Huh, this resonates with a really striking moment from the book I just finished, Kathleen Hanna's autobiography Rebel Girl: My Life as a Feminist Punk. She was being lowkey stalked by an ex--he was just constantly LURKING in the hallway outside her apartment, "leaning against my door for days at a time." She was good friends with Kurt Cobain, so one day this happened: "I was working at my desk drinking a beer when I heard Kurt shouting in the hallway, 'Why don't you just leave Kathleen alone?!' I opened my door to see Kurt about to physically fight Luke. I pulled him away (with the help of a hammer I had in my hands) and into my apartment."
She later glosses this as, "He was the first feminist man I ever met who never thought being an ally meant you couldn't defend a woman in bold strokes because she was supposed to do it all for herself. He never flinched."
If Bethany timewarped herself to the Regency period she’d most likely be coded as a working class woman not an Amazon! The fainting fits were a luxury good not afforded to the lower orders of society who were doing a great deal of heavy lifting on a daily basis.
My thought exactly. The upper classes made a big show out of being "delicate," fainting, etc., because it differentiated them from "common" women who had to walk long distances, carry heavy things, haul water, wash clothes by hand, and work hard physically every day of their lives.
My grandmother was born in 1900 on a farm in the mountains of eastern Kentucky; she grew up working in the fields, washing clothing by hand, and doing all the physical labor required of a farm woman. I remember her telling me about a time when she was working in the fields and got caught in a thunderstorm - she took refuge in a cave only to discover there was a nest of copperhead snakes in there, which she nonchalantly killed with her shovel.
When she married a "city feller" and moved to living in town, I think she felt embarrassed about her hillbilly origins. She took to feigning an exaggerated fear of spiders, bugs, mice and other critters - made a big show of getting up on a chair to avoid the spider and wailing that she was going to faint. I remember as a child being confused - hadn't she grown up on a farm, where there were a ton of critters? And didn't she calmly kill poisonous snakes with a shovel? My mom explained that Mamaw was trying to act the way she assumed a fancy city lady would act.
Great story. Both my grandmothers were formidable women who started their families during WWII (in England btw) which meant dodging bombs with toddlers and trying to feed everyone with govt mandated food rations. An amazing combination of grit and yet also vulnerability which is really hard to process now because those two qualities have been split apart and modern folks tend to specialise in one or the other. It used to be common to have both.
As someone recovering from the kind of pernicious feminism this blog scrutinizes so well, I think there was no room for chivalry to be anything but condescending until I came to face and accept certain truths about my own vulnerability. When I had a debilitating pregnancy that required me to confront my own weakness it was pretty threatening and discombobulating at first given my own attachment to independence. I think an acceptance of chivalry relies first on an understanding that weakness does not make us less worthy.
"I think an acceptance of chivalry relies first on an understanding that weakness does not make us less worthy." This is a very helpful point! I don't think chivalry in the oldest sense was as concerned with the weakness of women as it was with honoring them. As with so many things, you can perform chivalric acts with an attitude of condescension and implication of weakness, or you can perform them with an intent to express honor and show value.
I’m torn about the framing of weakness too, vulnerability definitely feels better and I appreciate that you brought up honor because I think it’s crucial. We honor people for many reasons and there is a sort of noblesse oblige vibe to chivalry that feels alien to modern culture and is our loss in my opinion.
As someone who is usually in better physical shape than the average person even when I am pregnant, I find myself in all sorts of situations where I’m the most able-bodied person in the room and the most qualified to help, carry, lift, etc. I do appreciate the cultural deference when it’s offered though, as I don’t obviously show until late 2nd or 3rd trimester (short people can hide behind store counters and steering wheels in most daily interactions such that pregnancy is easily overlooked), and my physical vulnerability in pregnancy (cervical issues) tend to be very random and don’t correlate to any obvious physical weakness. Like, I can be running and lifting weights one day and be put on strict bed rest the next. The vulnerability is very non-linear.
