Wednesday, 10 December 2014

on chivalry

Throughout my online dating history, I have talked to, been on dates with, and had full-blown relationships with various men I met that way. Some of them were great and even though they're no longer in my life, I appreciate that I got to meet them. A lot of them, though, fell into very definite archetypes. The guy who was just a nice guy. The insufferable intellectual. The awkward semi-hermit. The pick-up-artist-in-training. The guy who had a long list of problems that would definitely all be solved if I would just sleep with him please. The guy who had a long list of all his excellent qualities that would definitely solve all my problems if I would just sleep with him please.

Occasionally I would encounter Chivalrous Dude. Chivalrous Dude would be polite to a fault, deliver all manner of compliments all on the right side of appropriate and listen very, very attentively (often without actually hearing anything that was being said). Chivalrous Dude was definitely happy to see that I was a feminist, and he was very committed to treating women right, and wasn't that great? Chivalrous Dude had many Thoughts and Feelings that he was keen to share, and eventually some Traditional Gender Roles that he thought we could perhaps partake of together. My interactions with the Chivalrous Dudes rarely ended well, and I soon learned to steer well clear of them if at all possible.

It's often in response to these guys that I am urged to "cut him some slack". I think I've made my feelings on this phrase quite clear, but let me just say: I get it. I get why people like this chivalry thing, and I get where these guys are coming from. They (mostly) have the absolute best of intentions. They've seen some truly unpleasant behaviour exhibited by men towards women and are appalled by it; they want to be better than that. They are going to be Nice to Women, because they are Nice Men trying to do Nice Things. I understand that.

I also understand that we can't apply a blanket rule of "treat everyone exactly the same" because that just isn't how the world works. We haven't fully corrected the power disparities between genders/races/orientations/whatever else that have existed as long as society has, and we may never do. Treating people with absolute rules-lawyer equality when that isn't what the rest of the world is doing doesn't make things better, particularly not if you are refusing to acknowledge that the behaviour of the rest of the world puts certain people at a disadvantage. So we can't just say "complete equality of treatment, end of discussion." Things are a little too sticky and complicated for that.

However, in terms of basic social interaction, I really do not want to be operating under a Code of How Men Should Treat Women as opposed to a Code of How to Treat Other People. It's weird. If someone holds a door open for me, I will assume they're doing so because I am a person and it is not pleasant to slam a door in the face of a person. If a man in a mixed group holds the door open for women only, I will side-eye him a little bit. If a group of men standing near the door form two groups (or for maximum weird, lines) either side of it, wave me through the door that one of them is holding open and watch me walk through it, I will feel seriously uncomfortable because this is a weird thing to do (if you do this thing? Stop doing this thing, it is a creepy thing).

And in terms of someone I'm dating? I don't want to be treated like Woman as Concept, I want to be treated like me. In my younger and stupider days I dated a couple of men who told me that "the man walks on the outside of the pavement to protect the woman" and "the man walks the woman home to make sure she's safe". What exactly he was going to protect me from by standing on that side of the road, and what dangers he was going to avert that never occurred when I walked home by myself every single other day, was never made clear. If you're going to walk me home, do it because you want to talk to me some more, not because of some unstated Lady Boogeyman.

Mostly the stated position of Chivalrous Dude is less "women are weak and cannot do things for themselves" and more "women are special and magical creatures who must be treated in a special way". Many of the ones I've personally come across have told me that women are amazing, women are worth more than men, women deserve special treatment, men are rubbish and must prove themselves worthy. This is as icky as "women are lesser" and ultimately leads to the same place - these men treat the women around them as if they're not quite human, and as if they're all basically the same.

My major, major bugbear with Chivalrous Dude is this one: there is no way to live up to his expectation of Womanhood. He has a pedestal with Woman on it, casts whoever he's being chivalrous at as Woman, and proceeds to act out his strange code of behaviour until she accidentally reveals herself to be human (by having a past, or a flaw, or on occasion by being a horrible person acting out of outright malice). At this, Chivalrous Dude feels betrayed, upset, maybe angry. Sometimes this is directed at the woman he cast as Woman, feeling that she has let down Womanhood with her unexpected behaviour. Sometimes he doesn't make this distinction between woman and Woman, and her behaviour reflects upon Woman as a whole. If the behaviour is transgressive enough, it breaks his pedestal entirely (you know that guy who got dumped or cheated on or couldn't get that girl to go out with him by hanging around looking hopeful and then spent the next eight years complaining that all women were bitches and whores? He was probably Chivalrous Dude Type 2 once).

You cannot do chivalry, in the modern sense of the word, without bringing in some gender essentialist assumptions to a greater or lesser degree, and frankly I'd rather not. I don't like the behaviours that are coded chivalrous, and I don't like the way I'm expected to perform in response (be quiet, be polite, be gracious, don't make a fuss, don't contradict). Some people do like it, and this is why talking to each other is a thing that people should do more. Then the men that like to behave this way can do so to women who like this behaviour, and I don't have to get called a "lovely lady" ever again.

2 comments:

  1. Walking on the outside of the pavement is to shield your long skirts from mud thrown up by passing horses or carriages, I believe. So fair enough if you are walking down a muddy road with lots of horses passing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sure, that's where it came from. But that's kind of the point - I don't believe I've ever had occasion to put on a long skirt and walk down a muddy road alongside a bunch of horses (and if this was still something that happened, I'm not sure "man gets dirty instead" would be the correct default). It's an anachronism that in this day and age is slightly patronising.

    ReplyDelete