The way the fairy tale goes is that once upon a time in days of yore, knights rode around the countryside searching for damsels in distress in need of rescue. These women were considered weak and docile and in need of male protection to ensure their safety against dragons, witches and other things that generally tended to go bump in the night.
Well, I never liked this story. The only things a knight had over the standard damsel were a coat of armor and a sword. Lose the metal plating and sharp objects, and all you would find is a white horse and an ego.
So what happened to chivalry?
It was killed by women who learned they were perfectly capable of rescuing themselves.
I agree with one aspect of Adam Hare’s Sept. 20 column, “Chivalry collapsing,” that there exists a general lack of respect toward women. It is unacceptable for either sex to disrespect the other, and as a practice this should be stopped.
However, I think perhaps he missed Nikkee Porcaro’s beautifully articulated point: Women should not stand for disrespect simply because they are female. Rather, they should stand up for themselves and refuse to passively accept it.
Because of the feminist movement of the 20th century, we now live in a country where women can hold the same positions as men in the work force despite “hormonal fluctuations” and the corporate inconveniences of pregnancy and family obligations. We are editors, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, elected officials, just to name a few, and I am sure no woman has ever received one of these positions by being docile and passive. In fact, I believe such success is achieved through quite a contrary method involving determination and perseverance, two very knightly qualities.
Men and women are gradually becoming equals in both the professional and domestic arenas, and while the process is far from complete, it is certainly going in the right direction. However, for the perfect equality of these two genders in society, no special treatment exceeding that which you would give to anyone held in high esteem, whether they are male or female, must exist. If a man cannot treat a woman like she is capable of handling all of the adversities and corruption in this world to the same extent as a male counterpart, how is she ever going to be seen as an equal in the eyes of society?
While one can defend this concept as simple courtesy and etiquette in days long since removed from candlelit castles and foul-smelling stables, it is little short of archaic and demeaning. Being viewed and treated as the more docile sex has little probability of elevating women, as Hare’s article states. Rather, there is a far greater chance it will hinder women’s chances to be recognized as equals in society.
Several centuries ago, such social promotions and courtesies would be proper, but in an age of forward thinking and empowered women, perhaps it is time to discard the word chivalrous and all the connotations with which it is associated. Instead, why not support the practice of men and women treating each other with the same standards, despite what good intentions might be placed in the social promotion of one group by the second?
Let’s hang up the swords and suits of armor. There are no longer docile and helpless women standing defenseless in peril’s way, for as a gender we are our own protection and self-promotion.
Furthermore, if respect toward women is the goal you truly seek, then give them the ultimate sign of respect: Treat them as you would anyone else with competence and a brain.
Samantha Sieloff is a sophomore business major. She can be reached at ssleloff@umd.edu.
