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.

What Doesn’t Make A Gentleman (And Curiously A Lady As Well)

(Note: This is a two part article. It will deal with what doesn’t define a gentleman and what does. You can’t really discuss one without the other. Also I took the risk of dealing with the topic of ladies, as after presenting the idea to Ms. B, she realized how the elements discussed applied to both Gentlemen and Ladies. You will notice how this post is full of links. These are the individual posts where I have expanded on the topic in previous posts.)

There are complete men and incomplete men. If you would be a complete man, put all of your soul's strength into all of your life's actions.

Eugenio Maria de Hostos

A fellow Gentleman over on our FB page dropped a gauntlet at my feet, a challenge which I have avoided without realizing it. Tired of the constant criticism against masculinity in social media and the ridiculous portrayal of men in traditional media, he felt it would be an interesting challenge to propose:

Top 10 honorable good traditional traits of a Gentleman

Honestly, I agree with his assessment of men’s depiction in modern media. We have been bombarded by the idea that the sarcastic Man-Child is an acceptable attitude to have, something I wrote about here. We are told by other guys that the only way to be a man is to be a player, idea that I challenge as well. On the other end, there is a general idea that men should be shamed into action to deal with the worse among us, strategy that has only created a feeling that being a man is something shameful. This resent attitude has gotten to the point where I have refused to write for some sites any more.

The reality is the net if full of articles like that. Really, it is. Go ahead and google “how to be a gentleman” or “10 traits all gentlemen have” or any other combinations of similar buzz words. Just get ready to sit down with a dozen of different versions of the “How to be a Gentleman to get the Lady” trope. Even on sites that proposed the idea that your actions “define you as a Gentleman, not her as a Lady” still fall on the Gentleman + Lady Stereotype we have avoided here, and reason why I have yet to put out a “How to Gentleman” post.

Ironically, for every social issue that men face, women face the flip side of the same coin. While men act like boys, girls act like women. Just as men are told how masculinity and being a Gentleman is something to be shamed out of them, women are attacked in a similar manner as femininity is viewed as weakness and the women are shamed out of the any intention of becoming a Lady.

A man’s interest of becoming a gentleman should never be dependent on a woman’s interest of becoming a Lady, nor the other way around. The reality is that a person’s interest into bettering themselves is not dependent on anything other than wanting to be one.

But before we can start to define what traits define a gentleman (or a lady for that manner) I think we should start by clearing the air of all the things that DON’T define a gentleman. There are way too many preconceptions carried by both words. Although this will be written from a gentleman’s perspective, understand that all of these apply to ladies as well.

Religious Denomination, Nationality, Race, or Ethnicity (or lack-off any of them)

This one is pretty simple, and can be inferred by this. Even though historically speaking, gentlemen had direct ties based on loyalty to their specific country, god, or king; almost every single country, society, and religion had their version of gentlemen (or similar archetypes) present. An English Gentleman is no more a gentleman than a Caballero. A Mensch is no more a Gentleman than a Junzi.  You use your ideals and beliefs to define the kind of gentleman you are. Others do the same with different ideals and beliefs. No one ideal has the right to trump another. No one nation should be held with more pride than another. No one race or ethnicity should be viewed as better than another. In the global world we live in, understanding this is critical.

Clothing

Whenever we think of gentlemen, you think of men in suits. I admit I have recommended the idea of the suit and the idea of being well groomed. Here’s the thing, wearing suit doesn’t make you any more of a Gentleman than a holding a weapon makes you into a warrior. Unfortunately, all too often people assume it does in both cases. The main idea isn’t the suit, but to respect yourself to care for yourself and how you present yourself to the world.

The reality is that if you don’t like to dress up, that doesn’t make you any less of a Gentleman. What makes you a Gentleman is how you refuse to make excuses for not dressing up. You understand and accept the reality that how you present yourself will define how others view you. You don’t need to justify who you are if you are proud of who you are. Consider that sometimes having a certain image is something that works for you and to what you do.

Social Standing

Way to often people assume that gentlemen are well off. How else are you going to afford all those suits, right? (Please read the Clothing entry again if you don’t get it.) I have dealt with well-off men who are Gentlemen. I have also dealt with well-off men who are anything but. The same I can say for men not as well off.

I have seen homeless men do acts of chivalry and hold themselves with honor and dignity, in spite of their situation. I have also seen rich men treat with more dignity and respect someone living in the street as someone living in a penthouse. I have seen the opposite on both situations as well. Your social standing neither makes you a villain nor a hero; neither makes you noble nor dishonorable. Who YOU are does.

