The Rise Of Strong Women, Fall Of Soft Men, And Return Of Gentlemen

In soft regions are born soft men.

Herodotus

A few days ago, a video popped up within my media feed, an editorial closing, posing a question that keeps popping up, especially from the lips of women; “Have men become too soft?”

The presenter mentioned several causes for the rise of these “soft” men. Was it the wussification of men, as so many want to allege? Maybe everything would be solved if we could just get men to toughen up. Was it the demonization of masculinity so badly that being a man is now shameful? Maybe everything would be solved if men would start being proud of being manly. I don’t think either attitude will solve the issue.

At the end, she did mention what could be the key cause and actual solution to the problem. “Teach your sons to be men, because the women of the world are tired of the boys.” The problem was that for the longest time, society was in such a hurry to make men out of boys, that we never taught boys how to be men.

Consider that for the last couple of decades, men were told that their value as men rested on being better than other men. It rested on having financial stability through a good job; proven to the world through an expensive car and a nice house. It rested on how many women they can sleep. It rested in being able to get a beautiful wife when they finally decided to settled down. Then, it’s rested on having a family they can show off. Just consider at how we portray politicians and successful men. They stand proudly as their wife and kids become decoration around them, as proof of their stability. In the backdrop, we see either their homes or cars as prove of their wealth. The entirety of this kind of manhood rested on such a fragile foundation made up of external factors that even the most simplest of things caused their world to tumble down. This lead too many men into feel a sense of obsoleteness as soon as life threw them a curve ball.

If someone faster or stronger than him shows up, he’s no longer a man. If he became unemployed and loses his financial stability, he he’s no longer a man. If he gets shot down by a woman, he’s no longer a man. If his kids didn’t measure up to his expectations, he’s no longer a man. When you think about it, under this mentality, those things that “make him a man,” are also the biggest threat to his ideal of manhood. Unemployment, failure, divorce, “disappointing kids,” or simply being told “no” by a woman become a direct assault on their masculinity.

As a response to this attitude, we demonized manhood, or at least what was sold to us as manhood for the last few decades. Society went off chanting the damage these expectations placed on men, as we blamed everything on toxic masculinity. We did our best to swing the pendulum of manhood as far away as possible from the old traditions.  And as the pendulum started to sway away from this previous mindset, we began to praise any man who did things previously considered manly, followed up by shaming any man who expressed interest in any form of traditional masculinity. It was as if to avoid being a slave to masculinity, we now became slaves to “anti-masculinity.” Social media became flooded with men screaming “look at how sensitive I am” as if it proved to the world how they broke free from the bonds of manhood. At the same time, chivalry, and any other idea traditionally tied to masculinity, was shamed as sexist, at best, or toxic, at worse.

And then, slowly but surely, it happened.

We realized that we almost killed off what made men valuable within society and what made men of value. If before we taught men to be ethically infant brutes, now we created ethically infant milksops. We told men that the old traditions of honor and chivalry were harmful, and then wonder why men today feel like they have no purpose. We ridiculed the importance of honor, and wonder why we have men without loyalty. We demonized strength and wonder why men today have no valor. We, pretty much, castrated men as we told them how masculinity was bad, and then wonder where all the “real men” are.

In our haste to make men out of boys, we failed them twice. The first time, we failed them by creating brutes without humility, as we forgot to teach them character every time we taught them the value of strength. Then, in our attempt to fix it, we created sensitive men who were little more than useless as soon they faced a challenge. We forgot to teach them the value of determination and valor when we taught them about compassion. As some men grew disenchanted with society constantly telling them what it means to be a man, we’re now having to deal with a third group; men who are brutes in times of peace yet cowards in times of conflict, the worst of both worlds.

But fortunately, all is not lost.

Just as there has been a rise in true Strong Independent Women, men have been developing our own counterpart. We are witnessing a rise in men who’ve taken it upon themselves to bring back the old lessons personal character, to teach themselves how to be better men. These men realized that the problem wasn’t masculinity but rather everything that was edited out of masculinity. The solution didn’t lie in dismissing the lessons learned from the past, but rather taking the best lessons from the past while embracing the world of the present. Instead of ending up with the worst of both worlds, we began to strive for the best of both worlds.

