Recap on Chivalry

I wanted to revisit the last post. The idea of chivalry caught piqued my own curiosity and I went out to see what I could find out about it,

Here was the recurrent pattern: 1) Guy does for attractive girl 2) Guy does for attractive girl 3) Guy does for attractive girl (repeat as necessary).

It sounds innocent enough, especially when we consider the number of single female people that bemoan the death of chivalry and present it as the cause of their inability to land an acceptable mate.

There's one problem with this entire scenario. Claiming to be chivalrous because you performed some polite task is like claiming to have purchased a high-performance sports car when all you have bought is a tire. Further, to perform a few chivalrous tasks in order to attract the attention of the opposite sex in hopes of gaining their affection is like claiming to have bought the aforementioned car while having only seen an advertisement for it between episodes of "Ridiculousness".

Let me put it this way. If you open a door for a lady because you think you are increasing your chances of (don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about), you aren't chivalrous, you're executing a plan.

Chivalry is a lot more than opening a door or pulling out a chair for a beautiful woman. Chivalry is about manners, courage, honor, dignity, respect and propriety. In short, it's about doing the right thing because its the right thing. If you need a reward for being chivalrous, you've missed the point.

So you opened a door for an attractive young lady. Did you then shut it on an elderly lady that you neglected to notice in your haste to try to get the young lady's phone number? Did you then tell the young lady a few lies about yourself in an attempt to impress her? Did you betray friendships to pursue her? Did you break oaths or encourage her to break oaths?

It's far more complicated than a few kind gestures. It's about motivations. Are yours pure or selfish?

A Southerner's Response to Ted

I must admit that I have not listened to very many Ted Talks. But I'll also admit that I've enjoyed what I have heard from them. There are interesting perspectives highlighted and I've walked away feeling that I've allowed myself to indulge in a worthwhile treat.

Which brings me to the the talk posted on Twitter 2/16/14. "We have got to show our sons a new definition of manhood."   http://t.co/Hkx4hLmXHN

I spent a few years working in Men's Ministry. My mother had seven brothers. I'm the oldest of her 4 sons. I have three sons of my own. I spent four years working in college football (in addition to three years playing high school ball). For the last 16 years I've worked for an organization that staffed over 99% by men.

All that to say, I'm familiar with men. I understand the statistics from my ministry days. I'll make no argument about the rate of sexual assaults against women that Colin Stokes makes in the Ted Talk. I'm in full agreement that the state of men in America is sad.

I'm also in agreement with Stokes on the point that men need to be able to work on a team, even one led by women. 

But I want to make a few points from another perspective. 

It's not just my inner Star Wars nerd that was cringing when he shared his concerns about the violence and strong male role models in the 1977 cinema classic. The world is a violent place. Even in Stokes' model of virtue on the Silver Screen, the Scarecrow was torn to pieces before being strewn all over the trail. Later he was set on fire. The raw intimidation the Wicked Witch wielded in Munchkin land belies a level of violence which, while unseen, was very real. And even the villain, the Witch herself going out in a hissing blob screaming in torment, "I'M MELTING!" That's the world you want?

I'm for being selective of my sons' media intake. I like them having strong male role models. Men that are capable of violence under the right circumstances - defense of home, family, friends, freedom, etc. I also want to see men that respect women. I don't mean revering them in some mythical fashion that demeans them. I mean respect their abilities to think, create, work, fight, defend, and be human. This isn't a new paradigm. It's centuries old. It's called chivalry.

It's a concept that has come under fire. Example: women like a certain senator that doesn't like being called "ma'am", being ignorant of Southern or military culture. Bless her heart, she just doesn't understand that if my mama sees me on TV NOT calling a lady "ma'am", I'm going to get my legs striped for me. And I'm almost 40.

You show me a man that says "ma'am", a man that holds a door for a lady, a man that won't sit while a lady stands, a man that doesn't use profanity in front of a lady, a man that will pick something up for the lady that dropped it, a man that respects a lady's spirit and mind as much as (or more than) her body and I'll show you a man that's not a part of the sexual assault statistics that Mr. Stokes shared.

So yes, we need a different paradigm. We need to teach our sons to have a healthy outlook in regard to the female side of the human race. Just as Han and Luke respected Leia at the end of Episode IV; just as Elizabeth I sent her warriors into battle - men who followed her orders and would never speak a word of disrespect towards her; just as Galahad, Bors, and Percival could fight gallantly, achieve glory and remain chaste; we can raise men today - both in fiction and reality - that are strong, brave, and respectful of women.

Oh, it's a different paradigm. But it's not new. 

Birthday

About this time every February I take a moment to honor a legend in American History. This year is no exception.

I am touched by the story of a man born into poverty in a rural frontier and orphaned at an early age. Through hard work, dedication and perseverance he earned an education and began to practice law. He would go on to serve in Congress and eventually be sworn into the Executive Branch on the eve of the greatest of American conflicts. 

Through hardships and pain he persevered through the great Civil War, having failed in every effort to prevent it. For all his intellectual and oratorical prowess, even he agreed that he wasn't much to look at. But no one who has read of his service could doubt his leadership ability was among the best in our nation's history.

You don't think I'm talking about Abe do you?

Happy birthday to congressman, governor, vice-president and true statesman Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia.

If all you know of him is his "Cornerstone Speech", you don't know the half of it.

(By the way, he and Abe were friends. And as a Southern gentleman with good morals, he'd expect me to wish his friend a happy birthday as well. This passage will serve that purpose)