[Jaehwan's Note: This is another piece from W about gender relations. It doesn't necessarily reflect my views, but it's a good piece to get some dialogue going on the relationships between Asian American men and Asian American women. I hope that featuring pieces like this will invite dialogue, on this site, on other sites, and over teleconferences, which I feel are extremely helpful in understanding other people's opinions.
One thing I will say is that the web, overall, is sexist, and so I think it's important to get more female perspectives out in the open for people to see and discuss. I'd like to send a big thank you out to W for her courage and proactiveness in sharing her opinions.]
A long time ago, in a land far far away, a princess patiently looked out on her on her balcony castle awaiting her prince. She waited and waited each day, in hopes that her one true love would rescue her from her wretched wicked stepmother.
These are the types of fairy tales (Cinderella, Rumplestilskin, Snow White, etc) that are instilled in us. These were the types of stories that are passed down from generation to generation. The adverse affects of these storylines are that it imposes a false sense of chivalrous obligation of engenderment.
I mean, give me a break. When I was single, I didn’t go about expecting my modern man to come whisk me off my feet and ride me off into the sunset, saving me from the horrors of corporate America. I’m too darn busy nowadays to wait for some guy to save me.
Most modern women don’t impose the “woe is me” mentality upon themselves anymore. If anything, successful women go about and become fiercely independent and strive to improve themselves. Modern women have broken stereotypical gender barriers that fairy tales laid out. We no longer expect men to be the hero or knight-in-shining-armor.
We don’t idealize ‘love’ as we used to. I personally no longer believe even in the notion of “soulmates.” My belief is that we can have multiple loving, compatible mates at varying stages at any given point in time. Successful relationships are fiercely dependent upon timing and also depend upon one’s emotional evolution.
However, just because modern women no longer idealize love, it doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate common courtesy and chivalry. There seems to be conflicting views when it comes to the notion of chivalry though. In modern society, is chivalry needed or is it an ancient lost art best left in medieval fairytale NeverNever Land?
To me, chivalry is an evolution-revolution type of notion, like the notion of love, is also dependent upon time. Chivalry evolves and is revolutionized with modern modifications. Although I don’t expect Prince Charming to come to my “crib” riding on a white horse to my doorstep, I’d still like him to treat me with respect and to be a gentleman. I appreciate it when he opens doors for me, and says thank you and is generally polite.
By a gentleman opening a door for me, it evinces respect. Now one might argue that he has other intentions, such as wanting to sleep with me or is doing it to show off, or he has no balls or is doing it as a subconscious degradation against helpless women. I don’t think this is the case with most chivalrous men though. Chivalry does not denote intellectual underlyings. In today’s fast-paced postmodern society, there doesn’t have to be specified reasons to justify courteous actions. It should coincide with humility. However, is this postmodern “revolutionized” chivalry transitory? Prince Philip once joked, When a man opens the car door for his wife, it’s either a new car or a new wife.
So with evolution, has chivalry actually revolutionized?
No related posts.
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
8(
Ugh, here we go again….
W, you’re not looking for chivalry. No matter how much time passes there will still be a degree of underlying presumption that a woman’s status is less, even if the intention is fairly innocent enough.
A guy that opens doors or whatever specifically for women isn’t evincing respect, he’s doing it because of either a belief that a woman shouldn’t handle such menial tasks or because he hasn’t questioned why a woman can’t handle such tasks herself. Either way you’re right, there is no underlying thought because that guy is just following some structured or informal “code” of behavior that he must or should follow when in the presence of a woman. In other words, the acts themselves in such particular instances, essentially constitute the presumption that a woman’s status is less than a man’s.
Of course, I can see the other logic as well; i.e. that a woman’s status and femininity deem her “too good.” In that vein, that’s placing a woman’s status as less as well because the logic is treating the woman as nothing more than that ideal–that she can’t be anything else or have qualities other than that.
This isn’t to say that a woman doesn’t deserve some good treatment, but merely that treating a woman kindly or well shouldn’t encompass some preset notion.
Instead,a man that acts in that gentleman manner you oh so desire, hopefully, is doing it because he cares about you and has enough compassion and mental faculty to consider your feelings or treat another human being with decency.