History

All too often people think their past condemns their future. It does if you let it. The reality is you determine the man you are now, by the actions you take now. Sure, you might not have done the most honorable things in your youth, or lead the most saintly life. But as Oscar Wilde said, “all saints have a past and all sinners have a future.”

Never think you don’t deserve to be a gentleman just because of the guy you used to be. That’s actually the entire slogan of this site. Some of the most honorable men I have met started in the most dishonest lives.

Sexual Orientation (and maybe even gender?)

This has got to be one of my biggest pet peeves, as I’ve mentioned before. “Guys act like gentlemen to impress women.” What if the guy in question has no interest in the woman? Again, who he loves or doesn’t, who he dates or doesn’t, or who he marries or doesn’t, has no bearing in his actions as a Gentleman.

I will admit, my posts are written from a straight man’s perspective; I fully support equality of all kinds and will challenge any kind of bigotry and hatred. Take a moment and consider the following. If a gentleman is defined by his dedication to his character, if he is honest with himself and others, why would he hide who he is? Coming out to an unsupportive society and family takes a lot more cojones than most straight guys have.

And on the topic of cojones, I have met women who carry themselves with more gentlemanly dignity than a lot of the men out there, just as I have met men who carry themselves with more ladylike elegance than many women out there. Don’t assume you’re a gentleman or a lady just because of your genitals.

Different roads, same path.

When everything is said and done, a gentleman can’t be defined by things he either has no control over, his environment, or simply the superficial shell around him. If that were so, only those born within a very unique situation could be gentlemen, and we know that’s not true. A gentleman can be anyone, just as long as he works on what truly matters, and what truly matters are all things he can control.

But that will be the next installment.

How A Death Challenged Gender Perspective In Puerto Rico’s Culture

A few days ago (Feb. 8 at 12:54 am), a woman was run over as she was crossing a street. The driver fled the scene. In an Island (Puerto Rico) where the deaths per weekend have been known to reach the double digits, this death might have easily gone unnoticed. Except the woman who died was Ivania Zayas, a local singer/songwriter with a small but loyal fan base, who brought people’s attention to this tragic event in the social media.

However, what brought this into the public eye wasn’t simply the loss of a talented musician to an act of tragedy, but the comments of Félix Bauzó, director of the Homicide Division of Criminal Investigation Corps, who questioned the logic of why Ivania was walking the streets alone at that hour.

“It is unusual for a lady, around 1 am, to be crossing that avenue (65th Infantry) and therefore we have to investigate whether she was alone or accompanied. If she was alone, it is worrisome, if she wasn’t, then it would be interesting to know what they were doing, where they came from, that kind of details.” (Translated from NotiCel)

I think there is no need to explain the nature of this comment as it speaks for itself more clearly than I could ever portray. The comment sparked a social media backlash in the form of the hashtag #AndandoLaCalleSola (Walking the street alone); challenging the idea that a woman walking alone at night is an invitation for violence.

Although Officer Bauzó later retracted his comments, they did give a clear image of the rampant gender stereotyping, sexism, and victim blaming within Puerto Rico’s society. This exposition demonstrates the need to promote an open discussion and education about how society views women and gender stereotypes as a whole. Interestingly enough, in an uncommon act of proactivity, the government is currently developing a program for the Department of Education based on Gender Perspective, by which they will educate our youth about the damages caused by gender stereotyping. Unfortunately, these efforts are being shut down, not by the “Patriarchy” and “Machista” community (not that the machistas mind it being shut down), but by a limited but very aggressive group of religious fundamentalists who view opening the discussion about Gender Perspective as the gate way to the “Gay Agenda.” Interestingly enough over 40 other religious and social organizations have established their support to the project.

And there lies the main problem of our society, a society so willing to cover their ears with their own prejudice, that ignores its reality. A society where religious extremists want to ignore any conversation about sexual orientation and gender discrimination, as if that made the LGBT community and open gender stereotyping to disappear. A society where machistas ignore any conversation about women’s rights and gender equality, as if this created a social reality (that never existed to begin with) where a woman’s role was to serve her husband.

Perspectives should never be ignored just because they are not your own and knowledge should never be suppressed just because it makes you uncomfortable. We owe future generations to provide them with the information, the tools, and the vision to create a better Puerto Rico, and a better world. As a great man once said, “Reasoning doesn’t have a gender.” (La razon no tiene sexo. - Eugenio Maria de Hostos)

This is a topic I have dealt with since I started writing online as can be evident from my first article for GMP, How Macho Culture Sets Men Up to Fail.

