Chivalry’s mortal enemy: Toxic masculinity.

George Yancy at the New York Times confesses his sin:

I am a failed and broken feminist. More pointedly, I am sexist. There are times when I fear for the “loss” of my own “entitlement” as a male.

Chief among his sins was his failure to give his wife sovereignty:

For example, before I got married, I insisted that my wife take my last name. After all, she was to become my wife. So, why not take my name, and become part of me? She refused. She wanted to keep her own last name, arguing that a woman taking her husband’s name was a patriarchal practice. I was not happy…

…I dropped the ball. That day I learned something about me. I didn’t respect her autonomy, her legal standing and personhood. As pathetic as this may sound, I saw her as my property, to be defined by my name and according to my legal standing. (She kept her name.) While this was not sexual assault, my insistence was a violation of her independence. I had inherited a subtle, yet still violent, form of toxic masculinity.

To repent of his sin, he now realizes that he needs to put himself in service of women, seeking out every opportunity to be their champion:

[My toxic masculinity] still raises its ugly head — I should be thanked when I clean the house, cook, sacrifice my time. These are deep and troubling expectations that are shaped by male privilege, male power and toxic masculinity.

If you are a woman reading this, I have failed you. Through my silence and an uninterrogated collective misogyny, I have failed you.

Yancy mistakenly believes the virtuous way of life he extols is feminism, but what he describes as feminism is really chivalry.  If he were a chivalrous man, he would have known to give his wife sovereignty from stories like The Wedding of Sir Gawain, and he would have likewise known it was his obligation to be women’s champion.

It is not merely Yancy who is mistaken however.  Chivalrous men erroneously believe that their chivalry is the natural antidote to Yancy’s feminism.  Neither side realizes they are on the same team, with the same values and goals.

H/T Instapundit

Advertisements

Chivalry was re-purposed by women, for women.

Reader ‘Reality’ Doug writes (emphasis mine):

Dalrock, very educational. Your thesis may be no less irrefutable than Alex Jones’ certain theory, but your ‘evidence’ from the lips of a woman who earns a living as a college professor…you should know better. You did not address the potential for female spin to sell ‘chivalry’ as (re)defined by Team Woman. It’s not like I will come up with my own expert opinion on C.S. Lewis or Thomas Malory, but I must be suspicious of the sex so fair and so artful at rewriting the history of men not just past but present and even future.

Reality Doug has hit on the core of the issue.  Women did redefine chivalry for Team Woman. But this didn’t happen in modern times. It happened in the 1100s! The chivalry we love wasn’t corrupted, it is the corruption. The women who redefined chivalry to serve team woman were not professors at Oxford, but Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie de Champagne.

If your chivalry comes from the Arthurian universe that includes Sir Lancelot, then your chivalry is fully corrupted with the ideology of courtly love, leading back to Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart circa 1177.  As Infogalactic explains (emphasis mine):

The story is an Arthurian legend, and one of the first to feature Lancelot as a prominent character. The narrative tells about the abduction of Queen Guinevere, and is the first text to feature the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere. While little is known about the life of Chrétien de Troyes, it can be said that his writings impacted the Arthurian canon, establishing Lancelot’s subsequent prominence in English literature. Chrétien was the first writer to deal with the Arthurian themes of the lineage of Lancelot, his relationship to Guinevere, and the idea of courtly love.

…

Courtly love was coined by the medievalist Gaston Paris in 1883 to help understand the relationship between Lancelot and Guinevere in Lancelot, The Knight of the Cart. Alexander J. Denomy describes courtly love as, “…a type of sensual love and what distinguishes it from other forms of sexual love, from mere passion… is its purpose or motive, its formal object, namely, the lover’s progress and growth in natural goodness, merit, and worth”(44).^[3] In the Knight of the Cart, Lancelot has become entranced by Guinevere and in more ways than ^[4] one, is ruled by her. As the queen, Guinevere maintains power over the kingdom as well as Lancelot. When Meleagant questions their love and her adultery to the king, Lancelot challenges Meleagant to a battle to protect Guinevere’s honor. Lancelot has no shame in showing his affair with the queen, “Lancelot’s love explodes into romance without any beginning revealed or end foretold, fully formed and symbolized by the extraordinary fullness of his heart” (Lacy). This introduction of the love affair between Guinevere and Lancelot appears in many other stories after this poem was written.

Chrétien de Troyes included the theme of (as we now call it) courtly love at the specific direction of Marie de Champagne:

It is believed that in the production of The Knight of the Cart, Chrétien was provided with source material (or matiere), as well as a san, or a derivation of the material. The matiere in this case would refer to the story of Lancelot, and the san would be his affair with Guinevere. Marie de Champagne was well known for her interest in affairs of courtly love, and is believed to have suggested the inclusion of this theme into the story. For this reason, it is said that Chrétien could not finish the story himself because he did not support the adulterous themes.

Chrétien makes this clear in the very beginning of the tale.  The very act of writing the story was an act of chivalry as we know the term (of the courtly love variety):

Since my lady of Champagne wishes me to undertake to write a romance, I shall very gladly do so, being so devoted to her service as to do anything in the world for her, without any intention of flattery. But if one were to introduce any flattery upon such an occasion, he might say, and I would subscribe to it, that this lady surpasses all others who are alive, just as the south wind which blows in May or April is more lovely than any other wind. But upon my word, I am not one to wish to flatter my lady. I will simply say: “The Countess is worth as many queens as a gem is worth of pearls and sards.” Nay I shall make no comparison, and yet it is true in spite of me; I will say, however, that her command has more to do with this work than any thought or pains that I may expend upon it. Here Chretien begins his book about the Knight of the Cart. The material and the treatment of it are given and furnished to him by the Countess, and he is simply trying to carry out her concern and intention. Here he begins the story.

