Pax Tharda! 06/06/2000

Wow. Where does the time go? OK. This time I'm going to answer the question: Is Chivlary sexist?

The standards we refer to for backing-up the way things are in our fictional worlds (in which we invite others to role play) rely on Earth History. Most folk believe the Victorian image of the Mediaeval Ages to be the most romatic; and it is from that image that we get Chivlary and Chauvanism confused. Please note: I'm not saying that Chivalry or Chauvanism did not existed in the Mideavil Ages - I'm quite sure they both did in liberal amounts. What I am saying is that the two are not exculsively the same.

Chauvanism is the attitude held by men that they are better than women. Or is it? Most dictionaires use that definition as its third meaning. Its first refers to fanatical patriotism to a dead leader or cause: Taken from the french "Chauvinisme" - from Nicholas Chauvin, a character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon I in the play "La Cocard Tricolore [1831] by Theodore and Hippolyte Cogniard. Interesting no?

Since the term originalted with a play in the year 1831 it seems a bit odd to use it in reference to the Mideavil ages and call it "historically correct". There are a lot of misplaced terms in Role playing, but that's another column. Still, when the topic of Women in the Mideavil ages or Women in Fantasy Role Playing societies comes up - most respondants state that women were housewives, noble ladies and child rearers. Next?

To that statement I agree - women were housewives, noble ladies and child rearers. But, thanks to woman's studies, there's now proof that they were also soldiers, guildsmen/businesspeople, craftsmen, and part of almost every other part of society. There are lots of links on the subject. Here's a few of my favorites:

So how should a Mediaeval woman be treated? The same way a Mediaeval man was treated naturally. First you have to ask what's their caste (are they slaves, free, etc) and then you have to ask who's doing the asking; because naturally someone of a higher caste will have a lower opinion of them. Serfs and slaves alike had their lives planned out for them in great detail. There was no social ladder as we know it....

what?

Chivlary? What's Chauvinism got to do with Chivlary?

Oh right. Sorry about that, I wandered off topic.

Chivlary today is usually another Victorian reference. To the Victorians it meant: courtesy towards women [syn: gallantry, politesse], but the more historically acurate definitions would be the medieval principles of knighthood. If the latter is the true definition, then we can see that Chivlary is not necessarily the degredation of women (or even necessarily excessive patriotism to a dead leader or cause).

By the way: a great resource about Chilvary and Knighthood in general is the Knighthood and Orders of Chilvary page. The best definition of the word comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Chivalry (derived through the French "cheval", from the Latin "caballus") as an institution is to be considered from three points of view: the military, the social, and the religious.

The only reference to women comes under the religious aspect:

...It was then that the clergy seized upon the opportunity offered by these truces to exact from the rough warriors of feudal times a religious vow to use their weapons chiefly for the protection of the weak and defenseless, especially women and orphans, and of churches.

But that's the protection of the weak and defenseless - using women and orphans and churches as examples.

Brian R. Price has a rewritten Chivlaric code on his web page that makes a nice role playing resource.

So Chivary is not Chauvanistic, although the history of Chivalry does tend to be rather male-centric. Go out, surf the net - women in the Mideavil ages lived as full a life as their male counterparts in most cases (which wasn't much admittedly). But that's not a reason women can't play women adventurers in Fantasy Role Playing Games, even if your fantasy role playing game is "realistic".

This page was last updated on
Questions/Comments should be directed to the Webmaster.
All works are Copyright their respective authors, 2002.