Equally importantly from a strategic point of view, WHY would we want to rehabilitate this word, only to create a synonym for common decency with disgusting patriarchal roots? Why not just use the word that already means the same thing, without the patriarchal history? At least when people sought to reclaim “queer,” they were using it to signify a concept that did not yet have a label, something which was considered a strategy to go beyond the limits of current words for conceptualizing sexuality…how does your proposed change to the meaning of the world chivalry represent this sort of opposition? Seriously, what’s the use of suggesting putting all this work into changing language when it’s really the actions and mindsets that are the problem? We don’t need the word chivalry to change…we need people to stop believing in and acting on chivalrous notions.

Chivalry inherently signifies patriarchy. Not only was it built in an explicitly patriarchal model for patriarchal reasons, it also perpetuates those models. Putting women on a pedestal does not make us equals, because it does not mean we are being treated like people. It means we’re being treated as some sort of special higher ideal, to be conserved and protected from the daily grind of real life. But we don’t want to be protected from the grind of real life – we want to be a part of it! We want to be included as equally capable participants, not marked as different. Thinking of women as unequal is not a corruption of chivalry, it’s a consequence of its very nature – saying that women are “too valuable” to be collapsed into the general category of “person” has the same results as saying that women are too worthless to be collapsed into the general category of person – exclusion, marginalization, and oppression.

I don’t like standing in an elevator with a man and knowing that he’s sizing me up and determine whether I have lady parts so he knows whether to “hold” the automatic door for me. I know that’s a crass way to put it, but that’s what it feels like. It’s even better when the man actually inconveniences me in the name of assisting my frail self. (ex: If he has a big bag and is standing in front of me in the elevator, I have to actually kind of squeeze around him to get out first, which is just insane to me.)

Two observations: I notice that men who are 30 years old and younger tend NOT to do this (which is promising). I also notice that women who are 50 years old and old tend to assume men will do this, to the point of “pushing” themselves first in line, etc.

… I think. I don’t know. I found the article very cringe-worthy.

Right folks, different people have different ideas about what chivalry is and should be, we’ve got it. Let’s talk about the harm these behaviors cause to women and/or the article now, please.

COSIGN! (Also: note the use of the blockquote tags. I had a hell of a time following the recent argument with just quotation marks.)

The word “rape” simply is not comparable to the word “chivalry”—most people take “chivalrous” as a compliment! The word “rape” has intensely negative connotations, and the word “chivalry” has relatively positive ones—and, I believe, neither of those facts is going to change soon. If that’s the case, we gain little by telling people “We’re against chivalry!”, and more by trying to reform the meaning of “chivalry” and the social practices that underlie it, so that the positive connotations stop reinforcing a sexist social framework.

I’ve addressed the main point of your comment in my comment to, AJD.

As for this part, frankly, you can take your smugness and shove it. The fact that he/she links to UPenn Linguistic’s is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I’ve addressed the main point of your comment in my comment to, AJD.

As for this part, frankly, you can take your smugness and shove it. The fact that he/she links to UPenn Linguistic’s is completely irrelevant to the conversation.