tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post9218050232223776226..comments2024-03-28T00:01:43.037-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: "Feminism Is Trying To Update Chivalry"Grimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38575616154446745442014-09-06T00:10:33.476-04:002014-09-06T00:10:33.476-04:00It is, you are quite right. There is a combination...It is, you are quite right. There is a combination at work that is absent here, though -- to tame a horse, and to ride it to war. So I am not sure there are implications. <br /><br />Still, there are benefits to horsemanship alone. And if you have a son, by all means get him involved in that: he'll have his pick of the best women of his generation. Should he follow up on it by a career in the combat arms, he'll be a man other men stand aside for as well.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-60883205996298515442014-09-05T23:18:20.215-04:002014-09-05T23:18:20.215-04:00My impression is that in America today, horsemansh...My impression is that in America today, horsemanship is pursued by significantly more women than men. Do you think this is correct? If so, what (if anything) are the implications?David Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464681514800720063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-25945860812977058022014-09-04T08:33:55.924-04:002014-09-04T08:33:55.924-04:00It's better to talk about horsemanship and hor...It's better to talk about horsemanship and horse archery, and then how that leads to chivalry. Because if you start off with chivalry, 90% of the human masses think you're talking about a fantasy, not a reality.<br /><br />Archery and riding horses, at least, is still reality in some people's mind.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-32125967309134386062014-09-04T07:24:22.464-04:002014-09-04T07:24:22.464-04:00So there's two things, one of which we agree a...So there's two things, one of which we agree about and one of which we do not. We agree that what this author is describing is not chivalry; otherwise, we end up having to say things like, "How chivalrous! He abstained from stealing her nude pictures and spreading them all over the internet." That's absurdly removed from the flourishing content of chivalry; it would be like calling it <i>heroism</i> to refrain from spreading naked pictures around.<br /><br />What we don't agree about is just how to bracket what chivalry is. Nevertheless, we can speak sensibly about "Arabian chivalry" versus "Christian chivalry," and recognize that we're talking about a quality that serves as a kind of universal to which the adjectives apply. Both have the mixture of honor and horsemanship that are necessary to ride a horse to war; the ways in which they differ are accidents to that essence. <br /><br />Those accidents may still be quite important! I think it's worth fighting for Christian chivalry. But I don't think you need to make the Christian just war tradition essential to chivalry to capture the virtue.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-44756738577567523902014-09-04T07:20:26.673-04:002014-09-04T07:20:26.673-04:00It's going to be difficult to resurrect chival...It's going to be difficult to resurrect chivalry now that there's entire classes of people, males and females, that have little to no power over themselves or others.<br /><br />The government has the Power and Authority. They might as well apply the restraints of chivalry to the government, these socialites talking about feminist protocols.<br /><br />That's of course no longer a relationship between man and woman, but more like dog and its master.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-76166281739186049132014-09-04T00:04:03.155-04:002014-09-04T00:04:03.155-04:00Why speak of it in English? For one reason, becau...Why speak of it in English? For one reason, because prowess was at the root of the virtue. Before -- and, indeed, after as well -- any kind of right of birth was spoken of, the question that was of foremost interest was what you could <i>do</i> with that horse.<br /><br /><i>But I never saw evidence that the just in bello -- like the notion of a "fair fight" -- had Churchly origins (unless you count the Truce of God). </i><br /><br />Now that's just what I was thinking of when I wrote it. <i>Jus in bello</i> comes out of that tradition, which limits targets (and, sometimes, times) of legitimate attack. <br /><br />But in terms of 'fair fighting,' you know, that was always honored in the breach at best when it came to war. In tournament, certainly. In war, though, one did what had to be done.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38076471035476455692014-09-03T23:49:34.346-04:002014-09-03T23:49:34.346-04:00First of all, the jus in bello came from the relig...<i>First of all, the jus in bello came from the religious class, not the knights.</i> <br /><br />I don't <i>think</i> that's correct. The <i>jus ad bellum</i> -- just war theory -- came from the priests, or at least they systematized and added to it. In some ways the medieval Church played the role of the U.N., attempting to resolve disputes and pronounce on just wars. But I never saw evidence that the <i>just in bello</i> -- like the notion of a "fair fight" -- had Churchly origins (unless you count the Truce of God). <br /><br /><i>But also, to say that any warrior class will develop 'some kind of code' is not to speak to the specific virtues that are necessary conditions for horsemanship.