I was part of a debate run by Meryland Cuevas on this topic earlier this week for Otros Veinte Pesos, a Spanish speaking site. 

This is the first part of the debate.

And Part 2. Additional information and closing comments.

When Labels Becomes More Important Than Causes…

There is a war between the rich and poor,

a war between the man and the woman.

There is a war between the ones who say there is a war

and the ones who say there isn't.

“There is a War”, Leonard Cohen

Those that have read my articles or know my work have heard me say time and time again how I proudly call myself as a Feminist, a Feminist Advocate, or a Feminist Gentleman. In my youth I had strong female role models, women who taught me about dignity and empowerment. I learned from them to challenge a world willing to impose a role based on a socially imposed label, be it because of your gender, your race, your sexuality, your social standing, or your religion. They taught me that the greatest gift I could give anyone was dignity and respect. For those reasons I considered myself a Feminist. And for those same reasons I find it hard to use that label any more.

My problem here is not that I no longer believe in the lessons I learned as a child, or that I no longer believe in gender equality, but quite the contrary. Writing and working in favor of gender equality has actually opened my eyes to the extent of the inequality our society has to deal with. Before I began, I had only a basic idea of just how unfair the world was towards women. And if I am completely honest, I never really took into account just how unfair the world was towards men.

In my eyes back then, objectification, sexism, domestic violence, and sexual assault were things women had to deal with because of men. If we created better men, the problem would be solved. Yes, I took a side in a battle against prejudice and gender inequality. Yet, the more I thought and discussed with others about women’s inequality the more I realized how men also suffered from the social double standards, just in a different way. I also started to realize how women’s inequality was also directly tied to men’s inequality. I realized that the problem isn’t men nor is it women, but the lines drawn in the sand between the different camps of the gender debate.

Imagine my surprise when I realized this idea was nothing new, as many men and women, a lot more versed in the topic, had come to the same conclusion. The great Gloria Steinem, during a speech a few years ago, mentioned how we need to stop the idea of sorting each other by gender and skin color. She went further in supporting how we need to fight, not only for women, but for men as well. “Women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.” More recently, Emma Watson’s UN speech spoke more of a movement of inclusion, where men and women worked together to achieve a greater good. Yet when you see the actual application of the UN resolution, it was a completely different story.

Today we have most people involved in the debate banding together under the label of feminist or anti-feminist, Feminist advocate/ally or Men’s Rights Activists. And THAT is the great challenge here. As many of the leaders go and give a message of unity and hope, there is a small band of extremely vocal and aggressive members within the different camps that promote and thrive on conflict and shaming. It’s these members who have caused most of the stereotyping and divide within the gender issues. Depending on what side of the debate you are, you will routinely view one group with pride and the other with disgust thanks to these extremist. They reinforce the labels, using them as a reason to attack someone, as shields to ignore criticism, and battle standards held high in the field of battle, more important than the cause they fight for.

And that is where I have drawn my own line in the sand. I am no longer willing to accept that gender equality, or any other equality issue for that matter, should be a movement based on conflict between those involved. I refuse to participate in an extremist-manufactured war based on semantic short-cuts that only work to stall the real conversations about pay parity, healthcare, and childcare. Doing so only keeps us from address the real underlying, practical inequalities that are strangling our society. I refuse to recognize a hierarchy of suffering, where victims are used for a pissing contest between sides. I refuse to participate in the constant double-speak and double-standards used conveniently in the discussions of equality. And I refuse to allow myself to be dragged into the “your with me or against me” that so many of the extremist within the debate love to use to enforce support in their actions.

The greatest irony within the debate is that, after you remove all the labels and insults, the message within all the camps is the same, people asking for safety, respect, equality, and empowerment. None of these are finite resources; where you have to take it from one group to give it to another. In truth, we need to look past the mudslinging, the insults, and the shaming done by the worst elements within the debate and step out of our trenches. We need to turn the debate into a conversation.

The easiest cop-out to the label issue would be to simply view everyone as humans, and simply call yourself a Humanist. But this is denying what individual groups go through within society because of who they are, be it gender, race, sexuality, or religion. It’s easy to applauded equality when everyone is the same. We need to promote equality when everyone is different. We might all be human, but the inequalities dealt with by women are different than the inequalities dealt with by men. Because I see the parts of you, doesn’t mean I don’t see the human in you; just as because I see the human in you, doesn’t mean I don’t see the parts of you.

As for now, since I don’t call myself a Feminist and don’t quite fit within the label Humanist, what word do I use?

I have become quite fond of “Me.”