This distinction needs to be made because it looks like you’re conflating two different ideas. What may appear to be chivalry may simply be an exercising of manners in of itself.
In any case, what you’re really looking for, W, is a man that espouses, at the very least, a feminist perspective.
I still open the door for my wife and do other “chivalrous” acts. I realy don’t think about it, because I’m on auto-pilot. I guess I think of it more as a courtesy as opposed chivalry.
I can tell you this though: my wife is definitely not helpless. She is fiercely independent. Strong men want strong women. Weak men want weak women to dominate.
I’m not looking for as I already have. And I know he does it not so much because there’s some internal subconscious standard or behavior “code” he’s abiding by. He doesn’t think of me as some helpless woman. By far. If anything, he’s a little afraid of my independence and lack of subservience. Like anything in life, there’s always a “pre-set” notion to everything due to pre-existing conditions. But I think, also like many things in life, it evolves. I don’t believe men act chivalrously solely based on ‘pre-set’ notions ingrained into them; if that were the case, in today’s society we wouldn’t have women as CCOs, CCOs, CEOs.
I also open doors for my wife and other women. It’s a code upon which I was raised, but it’s just as natural to me as saying thank you after someone gives me something.
Actually, this discussion raises an interesting point. The book definition of chivalry may go beyond courtesy. Bravery? Courage? For me personally, I don’t hear enough stories about Asian American men living these values. Perhaps fear of chivalry is something that’s keeping us in our place? AA’s often talk about representation in the media, and when we look at the media, we’re the opposite of chivalrous.
What do you all think?
There are a few ways to perceive chivalry and different behaviours that may be defined as ‘chivalrous’
For James, it’s common courtesy (and the two coincide I think). This type of chivalry seems to be prevalent amongst most asians.
As for chivalry re: bravery and courage, there is not enough representation in that sense for AAs in the media. We have a few representatives here or there, but it’s not prevalent. I think if there is a representation, we get diminished down to merely kung-fu mastery.
I know we’re just talking about chivalry towards women, but that was just one component of chivalry in Medieval Europe. Chivalry in the traditional sense meant valor, honor, military skill, generosity, piety and courtesy towards women. Men nowadays (and I mean all men, not just Asian men) are not taught the whole shebang. At best, men learn components of chivalry (military, morality, charity, spirituality, martial arts) but not the entire whole.
thanks for the article and your perspective. and i definitely liked the comment from james that strong men like strong women, while weak men like weak women to dominate. you’ll see both types of men holding doors open for their women; it’s just that the meaning changes with the strength of the personality holding the door, just as each person’s code of honor is different based on their level of understanding and development. i guess then that chivalry is alive, but interpreted through different lenses with every person you see.
Discussion of this has turned gay.
from hahahahahahahaha
“Discussion of this has turned gay.”
ok haha, so you’d like to be part of the argument against men treating women in preset, derogatory ways that show women’s ‘inferiority’. however, when someone is showing a spark of thought you disagree with, you’re responding in a derogatory way to display the other person’s inferiority. is the goal of these blogs to fight and tear down others?
disrespect goes a lot further than just gender relations…it’s unfortunately a lot more further-reaching in this society, when people who disagree come together saying they care about bridging differences when that’s not even the true intent after all. it’s apparently about being right.
Hey Josie,
I don’t think I said hello to you…so…hello! Glad you’re here.
The goal of the blog isn’t to fight or tear down others, though it happens every so often since internet communication is anonymous and lacks nonverbal cues. It even happens with well meaning people. Actually, I was hoping that this blog could turn people into activists, or maybe serve as a support for activism. See here. Ultimately, the goal is to stay on the web but also to progress beyond the web, so that we really can bridge differences.
bigWOWO is actually going to have a teleconference next week with W (the author of this article), Larry, and others. If you’re interested, let me know, and I’ll try to get you dialed in. My e-mail is naruguard-44 at yahoo.
josie: DON’T PUT ME ON BLAST JUST BECAUSE YOU BITCHES ARE COMPLICIT IN YOUR OWN SUBJUGATION.
I don’t think josie or W are subjugated. People live different lifestyles. Such a value judgment is highly subjective. In fact, I would think that a majority of American women would probably agree with them.
Podcast topic?
Well I just call it how I see it.
