Chivalry

This word is being bandied about a lot lately. I have heard men saying they 'believe in chivalry', suggesting that this is a desirable quality.

What is chivalry?

The word ‘chivalry’ actually comes from ‘chevalier’, meaning horsemanship (not a promising start).

Chivalry is a Medieval code of conduct associated with knighthood, which included things like honour, love of your country and loyalty. It’s about men fighting other men (it’s not getting any better).

Chivalry also developed into the idea of ‘courtly love’ - the idea that a knight should serve a lady, and after her serve all ladies and be respectful to women.

These codes come from a time when it was never considered that women could have the same abilities as men, that they could make their own decisions or claim equality. It was inconceivable. In that world, where women didn't have opportunities and couldn't earn their own living, chivalry was a way of protecting a vulnerable section of society.

Chivalry is condescending

Chivalry casts women as fragile, delicate creatures in need of protection and special treatment. The moment we accept this designation, we can no longer expected be treated as men's equals, because we are accepting we are their inferiors and we need them to protect us.

I’m all for honour in war and that sort of thing - being polite to people before you run them through with a sword, and only doing it if they’ve done something really naughty like taken your land.

But the subtext of the ‘courtly love’ side of chivalry is that women should sit about looking pretty and appreciative while men charge about wounding each other in their names (jousting), holding doors open for us, and occasionally writing bad poetry.

Women are very capable of opening doors and writing out own bad poetry. We can also engage in dangerous contact sports, should we wish.

Chivalry sets women on a pedestal

The thing about pedestals is they keep women out of trouble. You're up there, looking pretty and sitting on your perch so you're not going to be campaigning for equal pay or anything like that. In fact, why do you need equal pay when some nice chivalrous man can keep you in the manner which you've become accustomed?

The phrase 'I believe in chivalry’ translates as; ‘I’m deeply sexist – I expect men and women to conform to pre-conceived gender roles. I'll hold doors open for you and occasionally buy you dinner, but in return you should do all the cooking and clean the bathroom regularly.'

If a man wants to behave courteously towards women, then that's fine, just don't call it chivalry. Call it being nice. Or just not being an arse.

Hold doors open for us because we're human beings, and it's not nice to have doors slammed in your face. And we will hold doors open for you in return.

Leave chivalry in the past

Looking to the past for a code of how to treat women is a really bad idea. Living in the West today is about the best it’s ever been for women. There may still be improvements to be made, but it’s a sight better than it has been at any time in the past. We really shouldn't be looking backwards.

The best way to be show respect to a woman is to treat her as your equal, not a princess.

Everyday sexism

In the face of sexism, maybe we all need to be a bit ruder and nastier.

The Everyday Sexism Project documents 'experiences of sexism, harassment and assault to show how bad the problem is and create solidarity.' Here are a couple of examples:

Having to hear a group of drunk men singing and shouting sexist remarks is just how I want to start my morning #everydaysexism
— Kerrii (@KerriiRoseanne) August 19, 2014

"You're really gorgeous you know, even with those glasses on." Fuck. You. I am at work. #everydaysexism
— Katie Loewy (@SweetestCyanide) August 19, 2014

Carrying baggage

I bought some luggage from a nice man in a shop, talked to him about needing a big bag because I have a baby and lots of stuff to carry. I faffed about a bit, not sure whether or not to buy it, and when I went ahead he said: "you can always pretend you’ve had it for ages – that’s what you women do."

I wondered what he was talking about. But then it clicked – 'he thinks I’m hesitating because I will have to explain to my husband why I spent the money!'

As it happens I (a) have a good job and make my own money and (b) don’t have a man to answer to since he buggered off (with all the luggage).

It’s a very minor incident - a crass comment made by someone from a different generation who didn’t really think it through. But it does highlight some widely held assumptions about women, namely:

• we are financially dependent on men
• we have to answer to men for decisions we make
• we are more likely to make rash consumer choices than men

Should we talk back?

My little run-in with everyday sexism was a very minor anecdote, and no, I didn't pull him up on it, because he was basically a nice man, who didn't think before he spoke.