I don’t appreciate being treated as fragile, but I also don’t want to feel like I have to carry all the physical burdens all the time, which if you’re pregnant and also caring for small children is often the default state. My biggest difficulty during pregnancies where I also had very demanding toddlers was constantly wanting help, but training myself to not expect it, because, let’s be honest, there’s not going to be a magical stranger pop up to carry your groceries every day. Women are incredibly gritty and strong, but having to bear the entire burden *all the time* is exhausting. It’s so much harder to push through something when you’ve had the relief of being helped before, so it’s easier to just have the default expectation of bearing all the burdens alone.
Luckily there is now research coming out that should eventually shift exercise expectations during pregnancy (I.e., lifting weights and intense physical activity can actually benefit us). But I don’t want that to mean that no deference is given to pregnancy generally.
Yes! I’ve been happy lifting weights and getting stronger while pregnant (and I biked my kids on our cargo bike till my delivery). But I also had periods where I had to take naps, where I was too nauseated, and where the meds that forestalled preterm labor made me too sick to work.
I finished my (mailed early) copy and loved it. Review forthcoming, delayed by the absolutely wonderful news that we're expecting again! Infertility has been a cross and we're so happy. (It's first trimester and I'm playing energy roulette: some days I'm too lightheaded to stand, and some I can manage okay. Relevant to the topic at hand!)
Erika Bachiochi uses the word “vulnerable”, as opposed to weakness, to describe the special needs of women due to their biology - their childbearing capacity and nurturing of infants and children and how our society should be calling upon men to respect that vulnerability. Protecting and providing for women through those vulnerable periods is an example of the complementarity of the sexes.
I just read Susi Ferrarello’s perceptive book, The Phenomenology of Pregnancy and Early Motherhood. It has a chapter called, “No Bump No Care” that I think turns around the Ruiz equation. In the first trimester a woman does really significant work in her body, but because others can’t see it, they may extend no support: “If the body does not show, care is not required.” Or, worse, they shift to her the burden of their ignorance, so women may have to “humor the expectations that are placed on them,” and “pretend nothing is changing and keep carrying on.” In this scenario, the default is not that women get treated as weak because they might be pregnant but one can’t see it. Instead, the logic would be:
--In the period of pregnancy invisible to others, a woman does significant and strenuous work
--Folks should defer to this work that extends her in some ways and depletes in others
--ergo: help should be offered by default
I don’t have principled qualms about deferring to potential need, but grounds don’t have to be framed as weakness.
Off topic, but that Priority Seating sign fascinates me. It looks like priority seating goes to the pregnant, elderly, disabled, flight attendants, and Buddhist monks?
It seems odd to me that equality should only be framed in terms of physicality. Worth as a person - yes, mental capabilities - yes, but with the obvious differences in typical female and male bodies, why would anyone assume men and women are equal physically? In my opinion, deference is only derogatory when it is aimed at mental capacity. Even though I'm very capable of opening doors, standing on subways/buses I'm happy to receive any deference, especially as I age.
To my own surprise, I made a rare visit to news sites a couple of days ago, and ended up watching a talk by Erika Kirk, on Combatting Comparison in a (Toxic) Boss Babe Culture. I liked what she said, including that she was a tomboy and athlete as a girl and young woman. I also liked the way she urged girls and women to stay in our own lane, doing what fulfills us, and not compare ourselves to anyone else at any point along the way. And I liked the way her husband's Saturday love notes always ended "And please let me know how I can serve you better." Her husband's protection never demeaned her, just encouraged her. https://youtu.be/6iocRGjgQ3Q?si=9pxH1PSWs7luh4xK
If I encounter someone in need of help - they look to me to be in need - I am strongly inclined to offer help and usually do (irrespective of the person's sex). I can't recall a woman - who was clearly in need - who declined my offer. On the other hand, some few men have declined.