Inherent in chivalry, its original intent, historic and modern-day practice, and theory, is gender inequality. It’s gender inequality because the codes of chivalry do not apply universally to all sexes. The code is very one-way: knights do this, ladies do that.
If a man opens a door for a woman because he wants to observe codes of chivalry, then lurking somewhere in the back of his subconscious is a belief that men and women are very different creatures, so different that one universal rule cannot possibly apply to both sexes evenly. That is not the kind of man I would want to be with.
Now if a man opens a door for a woman because the woman has her arms full or he got to the door first or he loves that woman and wants to make life as easy as possible for just that one particular woman, then the act isn’t coming out of any sense of chivalry at all, but a specific sense of courtesy, or respect, or love. And this applies universally to both sexes. If the man I was with had his arms full or I got to the door first, I’d open the door for him and he smiles and tips his head at me to say, “Thanks.” In this instance, there *is* gender equality.
So I agree with a few of the previous commenters — it is all a matter of intent.
Finally, someone that fucking gets it.
And because that’s essentially what is still happening any “evolution” that occurs is no longer chivalry OR is just an update of the methods in concurrence with the times.
I think we all get it, haha, but people have different lifestyles and styles of communication.
Let’s turn it around, and I’d be interested in hearing Akrypti’s take on this too:
Let’s say you know a single guy. He stays at home and mopes around, but confides that he has a crush on a girl. You’d probably say, “Well, ask her out, man!” without even thinking.
Would you say the same thing to a woman?
I think for most people the societal expectations are different. I’m not saying that you’re wrong to say that you believe in total sameness–I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that view–but I also think most people behave a bit differently towards different genders. Chivalry is one part of that.
By the way, check out the #1 comment here. What does it say to you about societal expectations?
Sexual bias and societal expectation doesn’t weigh heavily on the issue of chivalry. In fact probably almost not at all. Whether a man or a woman makes the first move doesn’t really affect whether a man should or shouldn’t act chivalrous nor does expecting a man to act like a gentleman. A man can act polite and civil without having to turn to chivalry to do so.
In any case, the core issue remains to be treating the status of a woman as less than a man’s or in a position that is far removed and thus not equivalent to a man’s. Just because people’s views of gender roles are different shouldn’t justify the continued existence of an archaic ‘code’ that pushes forth the ideals I just stated. Or do you think that it is justified? If that’s the case, maybe Western men are correct in saying that Western women have lost what it means to be a ‘woman’. Further, is that indeed the society you want to live in?
Every guy I ever dated was because I initiated and asked him out. I also was the one who broke up the relationship with every guy I ever dated. My fiance didn’t “propose” to me in the traditional sense; we talked about the prospect of marriage face to face in a very negotiation-like setting and we picked out the ring together, which we purchased from our joint bank account. He got a ring too, though his we didn’t buy… it was an heirloom gift from my parents… okay too personal. =)
Point there is yes, I would absolutely encourage a woman to ask out a man if she expressed a romantic interest in that man.
I also agree with haha’s last comment – who asks who out doesn’t have anything to do with chivalry unless the asker or askee MAKES it into an issue of chivalry, like if a man is insistent that he ALWAYS is the one that asks the woman out because “that’s how it’s supposed to be” or a woman is insistent that she NEVER asks a man out because “HE is supposed to do it.” So yeah, unless people make it into an issue, it’s a non-issue.
Akrypti:
Wow. I’ve got tons of respect for you because it’s clear that you live what you preach when it comes to the gender issue.
So he got the ring from your parents? That’s another big wow. Lots of guys around the world must be envious.
Haha:
I think tradition gets maligned a lot. I’m not saying that it’s right for everyone, but I know many powerful women (we’re talking owners of companies) who won’t ask out a guy because they feel they deserve to be asked out, and that’s how it’s traditionally done.
Chivalry and gender roles may be different, but the basis of your original argument, if I’m understanding correctly, is that these gender roles in chivalry are based on a male’s thinking that a woman can’t handle opening doors. If we extend the gender difference argument, maybe it means he feels she can’t handle asking men out.
My point was that in most cases (Akrypti’s excepted) that there are gender roles that we conform to, and that they may not be as insulting as some may think. In fact, most people probably live with them.