Maybe I should have, but I didn't want to offend him, and I suppose I was also afraid of the "Tuh! Women" reaction that I was quite likely to get. Probably I should have pulled him up on it, because how can people change if we don't tell them what they're doing wrong? And how can society if individuals don't?

I should have been a rude, nasty girl.

Are we wasting our time with feminism?

Am I wasting my energy by banging on about feminism?

From trying to ban the boobs on page 3 of the Sun to putting a woman on British banknotes, there are more feminist causes and campaigns than you can shake a phallus at. But are we barking up the wrong tree?

Women in the west

There is an argument that feminism has done a lot of its work. Women are doing pretty well (in the west), so we should focus our energies on other issues and inequalities.

And it's true that in a lot of ways things aren't really that bad - women in the UK are entitled to free education, to maternity leave, we can drive cars, have our own bank accounts and own our own homes.

Women in the UK have more or less equal rights with men, even if we don't quite have equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean that the work of feminism is done. Sexism is still rife. A CMI White Paper on Women in Leadership this year found:

• Women earn on average £423,000 less than men in similar careers during their lifetimes
• 47% of the workforce is female, but only 32% of managers, directors and senior officials are women
• Only 15.6 of directorships are occupied by women on the FTSE 100
• Women receive less than half the bonuses than their male counterparts (£7,496 compared to £3,726)

Choosing a cause

There may still be work to be done before we have complete equality, even in the UK. But could our efforts be put to better use elsewhere? Should we put the feminist agenda to one side and be championing human rights or the eradication of poverty instead?

If you follow the logic that there are more important things to support, putting issues in a hierarchy, then we'd end up only ever championing a single cause - the one at the top of the hierarchy.

We'd have to decide a single topic that is most important and pledge our support only for that. Would you choose cancer or world poverty?

More than just helping women

Of course, feminism is intimately connected to a lot of the most important causes - to name but three:

• Education - girls are more likely than boys to be denied this
• Violence and abuse - women are more vulnerable to this
• Poverty - childcare means this often has a bigger impact on women than men

Pursuing feminist aims can have huge benefits - for example, educating women and improving their employment opportunities can help lift both them and their families out of poverty. This means that feminism does much more than helping women - it can positively benefit everyone, including men. 

Women may be doing OK, but we still need to pursue a feminist agenda, because it's only fair that women and men have equal rights and opportunities, but also because by providing these things we can improve life for women, men and children in so many other ways.

Taking feminism to video games

So a feminist thought she'd turn her attention to video games did she? Well the boys showed they wouldn't take her bra-burning antics lying down. How dare she!

Anita Sarkeesian, via Wikimedia Commons

Feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian is making a series of three films exploring female characters in video games. So far she has released the first two on feministfrequency.com and YouTube.

The project was funded by backers on Kickstarter.com. Heading up the project page on the site is now a video games style cartoon with the caption 'Thankfully Anita has decided to face down the trolls and continue the project.'

Damsel in Distress

Sarkeesian's videos explore the 'damsel in distress' trope in video games. She defines this as 'a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must then be rescued by a male character.'

She suggests that the damsel in distress has become the video game staple for female characters, giving examples of video games, from the earliest and most well-loved games, including Mario's Princess Peach and Princess Zelda, to more recent titles, which portray women as weak and incapable.

A male character will usually be the subject of a video game narrative, while female characters tend to exist as objects for male characters to rescue and/or receive as a reward for completing a quest. Sarkeesian suggests that repeating these tropes in video games 'helps to normalise extremely toxic, patronising and paternalistic attitudes about women'.

Criticising video games

Video games have traditionally been hugely male dominated, in terms of the people making them, playing them and the characters appearing in them. The balance has shifted a little in recent years, with increasing numbers of women and girls being drawn to gaming, but as Sarkeesian shows, the role of women in the games themselves has not really moved on in the genre.

Sarkeesian has clearly been interested in video games for a long time. She makes the point that you can enjoy something whilst finding some aspects of it troubling. I discussed a similar issue, in my post 'Is it OK to enjoy sexist films?'

But Sarkeesian received so much abuse on YouTube for her measured critique of the video games genre, that she has had to disable comments. If you want to read the kinds of horrible things people have said, she blogged about them here.

