CHIVALRY IS
DEAD....AND WOMEN KILLED IT
Romeo and Juliet. Tristan and Iseult.
Lancelot and Guinevere. Ramsey Nouah and Genevieve. Common factor- these men
have proven time and again that they would die for their women if need be (although
I can't really vouch for the last couple, you know how deceptive Nollywood can
be). They have slain dragons, and braved storms, and fought armies, and even
drank poison to prove their love for the leading ladies in their lives. Over
the years, chivalry evolved into being just that show of general courtesy-you
know, when to a man, a woman’s a lady
in every sense of the word. For men these days, chivalry is opening the door
for a woman, getting up when a woman enters the room, giving up your place for
a woman, the whole nine yards. I imagine men reading this saying in their
minds,” for where?”
This concept is so foreign to men of
this generation because of the simple fact that chivalry is dead. Deader than
Attila the Hun. The sad part is that the women killed it. Ruthlessly.
Thoughtlessly. Brutally. Now I imagine women around the world (I like to think)
reading this and going, “Oh no, she didn’t!”
I am indeed sorry to say, Yes I did.
Come now, think about it. Little by
little, act after act, women methodically prove to the male folk that they are
just not worth the bloody effort. I know there are a few good women out there,
but just ask the guys, and they’ll tell you these women are like gold dust.
They’re either in the convent or they’re married to assholes (who, by the way,
can only be managed by the aforementioned few good women).
The women of this generation don’t
offer any incentive for men to even be nice to them, talk less about exhibiting
chivalry. I’m sure that at this juncture, feminists reading this will be filled
with righteous indignation (why the hell do we need them to be nice to us,
etc). But let’s face it, the world was a much more civilized place when women
were ladies and men were…well, whatever they were. The concept of liberalism
has created an allowance for all things previously deemed inappropriate and
decadent. At the risk of coming across as a prude (which I am most assuredly
not, I assure you with full assurance), I believe that I would have liked to
exist in those days of knights and their ladies fair. Think of all the heavy
lifting I would have avoided. All the noses I have been dying to bloody would
have been taken care of by a misguided chivalrous fool with just some discreet,
well-placed nudging on my part.
In those days, men would knock their
own brother into next tuesday for even hinting at the intent to insult a woman.
If you don’t believe it, refer to Benedick and Beatrice in Shakespeare’s Much
Ado About Nothing. In these women-wear-pants-too times, a man may meet his
brother on top of his wife and the worst that will happen is that he may not
speak to him for a weekend until they go to the family reunion and iron all
their issues out. The innate respect that men have for women has been
irrevocably stamped out by the antics of women. What man would waste the blood
of a total stranger much less his brother over a slack-thighed woman (pardon my
French) who didn’t even have the decency to have his dinner on the table before
climbing into bed with the maiguard.
Why would any man respect a woman
who would climb into bed with every Tom, Dick and Calistus, who he met when he
picked her up in some bar? What man would respect a woman who dresses like
Cinderella after her sisters had snatched all their accessories from
her-shabby, worn and naked? How can any
man respect a woman whose mouth is dirtier than a chimney sweep, a woman who
could turn the air around her a ribald shade of blue with a handful of choice
curse words? Show me that man and I will show you a transvestite feminist.
Women live by the principle of “Give
a little, expect a lot”. They want men to be men and women to be whatever they
want to be. But it is a simple case of action and reaction. Women demand
incessantly to be treated as the equals of men. The part that they did not
shout out loud is that this equal treatment is only feasible when it suits
them. The same woman who goes nose-to-nose with her husband over equal rights
in the kitchen suddenly becomes skittish when he raises his hand to hit her. If
she’s his equal (as she has spent all this time reminding the poor thing), then
both of them should be able to go, as equals, equally into a physical combat.
But no. It suddenly occurs to her that it is cowardly for a man to hit a woman.
If that’s not convenient, I don’t know what is.
There is a reason why men are
created the way they are inside and out. They’re here to serve and protect
their women, but to their utter astonishment, their women are no longer women
(the servees and the protectees) but they have now evolved into this other
creature which is a very convenient hybrid of man and woman characters, and
which no one thought to inform the poor men of their existence. Left confused
with these mutants (yes, I said it), they adapt the only way they know
how-employ brand new relationship skills. Voila-and so we have the contemporary
man-woman relationship.
And so, friends, my point is proven.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
you are most assuredly not a prude. Hahaha..
ReplyDeleteTrue story though. But the world has changed. Chivalry must have gone dynamic. If you look closely, you'll still see it...
oh yes? I've peered as closely as I possibly can. where?
