chivalry

Count Leo Tolstoy criticizes romantic love

/ gynocentrism
The following article transcribing the comments of Count Leo Tolstoy, published in the Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – Friday 21 December 1888.

* * *

ROMANTIC LOVE

Count Tolstoi, whose works are deserving of attention for their insight into human nature, thus discourses on the evils of Romantic love.

“I wish,” said Count Tolstoi to a correspondent “to write a novel, a romance, exposing the conventional illusion of romantic love. I have already written it, but it must be turned upside down and rewritten. It is too much of a treatise as it stands, and there is not enough of action in it.

My object is to fill the reader with horror at the result of taking romantic love au sérieux. The end to which the whole story will lead up will be the murder of a wife by her husband. It will exhibit the depravation of married life by the substitution of romantic love, a fever born of carnal passion for Christian love, which is born of identity of sentiment, similarity of ideal, of friendship of the soul. Upon that love, Christian love, the love of brother and sister, if the carnal love can be grafted it is well, but the former, not the latter, is the first condition of happy married life.

Herein the peasants teach us a lesson. They regard what we regard as romantic love as a disease, temporary and painful, and dangerous. With them no marriage is made under its influence. Anything is better than that. The Herrstatten, who marry by the drawing of lots, are wiser than we. Our system is the worst possible, and the whole of our building ceremonial, and the honeymoon, the fasting, and the incitement to carnality are directly calculated to result in the depravation of matrimony.

Not in one case out of a hundred does romantic love result in a lifelong happy union. The young people whose lives lie in different orbits are drawn together by this evanescent passion. They marry. For a month they are happy—perhaps even for a year, or two years. Then they hate each other for the rest of their lives, spending their time in paying homage to the respectabilities by concealing the truth from their neighbours. It must be so.

If Anna Karenina had married Leven she must have abandoned him likewise. Romantic love is like opium or hashish. But it passes. It is not overpowering and delightful. But it passes. It is not human nature to wish to renew the experience. For this novelty is indispensable. So the wife betrays her husband, and the husband, is false to his wife, and the world becomes one wide brothel.

I wish to open the eyes of all to the real nature and the tragic consequences of this substitution of romantic for Christian love. I see it clearly; oh! so clearly; and when you which no one else seems to see a thing which no one else forms and you see a thing which no one else forms and you feel you must gather all your forces, and devote yourself to setting forth the truth as you see it. This depravation of marriage is all because Christianity has been a word and not a thing. It will however, be a reality again soon.”

[Source: Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – Friday 21 December 1888]

J.R.R. Tolkien criticizes chivalry and courtly love

/ gynocentrism

1. On the Artificiality and False Deification of Love and the Lady:

“There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril.” (Letter #43 – The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 2000)

2. On the Unrealistic and Permanent Notion of Romantic Love:

“It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eyes off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).” (Letter #43 – The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 2000)

ANALYSIS:

In these passages, Tolkien critiques the chivalric tradition of courtly love on several grounds:

Artificial Origins: He describes courtly love as an “artificial courtly game” designed to enjoy love outside the context of marriage, which he sees as contrary to moral and spiritual ideals.

False Idolatry: Tolkien argues that the tradition elevates “Love” and “the Lady” to the status of “imaginary Deities,” displacing God as the true center of devotion. This deification of the beloved woman is “false and at best make-believe.”

Unrealistic Expectations: He criticizes the romantic notion that love is a “permanent thing” requiring no effort, which sets unrealistic expectations and contributes to marital breakdowns when challenges arise.

Distraction from Reality: Tolkien warns that idealizing women as “guiding stars” or divinities prevents men from seeing them as “fallen human-being[s]” and equal partners in life’s struggles, leading to a distorted view of relationships.

* * * *

Source:

These excerpts are drawn from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter (Houghton Mifflin, 2000, ISBN: 978-0618056996). Due to copyright, only the relevant excerpts are quoted from Letter 43 of the 2000 edition.

When European Gynocentrism Came To India

/ gynocentrism

During British colonial rule in India, the Western customs of romantic love and chivalry began to influence Indian society, particularly among the upper classes, as they sought to project an image of “civilization.” This was the beginning of traditional gynocentrism.

