Yes: Sam Dalton

Valentine’s Day is here and love is in the air, but is this a day we can really call fair?

The annual celebration of romance which grips the western world is not only a chance for emotions and passions to run wild, but also for taking a step back and thinking about what Valentine’s Day means in the modern age, and what it says about society’s attitudes towards gender roles in particular. Do we envisage the door-opening, bill-paying knight in shining armour treating his princess to the most special evening she could imagine, or do we think that men and women should play a more equal role, with the girl leading the way if she wishes?

If Valentine’s Day is to reflect a commitment to equality and gender emancipation, then the latter viewpoint is the one we should be encouraging, not constricting. Despite the romantic sphere being a largely private one, the way in which couples interact and the power dynamics involved are nevertheless connected to gender roles in broader society, perpetuated by our longstanding ideas about romance. If the view of women as rational, autonomous beings, equally capable of working and participating in the public sphere, is to be advanced, then the image of the knight in shining armour is a deeply harmful one. It suggests a man of power, strength and valour, and a woman of beauty, delicateness and passivity.

This is not to say that men do not like beautiful women or that women do not often like a man of power (indeed evolutionary psychologists point to cross-cultural surveys showing that men put slightly more value on appearance and women on status), but rather that to restrict our images of gender roles along these lines, and to actively promote or expect one form of romantic interaction over another, is very much against the advance of women as equal, and is harmful to women’s freedom of choice. The idea of a man taking a woman out for dinner, opening doors for her as they enter the restaurant, pulling her chair out and then paying at the end of the meal is a date format rooted in an age when men were powerful wage-earners and women domesticated housewives. Why should we want to perpetuate this?

An expectation that the man should pay the bill contradicts and undermines the push for women to gain equal wages and employment opportunities, and women who still want both are greatly mistaken. When the man’s wallet comes out at the end of the meal, and his princess smiles and thanks him for taking her out to dinner, the image of the powerful, earning man and the soft, delicate women is perpetuated, affecting attitudes about gender roles which can then infiltrate into the economic realm and harm the prospects of women gaining top positions in careers of their choice.

The death of chivalry is of benefit not only to women, but to romance more broadly. The idea of the dominant male taking charge and the woman following his lead prescribes a singular model of how romantic interactions should be conducted.  And yet, in some cases, the girl might want to initiate dates and act as the more decisive partner or, better still, the two might play an equal role in initiating and paying for dates. If it feels too mechanical splitting the bill by exact amounts after every dinner, then alternate in taking your partner out.

Stereotypical and rigid ideas of chivalry might prevent a girl from pursuing a guy because she doesn’t want to be seen as the one doing the chasing, and wants instead to conform to what she thinks is the ‘right’ way for a relationship to come about, and the ‘right’ way for a girl to act, that of being taken care of and treated as a beautiful princess. Fulfilling relationships might never happen as a result of these outdated conventions, undeniably a travesty for romance. Certain aspects of individual personalities might never be expressed, for both men and women. 

Thankfully more and more couples are equalling things out with regard to the small things like paying the bill, particularly in the student population, signalling a shift away from restrictive chivalrous attitudes towards an emancipation of romance and furthering the cause of gender equality. Yet a recent study of 17,000 men and women in the US discovered that 84 per cent of men and 58 per cent of women said that men still usually paid when the bill came, even when they had been with their partner for some time.

There is still a long way to go before romantic interaction is liberated from all the outdated, rigid constraints imposed on it. The gradual death of chivalry is something that should be celebrated as much as Valentine’s Day itself: it is good for women, whose progression in society won’t be compromised, good for men, who will rightly save money, and good for romance all round, which will become far more interesting and diverse as a result.   

No: Hebe Hamilton

When people hear the word ‘chivalry’, they are likely to imagine a medieval scene involving a knight in shining armour rescuing a cowering maiden from some kind of deathly peril. Or, at the very least, they will have an image in their head of a man graciously helping a woman:  carrying a heavy object for her; offering his jacket during the cold; or (heck) even holding a door open for her.

Historically, chivalry has been recognised as the combination of qualities expected of an ideal man – which traditionally include courage, honour, courtesy, justice and a readiness to help others. But what relevance could this hold for us, in the 21st century? It certainly does not mean that we should expect men to have these qualities ingrained in their personalities (I know more than a few about whom you could say such qualities are ‘lacking’). Neither does it mean that women have to rely on men to help them – we are perfectly capable of sorting out our own problems, thank you very much. And moreover – if we wish for it to cohere with our own set of moral values – it does not mean that chivalry has to be limited to men alone. Women too are perfectly capable of displaying their own acts of ‘chivalry’, whether this be paying for drinks or the bill at a restaurant (we’re all students, we can’t expect to escape this), or even just committing small acts of kindness and thoughtfulness.

It goes without saying that times have changed greatly since the original ‘Age of Chivalry’ in early medieval Europe, and the modern western world likes to think of itself as pushing towards a more gender-equal society. While it is hard to deny that there may still be some way to go, we can at least respect the motivation of the Feminist movement and its achievements in bringing us closer to a society free from gender discrimination, subliminal or otherwise.

Chivalry was originally born out of a patriarchal worldview in which women were seen as helpless and incompetent, in need of protection from their male counterparts. But just as all social practices evolve with time, this does not mean that it still has to be synonymous with such oppression today. In fact, not only would it be wrong to say that chivalry is dead, but also harmful. We don’t need to do away with chivalry as a concept: we need to adapt or reinterpret its meaning and ideology in a modern day context. This would involve detaching it from its sexist connotations, while retaining the positive aspects. Ultimately this could greatly deepen the value and dignity in inter-personal relationships (romantic or otherwise). The words we need to focus on are ‘courtesy’ and ‘respect’. Feminism has made incredible progress in bringing us closer to a position where women and men are recognised as equal, and accordingly, I believe that women should take pride in being independent. We should not rely on men to define us in our professional or personal lives. Correspondingly, this could remove the pressure on men to feel that they have to always perform chivalrous acts for women – paying for dinner, or asking the girl out.

We get it. But perhaps there are also positive reasons to explain such deeply ingrained social standards. Despite the advances in social equality between men and women, we cannot ignore the appropriate feeling of flattery, or even plain happiness, when someone does treat us with some consideration, or displays their affection (or generosity) through some kind of meaningful act of selflessness. A woman can support egalitarian principles while still wanting to be treated with courtesy and respect and appreciating kind gestures in some form or another. An act of chivalry is a perfect example of this and there is nothing more attractive to most people than a true gentleman – to use the classic phrase. In the contemporary world of booty calls and hook ups it is refreshing to meet someone who demonstrates chivalry even in their smallest actions, maybe opening the door for you or picking up a book you may have dropped on the floor.

Whilst some men may use their physical strength to help others (it doesn’t necessarily have to be just women), on contrasting occasions they may prefer to display chivalry in a more subtle, and even gentle, manner. Chivalry in the 21st century does not have to be defined by big statements or actions alone. It’s the thought behind the act that counts, which is why small gestures of chivalrous behaviour can be just as meaningful as larger, more obvious ones. I’m not saying that men should be permanently on standby to do this. On the contrary, it is important to appreciate that chivalry does not have to be limited to traditional gender roles. No matter who we are, we should not be complacent and lower our standards when interacting with each other. Instead, we should make the effort to display sincere acts of genuine respect and kindness.

Though the original image of the ‘chivalrous knight’ is certainly outdated, chivalry can now be preserved in any act, big or small, of courtesy, respect or generosity between men and women, equally. Chivalry is not dead, and I hope it will never die.