[the new chivalry] blueprint for the coming age

A woman upset at being made to feel inferior

The Great Anon refers to my "recent" sense of spirituality and idealism:

Now. I'd be the first to admit that what you are struggling to say has validity, and I equally have to say that while ever you try in the spiritual way to explain, you will fail, and maybe if you'd looked where I've looked, you'd realise the extent of that statement ... Your search, your dreams/praises, etc, all have validity. They were hijacked 2000 years ago, and this has perpetuated to this day. Your historical like thinkers were branded heretics and burned at the stake, or drowned at the ducking stool.

... and places a rationalist slant on it all:

The Magdalene companions, Mary Salome (Helena), and Mary Jacob, (wife of Cleophas), are said to be buried in the crypt of Les Saintes Maries in the Carmague. Long befor the ninth century church was built, its predecessor was called Sanctae Mariae de Ratis, and near the present main nave is the remains of a sculpture showing the Marys at sea.

I am the first to say that the presence of the eternal Anons on this blog raises the intellectual tone in many cases but there are other, more naive, young and idealistic words referring to the phenomenon of love, which is what Pascha is, after all, a testament to.

Narrowing the field to love itself and in particular, man woman love, a young Indonesian lady recently gave a unique perspective on today's My Rights relationships:

At the end, I'll be safe behind his shield. I will lay on his shoulder and took his helping hand.

Sigh. That's so sweet. When I read that, I was more than curious how the lovely and talented JMB, Welshcakes and Ruthie would respond. Ruthie has now put [not actually in response]:

I know I’ve mentioned this before—this pervasive idea that a woman needs to be redeemed by a man—but it drives me crazy. It isn’t as widespread as it once was, I’m sure, but it’s still there. There is a very urgent, very real pressure for a woman to validate her adulthood by marrying. That same pressure does not exist for a man.

Yes, Ruthie - indeed this pervasive idea that a woman needs to be redeemed by a man is just and fair, just as the parallel pervasive idea that a man needs to be redeemed by a woman is not only equally valid but both should underpin the correct ordering of human relations on this earth.

Both together, side by side, in balance and harmony.

An excellent young blogger called Febra responds to the Saya piece with this:

This is my story about woman.

In Yogyakarta, a lot of husbands didn't gave permission to their wife
for working. The reasons are :

1. They think thats already woman destiny to stay at home and serve them, wife must be at home when they arrive home from their activities.

2. They afraid if their wife fall in love again with her partner or others people if working in some places.

3. Worried if the wife more success then them. As the lead in family, some people didn't like if thier wife more rich than them.

For me, thats wrong attitude. Because If woman only at home, with no activities thats will make them bored. Also in yogyakarta or in another place, a lot of woman have good education untull they graduted from university.

So shame if they didn't working. They cann't developed their ability. Ofcourse a lot of people have own bisnis also.

If you already married. You have commitment with him/her. So why you scare if your wife will fall in live again to another people? did u marrried because you believe her will stay together with you? trust her and let them show their ability.

Thats it James. I hope you like it. This is my experience when some of my friends share with me about their life.

That was the perspective of a young modern male in a Muslim majority society. Another excellent blogger, Anastarsiarta, asks:

Did they really marry because of falling in love? Possibly, yes they were married because of sex or money. I was considered possibly a dreamer because I still trusted an everlasting love, hoped the marriage could happen because of the love, and the harmony in the family could continue to take place because of the love that was maintained...

I believe this is still possible, quite possible.

Speaking with my former love last evening about Ruthie's piece, whilst the focus of my dreams is off on an extended sabbatical, I said that I'd love both ladies to put here on this blog how "oppressed" they felt and feel in the relationship and how "their rights had been infringed".

She laughed and we got on to who had broken up with whom and called it line ball but when it came down to the generally accepted story that I had pursued her back to Russia, she smiled and said: "I was always in the driving seat. I seduced you though you thought it was the other way and wrote it up like that."

I didn't actually detect any sign of inequality here [but maybe that's me] or in my current rollercoaster ride which has for now come off the rails [I'm still mopping the tears up off the floor]. I rather think that the girl is most definitely in the driving seat - though I appear to set the agenda. Dirty words in the west such as "feminine wiles", when in full flight, are more than a match for any man's "oppression".

As she said: "When we spoke this morning, you seemed close to tears. So what came over you this evening?"

That's easy. As that blogger said in her piece above about loving men, so I love women and the way they operate - complex, yes, often viewing truth as a political tool, yes, skilled in the art of achieving their ends, yes - but irresistible all the same.

In the Islamic guidelines for making love, for example, did you know it is not permissible for a man to wham, bam, thank you maam? So in one stroke, rape and disrespect are made anthema and consideration of the woman is decreed? That many men do not is a testament more to them.

So if women can love and appreciate men and men can love and appreciate women, why all this talk of being made to feel inferior?

That seems sad to me.

So yes, let's get back to chivalry, not as an article of oppression of the female but rather as a celebration of the correct ordering of life. Referring to the man:

a. Prowess: that combination of courage, strength and skill that commanded respect.

b. Honor: having a strong sense of morality, integrity and deference before those in the offices of authority.

c. Loyalty: meaning the pledged word, was chivalry's fulcrum. The extreme emphasis given to it derived from the time when a pledge between lord and vassal was the only form of government.

d. Courtesy: respectful behavior not only towards one's betters*, but also for those below one's own cast as well. "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."

e. Courtly love: Designed to make the knight more polite and to lift the tone of society, courtly love required required its disciple to be in a chronically armorous condition, on the theory that he would thus be rendered more courteous, gallant, and society in consequence more joyous.

Now, if we can eliminate all talk* of "one's betters" and "below one's own cast" and allow that a lady and a gentleman are made, not born and that anyone can join the "elite caste" if it is their will, then we potentially have a bunch of men charging around on their white steeds being gallant and a bunch of damsels gratefully accepting a spot of assistance and providing their own unique variety in return, sparing the time whilst not busily engaged in their own affairs.

Everyone ends up giving to others and thereby receiving it in full measure in return.

Sigh :)