Huh, this resonates with a really striking moment from the book I just finished, Kathleen Hanna's autobiography Rebel Girl: My Life as a Feminist Punk. She was being lowkey stalked by an ex--he was just constantly LURKING in the hallway outside her apartment, "leaning against my door for days at a time." She was good friends with Kurt Cobain, so one day this happened: "I was working at my desk drinking a beer when I heard Kurt shouting in the hallway, 'Why don't you just leave Kathleen alone?!' I opened my door to see Kurt about to physically fight Luke. I pulled him away (with the help of a hammer I had in my hands) and into my apartment."
She later glosses this as, "He was the first feminist man I ever met who never thought being an ally meant you couldn't defend a woman in bold strokes because she was supposed to do it all for herself. He never flinched."
Eve, what an unexpected and excellent connection!
If Bethany timewarped herself to the Regency period she’d most likely be coded as a working class woman not an Amazon! The fainting fits were a luxury good not afforded to the lower orders of society who were doing a great deal of heavy lifting on a daily basis.
My thought exactly. The upper classes made a big show out of being "delicate," fainting, etc., because it differentiated them from "common" women who had to walk long distances, carry heavy things, haul water, wash clothes by hand, and work hard physically every day of their lives.
My grandmother was born in 1900 on a farm in the mountains of eastern Kentucky; she grew up working in the fields, washing clothing by hand, and doing all the physical labor required of a farm woman. I remember her telling me about a time when she was working in the fields and got caught in a thunderstorm - she took refuge in a cave only to discover there was a nest of copperhead snakes in there, which she nonchalantly killed with her shovel.
When she married a "city feller" and moved to living in town, I think she felt embarrassed about her hillbilly origins. She took to feigning an exaggerated fear of spiders, bugs, mice and other critters - made a big show of getting up on a chair to avoid the spider and wailing that she was going to faint. I remember as a child being confused - hadn't she grown up on a farm, where there were a ton of critters? And didn't she calmly kill poisonous snakes with a shovel? My mom explained that Mamaw was trying to act the way she assumed a fancy city lady would act.
Great story. Both my grandmothers were formidable women who started their families during WWII (in England btw) which meant dodging bombs with toddlers and trying to feed everyone with govt mandated food rations. An amazing combination of grit and yet also vulnerability which is really hard to process now because those two qualities have been split apart and modern folks tend to specialise in one or the other. It used to be common to have both.
As someone recovering from the kind of pernicious feminism this blog scrutinizes so well, I think there was no room for chivalry to be anything but condescending until I came to face and accept certain truths about my own vulnerability. When I had a debilitating pregnancy that required me to confront my own weakness it was pretty threatening and discombobulating at first given my own attachment to independence. I think an acceptance of chivalry relies first on an understanding that weakness does not make us less worthy.
"I think an acceptance of chivalry relies first on an understanding that weakness does not make us less worthy." This is a very helpful point! I don't think chivalry in the oldest sense was as concerned with the weakness of women as it was with honoring them. As with so many things, you can perform chivalric acts with an attitude of condescension and implication of weakness, or you can perform them with an intent to express honor and show value.
I’m torn about the framing of weakness too, vulnerability definitely feels better and I appreciate that you brought up honor because I think it’s crucial. We honor people for many reasons and there is a sort of noblesse oblige vibe to chivalry that feels alien to modern culture and is our loss in my opinion.
As someone who is usually in better physical shape than the average person even when I am pregnant, I find myself in all sorts of situations where I’m the most able-bodied person in the room and the most qualified to help, carry, lift, etc. I do appreciate the cultural deference when it’s offered though, as I don’t obviously show until late 2nd or 3rd trimester (short people can hide behind store counters and steering wheels in most daily interactions such that pregnancy is easily overlooked), and my physical vulnerability in pregnancy (cervical issues) tend to be very random and don’t correlate to any obvious physical weakness. Like, I can be running and lifting weights one day and be put on strict bed rest the next. The vulnerability is very non-linear.