The Indian image of the ‘devi’ (divine woman) was constructed during the British colonial period. By borrowing elements from traditional Hindu Brahmanical, patriarchal values and those of Victorian England, the Indian men made an effort to project themselves as ‘civilized’ in response to the colonial imagery brought into India. The ideas of ettiquette, chivalry, and romantic love were implanted onto existing patriarchal joint family norms. 1

During the period of the Raj, Anglo-Indian romance novels written by British women, and these love stories were symptomatic of British fantasies of colonial India and served as a forum to explore interracial relations as well as experimenting with the modern femininity of the New Woman witthin Indian culture.2 These Anglo-Indian romance novels often explored interracial relationships, with racial differences serving as a structural framework for the romantic narrative. 2

The idea of romantic love, shaped by British Romanticism and chivalric notions, influenced literature, culture, and societal norms in colonial India. Below are some scholarly works and key references that address this topic:

1. “The Romantic Imagination in Colonial India” by Homi K. Bhabha
  • Summary: Bhabha examines how colonial subjects in India were influenced by European Romanticism, which included ideals of individualism and emotional expression in love. The British colonialists, through their literature and cultural practices, promoted a concept of love that was distinct from traditional Indian ideals.
  • Citation: Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.
2. “The British Empire and the Culture of Romance” by James D. Laidlaw
  • Summary: This book explores how the British Empire, including its administration and literature, promoted the ideals of chivalric love, heroic virtue, and emotional expression, which were later incorporated into Indian culture. It discusses how British officers and administrators saw themselves as part of a chivalric mission in their dealings with India.
  • Citation: Laidlaw, J. D. (2002). Romanticism and Colonialism: An Historical Study. Cambridge University Press.
3. “Love, Romanticism, and Imperialism: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of British and Indian Love Narratives” by Gauri Maulik
  • Summary: Maulik delves into the cross-cultural exchange between Britain and India, focusing on how British romantic narratives influenced the portrayal of love in Indian literature. Romanticism, as shaped by British literature, was absorbed and adapted in the Indian context, often blending with traditional Indian ideals of love.
  • Citation: Maulik, G. (2010). Love and Empire: Colonial Encounters in Romantic Literature. Oxford University Press.
4. “Colonial Encounters: Gender and the Indian Elite” by Ania Loomba
  • Summary: This work focuses on the gender dynamics during the colonial era, including how British ideas of romance and love affected the portrayal of women and relationships in India. British ideas of courtly love, often steeped in chivalric values, were contrasted with the more rigid and socially structured ideas of love in Indian society.
  • Citation: Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge.
5. “Romanticism, Colonialism, and the Cultural Politics of Love” by Elizabeth Jane Hill
  • Summary: This paper examines how the British romantic imagination, with its focus on passionate, often idealized love, affected the cultural landscape in colonial India. It explores how these Western notions of romantic love were adopted by Indian writers, especially in the context of English-educated elites.
  • Citation: Hill, E. J. (2015). Romanticism, Colonialism, and the Cultural Politics of Love. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 51(2), 163-177.
6. “Colonial Modernity in India” by Partha Chatterjee
  • Summary: Chatterjee discusses the broader impact of British colonialism on Indian society, including how Western concepts of love and marriage became entangled with traditional Indian customs. The “modern” notion of romantic love was promoted among the English-educated elite, especially in literature and the arts.
  • Citation: Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press.
7. “The English Language and Indian Literature” by A. K. Ramanujan
  • Summary: Ramanujan addresses the introduction of English literature and the English language in India, which included the romantic and chivalric themes of British poetry and novels. Indian authors, especially those from the English-educated classes, were influenced by these new ideas of love and self-expression, as seen in their works.
  • Citation: Ramanujan, A. K. (1999). The Collected Essays of A. K. Ramanujan. Oxford University Press.

These sources provide a comprehensive view of how British romantic ideals, especially those connected to chivalry and courtly love, influenced Indian society during the colonial period, particularly through literature, education, and elite cultural practices.

To summarise: traditional gynocentrism came to India when romantic love came to India – all compliments of the British Colonial period. This new form of romantic love, based on the feudal model of a man down on one knee before an elevated woman, was seen nowhere earlier in India – despite some traditional concepts of passionate love that existed in the North of India. The British therefore were the ones to introduce romantic gynocentrism for the first time, and it has disrupted traditional Indian culture ever since.

