Mention chivalry and the thoughts that most often come to mind are of the system of knighthood of the Middle Ages, or the protection and provision for women by ‘chivalrous’ gentlemen; the opening of doors, holding chairs, and picking up the tab. The norm for chivalry, according to Dr. T. William Alternatt of Hanover College, advocates ‘that men protect and provide for women’ as a gesture of respect and acknowledgement of feminine ‘virtue.’

The word chivalry evolved from various European terms for men who fought on horseback, such as chevalier (French) or caballero (Spanish), but in medieval times came to mean much more. The first chivalric orders; complete with vows of fealty and obedience to certain strict regulations; appeared concurrent with military activities against non-Christian states as Western Europe sought to expand its area of control. During the 13th century, knightly conventions dictated that men do nothing that would displease ladies and maidens.

While on the surface this would seem to be very respectful of women, upon closer examination, another picture emerges. In many ways, chivalry showed more disrespect for women than one would imagine, and many modern expressions of ‘chivalry’ continue to do so.

During medieval times the Virgin Mary, considered the mediator to God, was a source of refuge for man, and the chivalric attitude toward ‘ladies’ derived from that veneration. In contrast, women outside the circle of the aristocracy were looked down upon. Common women were considered little more than property to be exploited, while even the aristocratic ladies were viewed mainly as children who needed the protection and support of a man. Women of the upper classes were considered, like children, to be more virtuous than men, and incapable of acting on their own behalf. Women, or ladies, for one must never forget that the norms of chivalry did not apply to the common classes, were passive recipients, lacking the independence to act on their own behalf. While women were considered superior to men in virtue, they were considered decidedly inferior to men in ‘doing’ anything other than bear children and keep the household in order. Women were to be submissive to men and were believed incapable of understanding the complexities of economics and politics on a level with men.

Because of these beliefs, during the 11th century Pope Urban II felt that only women of noble birth deserved chivalrous treatment. Consequently, one is led to the conclusion that chivalry was not for all women, but only those who appeared virtuous and submissive.

One can see vestiges of this in the present day. The reaction of many men to women who insist on sharing expenses on dates, or who don’t want doors held for them is an example. In most cases, women who insist on acting independently are frowned upon or avoided. While men who act chivalrous are thought of as ‘nice’ guys, those who overdo it risk treating women as if they were children instead of independent adults. When one thinks about it, courteous forms based on gender not only demean women (notwithstanding that some women like being treated this way) but demonstrate disrespect for other men as well. If someone needs help it should be rendered without regard to gender – and when they don’t need it, they shouldn’t be insulted by having it forced upon them. In order for chivalry to be a true sign of respect, it should apply both ways; that is, women should be able to open doors, hold chairs, or share expenses with men if they’re able. When it’s a special form of behavior for men regarding women, it is nothing but another form of marginalization.