Again, chivalry was corrupted, but the corruption happened much sooner than the defenders of Arthurian chivalry are willing to admit.  Arthurian legends predate Lancelot and the Cart, but the Arthurian universe as we know it was redefined way back in the 1100s by powerful noblewomen who wanted to transform chivalry into a glorification of romantic love and subservience to women.

Defending chivalry’s honor.

Commenter J. J. Griffing disagrees with my use of the term chivalry:

Just call it “Courtly Love,” already, @Dalrock. You seem to have no idea what ACTUAL “chivalry” consists of beyond that, but what you call “chivalry” repeatedly is to the real thing what the Book of Mormon is to the Gospel. By defining the whole by one cancerous outgrowth (through a single book about said growth), you demonstrate gross ignorance of your topic and of the serious scholarship even your one abused source represents.

You’re usually RIGHT about feminism. But your persistent ignorance of chivalry is appalling. (Yes, I am still working on the promised rebuttal, but Real Life often interferes.)

I have no doubt that Griffing and other readers have much they could teach me about chivalry, and I look forward to the instruction.  But nevertheless I don’t agree that we can draw the clear distinction he claims between chivalry and courtly love.  While there are multiple aspects to what we commonly call chivalry, in popular usage chivalry is largely if not entirely about service and deference to women.  If a parent tells you they are raising their son to be chivalrous, they almost never mean they are raising their boy to say go on armed adventures, or fight duels to defend his honor.  What they most commonly will mean is they are raising their boy to look for ways to be of service to the women around him (carrying heavy loads, offering his coat, opening doors, etc).  They often will also mean they are training their boy to court chivalrously by boldly declaring his romantic intentions, always paying for dates, and (when the time comes to propose marriage) kneel in submission before his lady.

Moreover, it isn’t just in modern usage that chivalry is associated with what the men’s sphere calls white knighting for women.  The most famous real life act of chivalry (according to legend) is arguably when King Edward III gallantly came to the aid of a woman with a suspiciously timed wardrobe malfunction:

While she was dancing at a court ball at Calais, her garter is said to have slipped from her leg. When the surrounding courtiers sniggered, the king picked it up and returned it to her, exclaiming, “Honi soit qui mal y pense” (“Shame on him who thinks evil of it.”), the phrase that has become the motto of the Order.

This legendary act of chivalry led to the founding the oldest order of chivalry in the world, the Order Of The Garter.  This is the most prestigious order of chivalry in the UK:

Order Of The Garter

This is the highest ranking order of chivalry in the United Kingdom, it is entirely within the personal gift of the Monarch and is very exclusive. Only The Queen, The Prince Of Wales and 24 knights may be in the order at any one time. When one Knight dies, another is appointed. It is also, the oldest order of chivalry in the world, going back to 1348.

The phrase the king uttered when the woman dropped her underwear was thought to be so gallant, so perfect an act of chivalry, that it along with a depiction of the garter itself was prominently incorporated into the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom.  As a result, this glorious example of the chivalric ideal is to this day embossed in gold on the front of British Passports.

Neither is it just C.S. Lewis who observed that tales of the Knights of the Round Table are steeped in the morality of courtly love, nor is this morality limited to works like Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart.  As Associate Professor of English Laura Ashe at Worcester College, Oxford explains, Malory is likewise steeped in courtly love:

Malory’s ideal of chivalry has love at its heart: ‘thy quarrel must come of thy lady’, he says, ‘and such love I call virtuous love’. Each knight is to fight for the sake of his lady; with his victories he earns her love, and defends her honour. He is absolutely loyal to her and will follow her every command, whatever happens – whether she sends him on an impossible quest, banishes him from her company, or stands accused of some terrible crime, in desperate need of his help. Here, tragedy enters the picture. Lancelot’s love of Guinevere can never have a happy ending, for she is King Arthur’s queen. This is the epitome of ‘courtly love’ in literature: a commitment which binds the lovers until their deaths, but is never fulfilled in happy union.

Lastly, the very term courtly love Griffing wants me to exclusively use is relatively new.  While there is some controversy, it is generally attributed to Gaston Paris in an article from 1883.  It is a term coined by literary critics hundreds of years later to describe a common characteristic of literary chivalry in the Late Middle Ages.  Courtly love was always a common component of chivalric tales starting around the late 1100s.  There were not two separate literary genres, chivalry and courtly love.  Courtly love was part of the Late Middle Ages concept of chivalry, so much so that a separate name wasn’t required.

Gone fishin’

I’ll be taking a blogging break over the next few days. I’ll turn moderation on in a bit and will take it back off on Monday.

Edit:  Moderation is now on.

Edit Monday Oct 22:  Moderation is now off.

Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold.

The ugly feminist and the chivalrous man are a perfect match.*  Nothing terrifies her more than the thought of suffering feelings of love or gratitude. Nothing excites him more than the privilege of proving his superior manhood by doing the bidding of a cruel unfeeling woman.  She is certain that all men are evil and naturally want to harm women, yet is equally confident that men will be eager solve all of women’s problems.  He awaits his midons’ next demand with great anticipation.

As Roger Boase explained, summarizing Gaston Paris (the man who coined the term courtly love):

…the lover continually fears lest he should, by some misfortune, displease his mistress or cease to be worthy of her; the lover’s position is one of inferiority; even the hardened warrior trembles in his lady’s presence; she, on her part, makes her suitor acutely aware of his insecurity by deliberately acting in a capricious and haughty manner; love is a source of courage and refinement; the lady’s apparent cruelty serves to test her lover’s valour

*This match does not originate in heaven.

Correction:  I originally attributed the quote to Gaston Paris, but it is Roger Boase summarzing Paris.