Ever since the “women’s lib” movement, a strange phenomenon has occurred in American culture. That phenomenon is sexual harassment cases.
Women, offended by vulgar behavior of men, have taken their disgust with crude male behavior all the way to court.
From the infamous Anita Hill trial to Paula Jones and even a female General in the Army, there has been an explosion of sexual harassment cases made by women in the past decade.
Indeed, these sexual harassment cases have transcended race, culture, and political ideology. The only common theme among them has been this: men, somewhere, were vulgar, and the women they hit on didn’t like it.
It is clear, women nowhere like the vulgar behavior and crude comments associated with too many men. Women of all types, be they white or black, liberal or conservative, religious or non-religious, have rejected the objectifying behavior of many men—and, for the most part, appropriately so.
However, one has to ask: has the recent litany of sexual harassment cases stopped this unwanted male behavior? Have women storming our courts, suing men for all they are worth—improved the situation at all?
Sexual harassment cases seem to be just as in full swing today as they were 10 years ago. Men, who really want to, still make the comments they want to make. It does not appear that governmental action designed to curtail natural male behavior has been effective at all. Sexual harassment cases haven’t changed natural human behavior; they have only changed what natural human behavior is punishable by law.
However, women still do not like being subject to vulgar comments made by men and that’s understandable. At the same time, the popular solution of filing a lawsuit is not working. Do better solutions to this problem facing women exist?
One solution to this problem, which has been proven to work, lies in something that most of these feminists would never touch—it lies in brining back chivalry.
Chivalry, commonly defined, is a system in which men are expected to give women respect. It draws up the image of men opening doors and laying down their coats for women. It is a system in which women are elevated on a high pedestal, and certainly don’t have to engage any barbaric comments made by men.
It is interesting, in light of why one would advocate chivalry, to note how chivalry was born. Chivalry developed its roots after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century and again after the collapse Carolingian Empire in the ninth century. Without a government or police force in these nations, young men turned into barbarians. Young men, behaving like wild beasts, roamed cities, pillaged all semblances of society, and ravished the young women they met.
To combat this unruly behavior, the church and even the young ladies themselves, designed a system in which, in order to become knights, men would have to prescribe to specific rules and regulations. These regulations established ethical codes of conducts for the men, one of which was marriage to women. Thus chivalry was born.
It thus became accepted that true manhood was behaving with honor and integrity as opposed to ravishing those who were weaker than you.
Chivalry, like sexual harassment cases, was designed to curtail the vulgar behavior of men. Chivalry, unlike sexual harassment cases, actually worked.
Chivalry, if you don’t already know, is a dirty, dirty word—especially on college campuses. Chivalry is out and androgyny is in. Mention to most women on campus that a man should open a door for her, and she will promptly quip back with, “If he opens the door for me, then the next time I will open the door for him.”
Chivalry is a dirty word because it suggests that maybe, just maybe, there is a difference between men and women. It suggests that there should be a different code of conduct for men and women. And, there is nothing more politically incorrect than suggesting that women and men could possibly be different or should behave differently. Chivalry, hence, is dead.
And it’s too bad, as chivalry provides a time-tested solution to the problem facing many women. It provides a voluntary solution in which the government is not involved. Most importantly, it provides a win-win situation where both men and women get what they want.
There is one thing that will never change throughout time—men. Somewhere, they are going to be vulgar and the women they approach aren’t going to like it. The only difference is in how women will handle the situation.
Women can either try to punish men and file a sexual harassment suit or they can try to work with men and adopt some of the tenets of chivalry. Ask yourself which one is more appealing. The first way doesn’t work, the second way does. The first way women are just left with some money and a court settlement; the second way women are left with dignity and respect. It is up to you to decide which you will pick.
Indeed, the solution to the problem of frequent unwanted male attention arising after the “women’s lib” movement has been with us all along. Instead of turning into screaming feminists, getting the government involved to solve our problems, what women should have been saying all along is, “A little more chivalry, please?”