I don’t appreciate being treated as fragile, but I also don’t want to feel like I have to carry all the physical burdens all the time, which if you’re pregnant and also caring for small children is often the default state. My biggest difficulty during pregnancies where I also had very demanding toddlers was constantly wanting help, but training myself to not expect it, because, let’s be honest, there’s not going to be a magical stranger pop up to carry your groceries every day. Women are incredibly gritty and strong, but having to bear the entire burden *all the time* is exhausting. It’s so much harder to push through something when you’ve had the relief of being helped before, so it’s easier to just have the default expectation of bearing all the burdens alone.
Luckily there is now research coming out that should eventually shift exercise expectations during pregnancy (I.e., lifting weights and intense physical activity can actually benefit us). But I don’t want that to mean that no deference is given to pregnancy generally.
Yes! I’ve been happy lifting weights and getting stronger while pregnant (and I biked my kids on our cargo bike till my delivery). But I also had periods where I had to take naps, where I was too nauseated, and where the meds that forestalled preterm labor made me too sick to work.
I finished my (mailed early) copy and loved it. Review forthcoming, delayed by the absolutely wonderful news that we're expecting again! Infertility has been a cross and we're so happy. (It's first trimester and I'm playing energy roulette: some days I'm too lightheaded to stand, and some I can manage okay. Relevant to the topic at hand!)
Congratulations!
Erika Bachiochi uses the word “vulnerable”, as opposed to weakness, to describe the special needs of women due to their biology - their childbearing capacity and nurturing of infants and children and how our society should be calling upon men to respect that vulnerability. Protecting and providing for women through those vulnerable periods is an example of the complementarity of the sexes.
I just read Susi Ferrarello’s perceptive book, The Phenomenology of Pregnancy and Early Motherhood. It has a chapter called, “No Bump No Care” that I think turns around the Ruiz equation. In the first trimester a woman does really significant work in her body, but because others can’t see it, they may extend no support: “If the body does not show, care is not required.” Or, worse, they shift to her the burden of their ignorance, so women may have to “humor the expectations that are placed on them,” and “pretend nothing is changing and keep carrying on.” In this scenario, the default is not that women get treated as weak because they might be pregnant but one can’t see it. Instead, the logic would be:
--In the period of pregnancy invisible to others, a woman does significant and strenuous work
--Folks should defer to this work that extends her in some ways and depletes in others
--ergo: help should be offered by default
I don’t have principled qualms about deferring to potential need, but grounds don’t have to be framed as weakness.
Off topic, but that Priority Seating sign fascinates me. It looks like priority seating goes to the pregnant, elderly, disabled, flight attendants, and Buddhist monks?
Surely the one on the left is the Michelin man?
I am also curious!
I, too, am not sure about the categories!
It seems odd to me that equality should only be framed in terms of physicality. Worth as a person - yes, mental capabilities - yes, but with the obvious differences in typical female and male bodies, why would anyone assume men and women are equal physically? In my opinion, deference is only derogatory when it is aimed at mental capacity. Even though I'm very capable of opening doors, standing on subways/buses I'm happy to receive any deference, especially as I age.
To my own surprise, I made a rare visit to news sites a couple of days ago, and ended up watching a talk by Erika Kirk, on Combatting Comparison in a (Toxic) Boss Babe Culture. I liked what she said, including that she was a tomboy and athlete as a girl and young woman. I also liked the way she urged girls and women to stay in our own lane, doing what fulfills us, and not compare ourselves to anyone else at any point along the way. And I liked the way her husband's Saturday love notes always ended "And please let me know how I can serve you better." Her husband's protection never demeaned her, just encouraged her. https://youtu.be/6iocRGjgQ3Q?si=9pxH1PSWs7luh4xK
If there’s a problem here, is lack of grace and manners.
Making a fuss over such trifles as being offered help is gross.
Just my experience...
If I encounter someone in need of help - they look to me to be in need - I am strongly inclined to offer help and usually do (irrespective of the person's sex). I can't recall a woman - who was clearly in need - who declined my offer. On the other hand, some few men have declined.