Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[Malcador]

I heard stories

We're off to a bad start.

[Hurlshort]

 

Because woman had certain rolls at that time, it's somehow seen as chivalry being the institution that maintained such things. Which is laughable. Only in modern times when people are insistent on changing things meaning in order to be correct, would your definition hold any water.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand the last part here. Clearly the meaning of Chivalry has changed quite a bit since the days of Charlemagne. But words have been changed and co-opted throughout history to fit the times. This isn't just a modern practice. Etymology is a fascinating subject. Avocado literally means testicles in the Aztec native tongue, so remember that next time you eat guacamole.

 

Also your salary is probably not literally a payment for salt, even though you may be the salt of the earth. Salud.

[Guard Dog]

 

Also your salary is probably not literally a payment for salt, even though you may be the salt of the earth. Salud.

 

  I never knew that one. I just looked it up after reading it. The Roman Empire fell fifteen hundred years ago... but it's sort of still around in many ways.

 

OT I'd hold a door for a dude if he were behind me too. Letting it shut in someones face just makes you look like an ass.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Guard Dog

[injurai]

I certainly appreciate etymological shifts, I find them fascinating. However I think there are distinctions.

 

Chivalry isn't a thing that is even alive and well in the modern age, we have etiquette and common courtesy. The use of chivalry was never to appropriate a dead word, nor is it the result of organic change. It was a concerted redefining of the historical concept under the lens of feminist theory (not all of which is bad, I feel I must add.) The problem though, is the analysis of old sensibilities don't account for the historic reasons and context. Since the code of conduct applied to male knights, it's seen as a gender asymmetric term and thus unsuitable for referencing courtesy in the modern age. Which would be a fine point if you are criticizing the clarity of someone's semantics. Instead, the use of the word is taken as a shibboleth for being sexists and old fashioned. In which clarifying that one's use is in the historic sense, can be meet with equal scorn. As the historical context has already been prejudged by a modern theory divorced from the historic context. Even if the term had evolved in an organic agreed upon manner, new parlance does not automatically supersede the old. Yet it's not uncommon for people to deny your intended meaning, and the conspiracies over what could be dog-whistles only seem to be increasing.

 

I'm not a fan of people ascribing a person's intended use of a word to the being the one that they're their sphere takes as a shibboleth. It's very clear that this sort of use of language is a power game, where one creates a language with traps that only those in the in-crowd will be able to navigate cleanly. Chivalry is one of those marker words that if being used whether seriously or casually, is seen as an artifact of the pervasive and latent sexism throughout society. No doubt the word can also be used by white knights, pickup artists, and other ilk of that sort. I'm sure some people only know of he word through such usage, and could be excused on account of ignorance and generally being right minded as being against chauvinism.

 

But if you think that in general it's agreed upon that chivalry is an expression of male dominance, than I think either you've drank the kool-aid or you're the one mixing it.

Edited May 28, 2018 by injurai

[Ben No.3]

What you should perhaps consider about medieval gender relations is that women were deprived of any political, or economic, power „in exchange“ for being romanticised into a sort of ideal of love; which could grant them some degree of dignity, at least in all matters love. So chivalry (if indeed originated here) is not (just) criticised for being an asymmetric relationship; but for being a remainder of a societal order that deprived women of their rights.

[Malcador]

Canadian politics delivers at least something amusing, the Ontario Conservatives platform is a link to a petitions page https://www.ontariopc.ca/petitions

 

I think they're being a little lazy at whoring themselves out.

[HoonDing]

knighthood was about silly anachronistic dances

 

[injurai]

To clarify, the criticism is that chivalry is an inherently gendered term due to it's historical context referring to the expected courteous conduct of men at arms. Thus would feel out of place to reference woman, and therefor would be unsuitable for inclusive language. Note that chivalry doesn't have to be an asymmetric relationship, but in the manner that it was implemented it had far more to due with bearing reverence to the court and church as opposed to fair maidens. Perhaps we could dis-gender the word, but society isn't exactly looking to embrace chivalry, and outside of the occasional bemoaning op-ed or blog post lamenting the lack of good men, you don't see it seriously suggested. Which is why the criticism lies in the language more so than bringing chivalry back. It's dead for a reason.

 

Another thing to remember about the past is how the world of men and woman often parted, different roles necessitated by raising a family. Most people were farmers and peasants. Political and economic power was few and far between, and woman of the courts were not without their influence. Control over woman's sexuality at this time would be an artifact of the lack of birth control and rather unsanitary conditions (not saying woman are unclean, but lack of sanitary understanding did lead to complications and thus strict counter-measures.) But such expectations would have been broadcast through the church and obeyed by woman through a sense of realism. Men likewise would be controlled in a similar appeal. This relation though was much different amongst the nobility which through wealth could keep to set's of books to live by. These noble woman would be amongst the most well off of their time, but it would not just be these woman whom nights would bear deference to. Most knights were upper lower class, the honor bestowed because they gallantly took up arms, which was a functional necessity at that time. Chivalry was necessary to maintain the chain of respectable authority and was thus expected of knights.

 

Further knights represented kingdoms in conflict that played out on a smaller scale, where great lengths were taken to uphold a sense of honor amongst combat and contention. Castle's were well defended, expensive to siege. Kingdoms relied upon their populations, it made sense to spare as many lives and to fight in a more civilized manner. Much in the manner in which Native Americans have accounts of routine blood sports, which seem barbaric compared to sports but were a tame manner of combat.