Henry Meynell Rheam, via Wikimedia Commons

Distressed damsels

The distressed damsel character is a problem that extends far beyond video games.

We grow up on fairy tales - Rapunzel is rescued from her tower by the handsome prince, Sleeping Beauty is woken from her sleep by the prince fighting his way to her, Snow White is brought back to life by the prince.

Before we can even read and write we learn about these helpless female characters who get themselves into sticky situations and wait around for a bloke to come and rescue them.

Thinking that her role in life is to dress like a princess and wait around for a nice chap to come and get her hardly seems a good way for a 21st century girl to begin life, and nor should boys grow up thinking they have to spend their time getting girls out of trouble.

Critiquing this trope in video games is one woman's attempt to reconcile the contradiction between enjoying an art work, whilst worrying about some of the assumptions about gender that it presents. And so we must help our children to enjoy these fairy tales and the characters they present, which are an important part of our cultural history, and yet also help them to understand that real life isn't like that, and nor are real men and women.

The fact that Sarkeesian was shot down for doing this says far more about the shooters themselves, and perhaps a certain cohort of video games fanatics, than it does about her project or the games by which it was inspired. And of course, by persevering with the project, she proved that 21st century women aren't damsels in distress.

Is it OK to enjoy sexist films?

Over Christmas I’ve been watching lots of non-strenuous films, the kind that if you nip out to top up your drink and reheat the Christmas pudding, it won’t be much of a challenge to work out what you missed. It’s a great feeling, when all the present wrapping and turkey cooking is over, with a new collection of still-cellophaned DVDs and a few days of dedicating myself to eating and watching.

Here I go, harking back to a time when men were rugged and go-getting, tracking down criminals and chasing people about in fast cars, and women had little to worry about other than looking good in evening dress. Ah, happy days. Hang on a minute...

How do I reconcile my love of these films, and their devilishly attractive yet hopelessly sexist men, with my feminist principles?

Silly girls

Women in so many films look nice, but are mainly pointless. Think Willie (Kate Capshaw) in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, pictured with the lovely Harrison Ford. She is constantly tripping over things in her inappropriate footwear, needing rescuing from animals and being squeamish. There really are a lot of women like this in films.

How many pre-1990 film actresses does it take to change a lightbulb? Just the one to wiggle her bottom until a man turns up to get the job done.

Scary girls

Another film I watched this Christmas was Russ Meyer’s Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill! If you don’t know Meyer, his hallmark is sexploitation with big breasts. I bought my husband a box set for Christmas.

This particular film (which is very badly acted), is both pro and anti-feminist. It features vicious women who get their kicks from fighting and killing. They are free and independent, using men only as sex objects and to prove their own superiority. So far so feminist. But Meyer's women are clearly (and infamously) chosen for their figures, most notably their enormous breasts. What the whole adds up to is a big fighty-feisty-girl-breast-fest. Fun though. 

Bond girls

Then there’s the compulsory Christmas Bond film.

In old-style Bond, the Connery and Moore school, women are usually pretty helpless (pretty and helpless) and invariably end up running about in a bikini, getting themselves and the hero into scrapes, but being forgiven because they're so darn attractive.

The women in new-style Bond, Brosnan and Craig, still spend a lot of time in bikinis but tend to be more useful (think Halle Berry in Die Another Day, although she does still need rescuing at the end, but what's a girl to do when she's trapped in a palace made of ice?).

They may be picked so that they look good in swimwear, but then so is James Bond, so I’m not about to complain about that. In The World is Not Enough they even allow a woman to be really clever (Denise Richards), although they ruin it by calling her Dr Christmas Jones. 

Redressing the balance

I’m glad that films are slowly redressing the balance when it comes to sexism, but that doesn’t help me reconcile my love of sexist flicks featuring men of action with my theoretical dislike of their portrayal of women. The later Bond films have proven that you really don't have to show women being hopeless to show men at their best, but it took a long time for Hollywood to figure that out.

When I ask myself what I would change about the women and men in these films, the answer is nothing. I love them too much as they are. What do you do?