 

References:

[1] Channa, S. M. (2013). Gender in South Asia: Social imagination and constructed realities. Cambridge University Press.

[2] Teo, H. M. (2004). Romancing the Raj: Interracial relations in Anglo-Indian romance novels. History of Intellectual Culture, 4(1).

Ernest B. Bax on “Chivalry Feminism”

/ gynocentrism / Leave a comment

E.B. Bax talks of first-wave feminists soliciting, expecting and receiving male chivalry for the benefit of women. His assessment below prefigures how “chivalry feminists” have continued to operate through second and third-wave feminism. Indeed it can be argued that feminism’s most effective source of agency has always been its reliance on male chivalry.

Knight Templar1

E.B. Bax quotes:

I decline to bow down before a sexual principle, or to admit the justice of granting privileges on the basis of a sex-sentiment. What I contended and still contend is that the bulk of the advocates of woman’s rights are simply working, not for equality, but for female ascendency. It is all very well to say they repudiate chivalry. They are ready enough to invoke it politically when they want to get a law passed in their favour – while socially, to my certain knowledge, many of them claim it as a right every whit as much as ordinary women.

Source: No Misogyny But True Equality in To-Day, October 1887, pp.115-121

_________________________

Notwithstanding the state of law, public opinion, and custom, the “shrieking sisterhood,” and their male lackeys continue to invoke male “chivalry” in defence of every usurpation or act of injustice perpetrated in the interest of female domination… In the early middle ages, when strength of arm was commonly called into requisition for defence, “chivalry” had a meaning; in the nineteenth century it has none, and is merely an excuse for the privileges and domination of the female sex. In fact, if “chivalry” means taking the side of the weaker, it would be shown more often to-day, in championing the cause of the man against the woman, than that of the woman against the man. Hegel said that every typical character appeared twice in history – once as tragedy and once as farce. If we apply this to the chivalric type, and take King Arthur or Sir Launcelot (regarded for the nonce as historical personages) as the embodiment of the former we may certainly find the latter in the person of the great cheap-jack of London journalism, and exponent of the sorrows of husband-hunting wenches. The drop is certainly great from the hero of the “City of Legions” to the “Northumbrian boy.”

[…]

In this great step toward real as opposed to sham equality between the sexes [we require] the repudiation by women themselves of the anachronistic notion of “Chivalry,” as being due to them from men. If we are to have equality and fellowship, let it be equality and fellowship, and not a hollow fraud masquerading under the name.

Source: Some Heterodox Notes on the Woman Question (1887)

_________________________

“THE justification for the whole movement of Modern Feminism in one of its main practical aspects – namely, the placing of the female sex in the position of privilege, advantage and immunity – is concentrated in the current conception of “chivalry.” It behoves us, therefore, to devote some consideration to the meaning and implication of this notion. Now this word chivalry is the dernier ressort of those at a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women.

[…]

“It is plain then that chivalry as understood in the present day really spells sex privilege and sex favouritism pure and simple, and that any attempts to define the term on a larger basis, or to give it a colourable rationality founded on fact, are simply subterfuges, conscious or unconscious, on the part of those who put them forward.

[…]

“Every outrageous pretension of Sentimental Feminism can be justified by the appeal to chivalry, which amounts (to use the German expression) to an appeal from Pontius to Pilate. This Sentimental Feminism commonly called chivalry is sometimes impudently dubbed by its votaries, “manliness.” It will presumably continue in its practical effects until a sufficient minority of sensible men will have the moral courage to beard a Feminist public opinion and shed a little of this sort of “manliness.”

[…]

“Such is “chivalry” as understood to-day – the deprivation, the robbery from men of the most elementary personal rights in order to endow women with privileges at the expense of men.

[…]

But these considerations afford only one more illustration of the utter irrationality of the whole movement of Sentimental Feminism identified with the notion of “chivalry.” For the rest, we may find illustrations of this galore. A very flagrant case is that infamous “rule of the sea” which came so much into prominence at the time of the Titanic disaster. According to this preposterous “chivalric” Feminism, in the case of a ship foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas, not that the passengers shall leave the ship and be rescued in their order as they come, but that the whole female portion shall have the right of being rescued before any man is allowed to leave the ship. Now this abominable piece of sex favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in its irrational injustice.

