Chivalry is the unsalvageable code of ethics of 13th century knights to practice proper behavior and morals by using their power in a way that is beneficial to others. Unfortunately, modern use has dulled the term into a synonym for the concept of courtly love, a related but not interchangeable idea. This defamation to the name of chivalry in recent times has regrettably reduced the term to an encouragement of sexism of men towards women in “courtly love”, and as such can never be restored under its original meaning. However, the guidelines to good character that it set forth can be revived in today’s times under a separate name, as they are simply positive traits to possess. Firstly, it should be made clear that chivalry as a code of ethics
…show more content…
Fundamentally, courtly love’s rules inherently suggested solely men should court women. It is quite unequal to expect the men to be extra courteous based only on their gender and to expect the women to relinquish their ability to court men. Abigail Collezo, in “Courtesy Should Take Its Place”, reasons that there is hardly a reason to only allow courtesy to be extended in one direction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with one offering their assistance or courtesy to another because they are attracted to the other. Offering the other a choice in acceptance of the proposition shows consideration for their feelings and desire to help by courtesy. Insisting on helping the other because one believes that a trait of the other’s detracts from their ability to do things themselves is disrespectful, whether by gender, race, or just physical appearance. Brett McKay, in “Chivalry is a Nod to Differences Between the Sexes”, believes that opening a man opening a door for a woman is a way of showing he doesn’t mean harm. This is nonsensical as he must not understand basic human attraction. A man or woman might engage in a nice act for another of the gender he or she is attracted to solely to gain in their relationship, not as a display of strength or
Fundamentally, courtly love’s rules inherently suggested solely men should court women. It is quite unequal to expect the men to be extra courteous based only on their gender and to expect the women to relinquish their ability to court men. Abigail Collezo, in “Courtesy Should Take Its Place”, reasons that there is hardly a reason to only allow courtesy to be extended in one direction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with one offering their assistance or courtesy to another because they are attracted to the other. Offering the other a choice in acceptance of the proposition shows consideration for their feelings and desire to help by courtesy. Insisting on helping the other because one believes that a trait of the other’s detracts from their ability to do things themselves is disrespectful, whether by gender, race, or just physical appearance. Brett McKay, in “Chivalry is a Nod to Differences Between the Sexes”, believes that opening a man opening a door for a woman is a way of showing he doesn’t mean harm. This is nonsensical as he must not understand basic human attraction. A man or woman might engage in a nice act for another of the gender he or she is attracted to solely to gain in their relationship, not as a display of strength or