Manliness, feminism and chivalry

Manliness and feminism should meet at chivalry. This should be their common ground, the place where these two ideas, these two identities, find their most profound expression.

I define modern chivalry as a male disposition of profound respect toward women, which is most importantly and courageously expressed in refusing to make inappropriate sexual advances and defending women from other men who do not abide by that code of respect. It is a disposition that transcends the sexual nature of human males, particularly young men, which rarely orients itself in a respectful manner toward the opposite sex. Chivalry, then, does what it can to replace the aggressive sexuality of young men with a profound and healthy respect for women not because they are weak or helpless, but because they are the object of men's most emotionally and physically dangerous desires.

If there were one word with which true manliness could be defined, it would have to be "courage." It is not strength, force or sex, as too many, particularly young men, perceive, but the courage to use that strength when it is right to do so and the courage to reserve sex only for when it fulfills a true human good. Chivalry requires both of these and many other manifestations of courage; it is one of the strongest expressions of true manliness.

Chivalry should also be embraced by feminism. It tries to harness men's energy and direct it away from the disrespectful misogyny of womanizing and instead toward countering that predisposition. Yes, it does not treat women as equals; it treats them as better than equals, as people who deserve more respect than the hypersexualized male is ready to show. But, in a case of runaway ideology, modern feminism has spurned chivalry as quaint, paternalistic and misogynistic.

Rather than embracing the mutual respect of chivalry, modern feminism has moved toward an ideology of sexual liberation that is particularly popular among younger Americans. It is an ideology and an identity that eschews modesty and restraint in favor of the false liberty of sexual license, in which an idealistic view of sex, devoid of emotion and consequences, creeps into the psyche. Modern feminism therefore not only pushes away chivalry, but undercuts its very foundations.

This sexual liberation, in the way it pushes younger men and women to dress and behave, encourages the darker side of manliness. In presenting a hypersexual portrait of gender expectations, the ideology pushes young men to their common preconceptions and misconceptions about manliness, defined by physical power and sexual prowess. These youthful exuberances, though, are hardly innocent play, as the respect that woman seek and deserve has, by virtue of the sexualization and equalization of gender expectations, been eliminated from the equation. Rather than meeting at the mutual respect of chivalry, feminism and manliness have found much more insidious common ground, which manifests itself as the high school and collegiate "hookup culture."

At universities like Princeton, this dynamic drives the social atmosphere, in particular on Prospect Avenue. Though it would certainly be a mistake to idealize the past, as all time periods and social milieus have significant shortcomings, imagine a moment in history when young people were not encouraged to publicly invest so much in their sexuality, those so-called dark ages when sex was taboo. In this atmosphere, young men's tenacious drive to manliness is of course present, but not so dramatically enticed to its more pernicious ends. Chivalry lives here, as young men can eschew the naivete of a sex-based manliness for a mature, respectful, truthful, courage-based one. Furthermore, women are respected not for their sexual openness, not for their willingness to "act like the guys," but simply because they are women, and they have an inherent dignity removed from sexuality. In this world, sexuality is not repressed, as some argue, but it is respected.

And so, all I ask for is a little less sex and a little more respect all around. Furthermore, I suspect that the former might just lead to the latter. And if some readers consider all of this to be quaint and paternalistic, then I say so be it. For I prefer those monikers to the alternative: fundamental disrespect for the seriousness of sex and the dignity of women.