Unfortunately, my column on chivalry has resulted in many outrages and unjust criticisms of my character. While I am not surprised that it sparked an overwhelming amount of controversy, I want to underline what I believe are a few misinterpretations of my article, and restate my original claim that chivalry cannot exist with equal rights. Equal rights are essentially equal opportunity in the job market, equal and objective pay for all those undergoing the same line of work, equal representation and prosecution under the law and equal treatment with respect. Chivalry is one of many components that inherently clash with equal treatment.
The first point I would like to address is the incorrect interpretation that chivalry is the defining factor that prevents women from attaining equality. What my point does illustrate is that it is impossible for equality, in its purest sense, to be fully established if chivalry is to remain. This was and is the basis for my entire article.
Molly McGrath brings up an interesting point about the hyper-sexualization of women, which she insists my column perpetuates. However, the reality of college from all gender and sexual orientation standpoints is that in America, college is not only a place to a gain a higher education, but also a place where kids want to get drunk and get laid. The harsh reality is that college men in particular have a misguided perspective that having sex with as many women as possible will affirm their “manhood” and prove their self worth. Although I did represent a straight college male’s perspective, most people of all genders and sexual orientations have a desire to go crazy in college. Therefore I am addressing an aspect of a sex-crazed culture in which we all engage.
Regrettably there is a sex specific depiction in the media for both genders. Like chivalry, this is certainly another problem that society should strive to address, but does not coincide with my original premise. Moreover, I am not objectifying women as sexual objects. Instead, I am revealing the honest truth that sadly many straight men do perceive women as sexual objects and trophies.
McGrath also brings in the LGBT community. I am unaware of the dynamics of this community because I can never fully put myself in its position. McGrath states that I ignore them while simultaneously implying that heteronormative relationships are the only ones worth discussing. I did not include them because I was addressing chivalry that occurs between a man and a woman. Furthermore, as she writes in her article, “This is unfortunate because queer relationships can provide a model for relationships unlimited by typical gender biases.” There was no need to address this community because they represent a more functional and progressive lifestyle that, as McGrath describes, only puts chivalry to shame.
Finally I would like to address the correct assumption that “Men are not monkeys, they can demonstrate self-control.” Absolutely right. All I stated was that chivalry exists with the ulterior motive for sex. People that use chivalry do so with the intent of getting someone to willingly hop into bed. Rape is a form of victimization whereas chivalry is a form of coercion. Chivalry is utilized by men who possess self-control to achieve consensual sex through seduction. The only grounds on which rape and chivalry can be compared is that they are both wrong. Rape is another category entirely and is a completely horrific, yet separate issue. Chivalry, on the other hand, is not a form of politeness, but a tool that enables men to assert dominance over women. I am mainly addressing men who were brought up in a sex-crazed patriarchy that perpetuates sexism. Chivalry is historically founded in a system of sexism and continues to be sexist. Thus, as long as this outdated archaic tradition is practiced, the rightful and long overdue empowerment of women will be stunted.
As I originally stated, the abolishment of chivalry should by no means result in the abolishment of kindness. However, it should be objective kindness for the sole sake of being kind regardless of gender. In addition, I am clearly not saying that there is anything wrong with sexual attraction. The one point I am stating is that chivalry is a misunderstood custom that does not make men gentlemen, but gives women the false impression of a man’s intent and treats women as inferior, which they are most certainly not. Chivalry is misogynistic; it implies that a woman is not fully capable of taking care of herself and needs a man’s help, which is ridiculous. This was the only intention of my original column and should not be condemned for being a controversial opinion of a young straight male in college.
Matt Bloom’s original column, “Women can’t have it both ways: it’s either special treatment or equality in all regards,” can be found here.
Molly McGrath’s response, “Chivalry column misses the point,” is here.