In this process, men have begun to realize what manhood truly meant. It’s not about proving you’re better than other men, but about striving to be better than the man you were before. It’s about being able to stand before a challenge and push yourself. It’s not about making money, but about making a difference. It’s not about having a job, but about having the work ethic to get things done. It’s not about owning a house or having a wife and family. It’s about making a home, being a good husband and an involved dad.

Men have realized that it’s you should never become either a brute or a meek man exclusively. Instead, we are now seeing men who used to be brutes, yet strive to find their compassion and humility. We see men who used to be meek developing their determination and being empowered by the strength that comes from valor. It’s about growing stronger AND softer, and yet never compromising either. These men have taught themselves these lessons, and more importantly, are teaching these lessons to the next generation of men. And for the first time in a long time, we are seeing a rebirth of mentorship, as society is finally waking up to the importance of men becoming proper role models for boys, as they teach through example.

For now, we are few, but every day we are more. We are the modern Lancelots and Galahads, the new errant knights, who realized that we could be more than what society sold to us as manhood. We are the new philosophers, poets, and the warriors, as we try to bring back honor by reforging masculinity. We are the new Gentlemen of the Modern World.

And to the ladies having a hard time finding us, the worthwhile men … If it’s any consolation, men are having just a hard time trying to find the worthwhile ladies as well. Quality isn’t that common.

Chivalrous Women And The Return Of Damehood

Above all, be the heroine of your life, not the victim.

Nora Ephron

We often focus our conversation on terms like Gentlemen and Chivalry and how they pertain to men and their development/empowerment. We also express the importance of recognizing and promoting gender equality and how this can be done without the need of using gender neutrality. This means that the following two questions keep popping up in my social media feeds:

1.What do you call the female version of “Gentleman?”

2.What’s the woman’s version of Chivalry?

The funny thing is that every single article and post starting off with either of these question aren’t really asking a question but making an opening statement to a preconceived argument based on misinformation and misdirection to benefit their exposition. Why do I say “misinformation and misdirection?” Because both of these questions have actually appropriate answers.

Let’s start with the first one as it’s pretty damn obvious. You probably have heard it countless times within your life and might have even guess it by now. The woman’s version of “Gentleman” is called “Lady,” like the phrase “Ladies and Gentlemen.” If you find “Lady” as a negative term based on your personal interpretation and experience with the word or you want to sound more pedantic, you can also use Gentlewoman.

On the second question, I want to expand and enjoy.

Is there a code, similar to the medieval knightly code of chivalry, for women?  Can we find a female counterpart to the code that later shaped the gentlemen of today? Is there such a thing? According to most online sites, if such a thing doesn’t exist, everything that gentlemen stand for can be absolutely dismissed as sexist, either against men expected to do it or women expected to put up with it.

Believe it or not, there is. There exists a medieval Knightly code for women and it’s called…

…

Wait for it…

…

CHIVALRY!

Yes, you heard me right, chivalry. Let’s start by clarifying a highly overlooked fact, women could be knights. Sure, there were plenty of “men-only” knightly orders, but there was also several inclusive orders and “women-only” orders. When a dead knight’s land passed to his wife or daughter, these duties were imposed on that woman. In England, the title of Lady or Dame was usually given to such a woman holding such honors and “Damehood” was an acceptable term to define a woman’s “Knighthood.”  In Spain she would take the term Doña and in France female knights were called Chevalière.

And this wasn’t something exclusive to European Chivalry and Knighthood, as throughout history, strong fighting women have been present. I actually did a post about the history of warrior women some time ago.

Which brings us to today. Is there room today for a modern version of Damehood? I find this question somewhat condosending considering the Warrior Women who already shine brilliantly within our society! You see it in every strong and graceful woman who, even things have gone wrong in their lives, handled it. They refused to let their past or their environment define who they are now. 

These Ladies refused to embrace the victimhood mentality so popular among men and women today; a mentality that has turn any expectation of accountability, self-empowerment, and self-assessment into synonyms of victim-blaming. These men and women assume the idea of nothing being their fault or constantly searching for villians to blame. If it's never their fault, they don’t need to take responsibility for it. If they can't take responsibility for it, they will always be a victim in need of sympathy and attention, instead of actual help to overcome their challenges.