ReplyDeleteWell, at the risk of sounding like a chauvinist, men of our time allow the women have their way. The fact that men stand to support feminism, in effect eroding the duties of a man as he was created 'inside and out', is a form of chivalry. In the old days, we leapt to the defence of women as they felt they had none. Now that women have decided to defend, fight and empower themselves, chivalrous men are the ones that have taken the back seat and said 'ladies, do your thing.'
ReplyDeleteAs much as I agree with you, I believe that it is not as black and white as you portray because things are a lot more complicated than you have written. It is true that chivalry is dead, and that women have a part in killing it, but you cannot tell me that because women demand their husbands to help out with the house that they live and work in, that invites them to go for a physical bout with their husbands on an equal level. The indisputable fact remains that a men and women are not equal in all things. Because a woman can push a 10 pound baby out of her is not an opening for an a fist to the face. The difference between men and women is still apparent, even if the gap has been bridged.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot blame the basic thoughtlessness that plagues humanity on the fact that some women do not like to mince words, waste time, or pretend. In this day and age where women are hailed as breadwinners of the family, I understand how they would subscribe to the "time is money" premise and decide not to waste time on pretenses, while fighting to hold their place in this cutthroat world.
One more thing, would you say that in the "chivalrous times" there were no women that dressed in a ribald fashion? Since there definitely were, how would you explain the fact that chivalry was very much alive and kicking in those times? I agree that women have a part to play in the demise of chivalry, but I also think that as with everything else, chivalry is a CHOICE, and people have just decided to drop the mantle because they can't be bothered to do the right thing. Evolution has definitely closed the chasm between right and wrong, and this IS why there are so many things wrong in the world today.
Thank you for reading the blog and offering you thoughts. Much appreciated. If you do a little bit of research, in the heyday of chivalry, women generally were ladies in every sense. They minded their language and had impeccable manners, and a woman was considered unladylike and therefore shunned by society if she didn't conform to the rules. Times have changed since then, and society is no longer as prudish, but the rudiments of proper behavior are still applicable.
DeleteWhat am I trying to say? Merely that women cannot carry on assuming that we are the same with men. It's the sad reality, and we can argue from now till next week, but that's the status quo.
I concede your point that men too have a part to play, but that point of view has been over-stressed and I decided to finger the other set of culprits in this situation.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. I should've incorporated that into the piece. ;)
Miss Mandy,
ReplyDeleteYou had me up until physical combat. I don't appreciate the way you addressed it so loosely it is a serious issue in our community and a lot of the time the victims are not necessarily people that are looking for equality in the home. How do I know? I know people who have been in that situation. So let me understand this are you saying that you do not want to be seen and respected as an equal? Forget woman, as a person? I am sorry but when God created me he did not say I will be a slave to man. He created me as his equal. Yes, we should be submissive to our husbands but at what point does submissive become being a slave or punching bag for that matter? The idea is not that we want to take over and run the show rather it is that we want to be given the opportunity to be individuals and do what we love to do regardless of whether it is in a male dominated field or not. Equality in the work place- the same pay for the same work. I don’t know about Nigeria, but in North America a lot of men get paid more than women in the same job. Equality in the home- We are not asking to run the show, we are asking to be partners. I dont think that in any way takes away from a woman being a lady. All in all good piece. I appreciate points about loose women killing chivalry so true.
Thank you so much for taking out time to read, and for your thoughts. I realize that I didn't exactly elucidate that point. Domestic violence is an issue that is personal to me, so i don't take it lightly. I'm not making excuses for it. Far from it. I'm merely saying that if women realize enough to know that a man shouldn't hit them, then they should not be plagued by selective principles. A woman should realize her place and as you said, submit, which, alas, is quite contrary to what we have in this day.
DeleteEquality in the workplace is quite separate from the issues discussed in this piece, as that is rewards received based on the merit and qualification of the individual, irrespective of the gender. This piece is about the male-female relationship dynamics.
In the home, there's a role for everyone. God made a woman to be the helpmate, not to run the show. Where she is a breadwinner and the man is in the picture, then there's a dysfunction.
Once again, thanks a lot.
I just have one thing to say about your concept of equality in the workplace. I agree that women find it harder in this world, but in North America, a paygrade is a paygrade. It is actually illegal to pay a man more money than you would pay a woman in the same exact position just because he is a man. It might be a little harder to work your way up the corporate ladder for a woman, but I know that the differences in salary are actually due to other circumstances and negotiation, and not gender.
DeleteI do agree with your observation though. Submissiveness is not mumuness!