 

Knights were like any other modern professional were paid and hard working. They often were bestowed meager land holdings as payment. Land holdings it is true where typically limited to men at this time, when available land was expected to be put to work by an able body. This is highly common across antiquity as fertile land was limited, and needed worked, life of communities depended on this. Further, such a man who developed manners and discipline, with the physical training to excel at working his own land would have no doubt been above average in desirability when courting. These same traits in woman, would be a tie breaker between two woman that a man might be interested in, so it should not be surprising to appeal to many woman as well nor demeaning to suggest a woman would find fancy in such things. Thus knights would have made prime candidates to settle down with. Humans grant much of their own dignity through their hard work, so a woman finding dignity through marriage to a knight is not the sort of thing that I'd find demeaning to her as a woman. Especially one wishing to settle down and start a family. I think just about everyone wishes for dignity in romance in love.

 

By far the biggest problem with chivalry was the institution of the Chivalric Orders themselves. What once was opportunity, became stratified rank hierarchies, with nobles becoming Knights out of heredity. In lieu of combat it became a court sport. Familiar with jousting? Knights at this later era would have simply been the well off noble bachelors that would have been the preferred suitors of other noble woman, and the fair common girl was probably not much in the way to complain by finding herself a knight.

 

Today, just as then, wealth had a far bigger impact on power and political dignity. Chivalry was an expectation on men who serve at arms, ultimately reduced to elitist class defining etiquette, and noble fanfare as it's functional need vanished. In it's time it was far from being an institution of sexism in which dutiful knights were merely rewarded with complacent woman bored to tears in their dull chambers. It was in many respects the opposite, even though woman weren't given rank or power over Chivalric Orders. It's not the sort of institution that would have even appealed to woman during it's earliest years as it was for more in the line of labor, but if we can criticize it for anything is that it dies as in institution before opening it's doors to woman. Much of the romanticism of the archetypal knight actually comes from fiction writing, as the printing press was developed during the late years of Chivalry. The spectacle of the nobility was always enticing and the works reflected the collective interests of the time.

 

For most of it's duration Chivalry rewarded men who were burdened to serve their kingdom, or in other-words their community, when there wasn't much in the way for material payment. Perhaps just some land, which which bring dignity to him and his family. Far less of an institution of male dominance, more so of monarchical dominance. The codes that went without it were civil expectations of someone filling such a post.

 

It would be a stretch to say Chivalry actually remains, but the purpose of the order was not to deprive women of their rights. It would further be a stretch to suggests that Chivalry (as it usually refers to it's historic codes of conduct) were merely a form of chauvinism to win woman over on unfair grounds. These are the reasons by which my previous posts stand, that it's not that the code of chivalry are sexists, but that it does not reflect a neutral sense of common courtesy. Where other criticisms and characteristics of it's usage are misinformed language games meant to misconstrue and deny intended meaning, some of it's players no doubt victims of it themselves.

[Ben No.3]

Thanks for your effort. I have to admit, it made me a bit unsure it’s been a time since I’ve actually read about this, so I’m writing from memory. Perhaps I ought to look into it before I attempt a response. The idea of chivalry as an instrument of monarchical domination is an interesting one; though I haven’t heard it before. Not sure if we mean the same thing by the word “chivalry”... I always understood it as a certain manner in which a man behaves towards a woman, characterised especially by the romantic idealisation of the woman by the man and actions according to this line of thought.

[HoonDing]

hold the door open for women, then grab them by the ****

 

the art of the deal

[injurai]

If you are talking about the portrayal of Chivalry, yeah then it's much closer to that, since the stories often revolved around romance and romance is portrayed based on the notions of a given time. Which is a problem that was pervasive in early works of Hollywood. The fantasy literature probably leans more sappy, though I'm sure there is some chauvinism displayed by particular authors in a non-expository manner. I don't actually read fiction based on this era, so I can't get too specific here.

[Ben No.3]

My main source here are two works on the development of the heterosexual relationship, mainly a sociological one. I do now realise that may lend itself to a certain definition of “chivalry”, so there is a chance I don’t get the full picture.

[HoonDing]

i read some "courtly love" medieval literature - worse than BioWare fanfiction.

[Chilloutman]

I highly suggest Oscar Wild in that regard

[Agiel]

https://twitter.com/ScottFrazier19/status/999977971598413824

 

Apart from the shocking breach of protocol, I couldn't help but notice Trump's posture at the end with his short arms hanging forwards and his butt jutting out. It's like a pose only the political cartoonists could ever conjure up.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Agiel

[HoonDing]

yo that #BlueWave2018 is likely not gonna happen

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Bruh, chivalry is just holding the door open and picking up the tab. I doubt most normal women are thinking of feudal standards and **** when they talk about chivalry being dead.

[Orogun01]

I find this talk of chivalry amusing, considering that it only applied to noblewomen and every other woman was fair game for anything. After all savages only understand savage ways.

[Guard Dog]

i read some "courtly love" medieval literature - worse than BioWare fanfiction.

  You are two for two today!

[smjjames]

https://twitter.com/ScottFrazier19/status/999977971598413824

 

Apart from the shocking breach of protocol, I couldn't help but notice Trump's posture at the end with his short arms hanging forwards and his butt jutting out. It's like a pose only the political cartoonists could ever conjure up.

A little too eager to get it over with I guess?

[Lexx]

At this point I'm pretty sure sharp_one is just trolling.

[Bartimaeus]

"At this point"?

[Bartimaeus]

That's pretty fair. There's much, much, MUCH more to criticize about Trump than a few seconds of poor posture - that's not much different from the dijon mustard incident.

[Tagaziel]

At this point I'm pretty sure sharp_one is just trolling.

He ever does anything else?

[Bartimaeus]

I already said that like 4 replies ago!