Jill nails it

I’ll take voting rights over a knight in shining armor, thanks.

And that’s the thing with chivalry: It always demands something in return. If you’re being nice to me because you like me and you’re the kind of person who is nice to people you like, then that’s great. If you’re being nice to me because you’re hoping to get something out of it, or if you think you’re entitled to sex or a relationship with me because you were nice and “chivalrous,”  you can go fuck yourself. See how that works?

Categories: ethics & philosophy, gender & feminism, relationships

Tags: , , ,

1 reply

  1. I reckon the cliches we hear today about chivalry are probably very different – maybe even the exact opposite – of what chivalry was once recognised as being. I detest all the cliches today about men being ‘knights in shining armour’ and women being ‘princesses’, but largely they seem to be just a misconception of earlier times when these terms had some use.
    One term I know a bit about (though I’m hardly an expert) would be courtship, which in the modern day is something very different to how ‘courtly love’ was perceived in late-medieval/renaissance times.
    Anyway, I think Jill does a pretty good takedown there.

%d bloggers like this: