If I hold the door open for a woman who happens to be walking several feet behind me…why shouldn’t I hold the door open for another man, several seconds later, in that same situation? Is there any objective evidence that the woman needs to get inside the building any more urgently than the man does?

If they are both strangers to me, then shouldn’t I be viewing them as equals from the onset? At least, until one of them individually proves me wrong?

So, thinking back to the elderly woman dismounting the bus at that Van Nuys intersection, several years ago…did I give her special treatment because she was elderly and walked with a cane?

Would I have jumped to the aid of a man around my own age (Millennial or “Xennial”) who appeared to have zero physical impairments?

I probably would have. The inciting factor, in that situation, was the overeager crowd. A zealous group of passengers-to-be who appeared ready to charge the bus with a battering ram if they’d been equipped with one.

Sure, the elderly cane-toting woman stood out to me because I could see she was relying on a mobility aid. And because I’ve been exposed to the cultural stereotype of helping senior citizens (e.g., the Boy Scout who helps the little old lady cross the street).

But if it had been a young child, or a teenager, or a young adult man, or a young adult woman, or a middle-aged man, or a middle-aged woman, or an elderly man?

I’d like to think I would have done the “chivalrous” thing, for any of those fellow humans. I’m very sensitive to protecting people in general from “mob mentality.” And this was a literal mob…at a literal bus stop.

The entire notion of a gendered rationale for “chivalry” is outrageous. If we really examine the logic and purpose behind treating other people well, the men-must-be-chivalrous framework totally falls apart.

In her October 2021 article entitled “No, The ‘Women and Children First’ Rule Was Never a Real Thing,” Katie Jgln holds up a magnifying glass to the reality that chivalry-as-we-know-it never actually existed. In all likelihood, the knight-in-shining-armor caricature was based on historical myths. She chronicles how it became a rhetorical tool wielded by medieval nobles in order to protect their own interests at the expense of poorer classes (“peasants”).

Ms. Jgln expands this survey of history, pointing out how European neoromantic writers of the late-1800s created a façade of “chivalry” in order to make masculinity seem more upstanding. This gave them an excuse to sidestep and gloss over countless atrocities perpetuated by patriarchal thinking.

I would add that the modern-day repurposing of this smokescreen has been inverted by neofeminists (and their allies or sympathizers) who insist that the only way to achieve female empowerment is via the intentional degradation of male persons.

Look at the blatant favoritism that Judge Michael Corriero of Hot Bench shows to female litigants on the program’s daytime TV courtroom…while he outright mocks and challenges the “manhood” of male litigants in order to shame them into behaving “like gentlemen.” Or Chapter 4 of Justin Baldoni’s book, Man Enough.

There is no substantive reason why “chivalry” must be monodirectional.

Until we, as a society, consciously redefine “chivalry” as respectful treatment and congeniality regardless of a person’s genitalia or sex chromosomes, then the shallow gender wars are going to continue in earnest.