</i><br /><br />That's true. But if Mongols, Mamelukes, Napoleon's <i>cuirassiers</i>, and the Ninth U.S. Cavalry...or Genghis Khan, William the Marshal, and Osama Bin Laden...didn't come out the same, or even much like each other at all, what good does it do to call the thing they had in common "chivalry"? In English I mean. Better to call it "horsemanship," or "cavalry art" or something (though I know the linguistic root's the same). Accept that horsemanship requires and builds a certain set of virtues, courage among them, but that a true Christian knight needed other virtues on top of those before he ought to be called "chivalrous."<br /><br />In fact, I absolutely agree when you say this: <br /><br /><i>But that doesn't, to my thinking, detract from the value of chivalry as a special flourishing: it just adds a glory to Christian morals, which achieve something even beyond the excellence of man and horse and steel.</i><br /><br />That is beautifully put and profoundly true. Taking the treatment of women around virile lusty young men...the chivalrous solution (of respect, honor, and courtly manners) is far more beautiful than the Salafi one (wrap them in burkas, lock them up, don't let them out without male escorts...that accomplished horseman bin Laden would approve, but a Christian knight would not). <br />Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-46104268877005237962014-09-03T23:11:25.676-04:002014-09-03T23:11:25.676-04:00I think it was the jus in bello of the knightly cl...<i>I think it was the </i>jus in bello<i> of the knightly class, and that any warrior class is going to develop some kind of code whether or not its men are mounted. (And horsemen, if you go beyond the Age of Chivalry, do not always develop a code that looks like chivalry.) </i><br /><br />We've had this talk, and you know I think you are mistaken. First of all, the <i>jus in bello</i> came from the religious class, not the knights; but also, to say that any warrior class will develop 'some kind of code' is not to speak to the specific virtues that are necessary conditions for horsemanship. <br /><br />I do agree that not every kind of horse-warrior looks just like a knight. But that doesn't, to my thinking, detract from the value of chivalry as a special flourishing: it just adds a glory to Christian morals, which achieve something even beyond the excellence of man and horse and steel.<br /><br />As to the rest of what you say, though, I completely agree. There can be no hope in any creed that does not start from accepting that men not only can be but ought to be strong -- indeed, that their flourishing is in strength. Of course men ought to wish to flourish. What is more natural than that? Virtue leads them to flourishing. <br /><br />The walk away from flourishing in men is a walk away from virtue. Make them weaker, and you make them less. If you want to be their <i>equals</i>, well, you had better take care about that. You are tying their fate to your own.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5269841987699945992014-09-03T22:41:26.366-04:002014-09-03T22:41:26.366-04:00An interesting idea, though I think it can never b...An <i>interesting</i> idea, though I think it can never be a successful one. And the author of the article is at least talking in reasonable tones -- not reveling in self-righteousness. Whether she's feminist or not, she doesn't have the soul of PC. <br /><br />As you know from our <a href="http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2014/06/they_took_up_se.html" rel="nofollow">discussion at Cassandra's</a>, I don't share your view of where chivalry comes from...I think it was the <i>jus in bello</i> of the knightly class, and that any warrior class is going to develop some kind of code whether or not its men are mounted. (And horsemen, if you go beyond the Age of Chivalry, do not always develop a code that looks like chivalry.) <br /><br />If my view's correct, then chivalry isn't a way for men to <i>become</i> strong. It <i>starts with the assumption</i> that its men are strong, horsemanlike, and skilled in war...and regulates how they use that strength, most especially against each other. Chivalry in a strong man is seemly as is modesty in a gifted one - but an ugly man who isn't vain about his looks hasn't really added to his character. <br /><br />Which is why I think her idea about modern feminism is doomed to failure. Modern feminism as I've encountered it does <i>not</i> start with the idea that men are strong or ought to be strong; and sometimes is opposed to the idea actively. <br /><br />A man who <i>accepts</i> that he is carrying a load of collective guilt for the supposed crimes of his sex, and lives his life accordingly, is not going to project strength. He might wish to have courtly manners...but who cares? If he's rude he'll just be laughed off; if he's polite he'll be tolerated; but "chivalry" from him will have little meaning. He won't attract the other sex, or at least he'll be at a heavy disadvantage, and you won't build much of a civilization on men like him. <br /><br />Until and unless we have a major shift in human nature...any revival of chivalry, be it the classic kind or a new kind, must take human nature into account, and that's human nature as it is. Strength and confidence <i>do</i> attract women, whether or not they're coupled to the nobler virtues; and any creed that encourages men to be otherwise than strong and confident is not going to be healthy for relations between the sexes.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-6622459828019690882014-09-03T22:29:05.227-04:002014-09-03T22:29:05.227-04:00That's about it.
I wonder what she thinks h...That's about it. <br /><br />I wonder what she thinks her duty is?Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-1120723522359181762014-09-03T22:23:01.381-04:002014-09-03T22:23:01.381-04:00Just do your duty and get on with it. Just do your duty and get on with it. Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.com