 
These Modern Dames are the strong independent women who refuse to be a victim of anything. We see these women showing more “balls” than most men and refusing to be, as Ronda Rousey so beautifully put it, a “Do Nothing Bitch,” a woman who tries to be pretty and be taken care of by somebody else. They hold their fate in their own hands. They refuse to be a Damsel in Distress or play off the victim card as a way to receive “equality” without the accountability of true equality.

We see this in the Queens who stand toe to toe with any King, as they should never be treated as any less. We see this in the warrior-women who fight side by side with the warrior-men as protectors while following the same code of honor with the same obligations. We see them in Ladies setting themselves apart of other women by carrying themselves with the same grace and determination that sets Gentleman apart form other men. We see them in every Dame who has inspired girls to be more than what society expects form women and teach boys how to be men.

Rethinking Stories About Chivalry and Princesses

Since it is so likely that children will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage.

C.S. Lewis

As many of our traditions are born from the old heroic stories, I thought it would be appropriate to look at one of the biggest misconceptions there is with these stories, the idea of “saving the princess.”

To understand this, we must first consider why we even have these stories. Story telling traditions were a way to both entertain and teach life lessons. This was an important part of the old Roman society as stories were used to promote social responsibility, heroism, discipline, and the idea that every man had the capacity to change the world into something better, no matter his origin (as long as he was a roman citizen). Think of it as an old version of TV if TV understood its social responsibility. Why do I give emphasis on the Romans and not the Greeks? Because most of our Greek legacy comes filtered by the Roman expansion and many of our military and social traditions are in many ways remnants of the old Roman Empire.

But so often, part of the story relies on the idea that the hero would go out to do something heroic and as a prize, we would end up with the girl. That is, well, sexist as hell as it reduces women to simply a prize to be won. But what if we are viewing the stories wrong?

In many of the old stories, the hero didn’t go off to save the queen for himself. He actually went on a mission for the king who couldn’t abandon the throne; leaving behind his own loved one to achieve a greater good for his country. We see this in stories like Saint George and the Dragon. Even then, some of these stories warn of the danger of the Hero getting any selfish ideas with the queen, as we see in Lancelot and Queen Guinevere.

Other stories are about contests for the princess's hand in marriage, as virtue and courage will usually trump social standing. We might assume that at this point, the princess was basically raffled off as a trophy, but in reality the contests were to chose who would be the king’s successor. Marring the princess was because royal lineage was passed down by the Queen and not the King. The King might have been the king, but it was the Queen’s children who inherited the thrown. Many Kings would be quite liberal where they deposited their seed so following that road was hard to prove. But again, why so much emphasis to proving yourself to the Queen or the Princess? The answer is as rather interesting mix of religion, language, and real estate.  

The land has always been viewed as female. It’s the barer of fruits and caregiver of the people. This is why we call it “Mother Earth.” That is why there is such an importance to female spirituality within our old traditions. Whoever owned the most fertile lands would usually have the most prosperous kingdom. Land was power.

And to reinforce the idea of femininity within a land, the word used to define your motherland within Latin traditions is the feminine word Patria (Motherland). Although originating from the masculine Patrius-A-Um (relating to the Father or Forefathers), it took a feminine connotation when it evolved into the Italian and Spanish Patria, the Portuguese Pátria, or the French Patrie. The tradition is simple. You respect your Patria as you would your mother. You would be loyal to your Patria as you would your wife. And you would care for your Patria as you would your daughter.

You see, these stories were allegoric and symbolic. Just as a dragon wasn’t really a dragon but rather a representation of a threat, The Queen or the Princess would a physical manifestation of the Patria. Heroes would set off to save their Patria (Queen) without getting any ideas of becoming kings themselves. Heroes would have to prove their worth before their Patria (Princess) would consider them worthy suitors and heirs to the throne. This is why so many stories are about heroes fighting any threat that would harm their Patria. They weren’t fighting to save a Queen or a Princess. They were fighting to save their country and their homes or to prove their worth to the people as a future king.