Source: Chapter-5 ‘The Chivalry Fake’ in The Fraud of Feminism, 1913

_________________________

 

“Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental Feminism, means unlimited licence for women in their relations with men, and unlimited coercion for men in their relations with women. To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of invoking. The most insistent female shrieker for equality between the sexes among Political Feminists, it is interesting to observe, will, in most cases, on occasion be found an equally insistent advocate of the claims of Sentimental Feminism, based on modern metamorphosed notions of chivalry. It never seems to strike anyone that the muscular weakness of woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into an abominable weapon of tyranny. Under cover of the notion of chivalry, as understood by Modern Feminism, Political and Sentimental Feminists alike would deprive men of the most elementary rights of self-defence against women and would exonerate the latter practically from all punishment for the most dastardly crimes against men. They know they can rely upon the support of the sentimental section of public opinion with some such parrot cry of’ “What! Hit a woman!”

Why not, if she molests you?

“Treat a woman in this way!” “Shame!” responds automatically the crowd of Sentimental Feminist idiots, oblivious of the fact that the real shame lies in their endorsement of an iniquitous sex privilege. If the same crowd were prepared to condemn any special form of punishment or mode of treatment as inhumane for both sexes alike, there would, of course, be nothing to be said. But it is not so. The most savage cruelty and vindictive animosity towards men leaves them comparatively cold, at most evoking a mild remonstrance as against the inflated manifestation of sentimental horror and frothy indignation produced by any slight hardship inflicted by way of punishment (let us say) on a female offender.”

[…]

“In the foregoing pages we have endeavoured to trace some of the leading strands of thought going to make up the Modern Feminist Movement. Sentimental Feminism clearly has its roots in sexual feeling, and in the tradition of chivalry, albeit the notion of chivalry has essentially changed in the course of its evolution. For the rest, Sentimental Feminism, with its double character of man-antipathy and woman-sympathy, as we see it to-day, has assumed the character of one of those psychopathic social phenomena which have so often recurred in history. It can only be explained, like the latter, as an hypnotic wave passing over society.

Source: Chapter 7: The Psychology of the Movement – The Fraud of Feminism (1913)

_________________________

Let women have the franchise by all means, provided two things, first of all: provided you can get rid of their present practical immunity from the operation of the criminal law for all offences committed against men and of the gallantry and shoddy chivalry that now hedges a woman in all relations of life.

Source: The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood (1907), in Essays in Socialism New & Old (1907), pp.108-119.

Damseling and ‘Chivalry’ in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union

/ rtbavfm / Leave a comment

Daniel Naurin, Elin Naurin, Amy Alexander (2019)

o-EUROPEAN-UNION-facebook

ABSTRACT:

Gender stereotypes—stylized expectations of individuals’ traits and capabilities based on their gender—may affect the behavior of diplomats and the processes of international negotiations. In a survey experiment in the Council of the European Union, we find that female representatives behaving stereotypically weak and vulnerable may trigger a chivalry reaction among male representatives, increasing the likelihood that the men will agree to support a bargaining proposal from the women.

The effect is conditional on the negotiators’ cultural background—the chivalry reaction is displayed mainly by diplomats from countries with relatively low levels of gender equality. Our study contributes to the research on nonstandard behavior in international relations, and in particular the expression and reception of emotions in diplomacy.

We argue that gender stereotypes may have a moderating impact on decision making based on such intuitive cognitive processes. We also add to the broader negotiation literature, both by showing the pervasiveness of gender stereotyping, and by testing at the elite level the generalizability of claims regarding gender effects derived from laboratory experiments. Overall, our findings demonstrate the importance of bringing gender into the study of international negotiations, where it has been largely and surprisingly ignored.

SOURCE: Gender Stereotyping and Chivalry in International Negotiations: A Survey Experiment in the Council of the European Union

[Book] Chivalry: A Gynocentric Tradition

/ rtbavfm / Leave a comment

The following is from the introduction to my new co-authored book (with Paul Elam) of collected writings on chivalry. The book includes updated versions of previously published essays, and two excellent contributions by Paul Elam including a newly transcribed article Death By Chivalry: Portland Edition. You can purchase the eBook here, and the paperback here, or simply click on the cover picture below. – PW.

FINAL gyno4

FROM THE INTRODUCTION

The importance of chivalry is taught to little girls and boys from the start, outlining for them the various rules of male obligation that will guide sexual relations throughout their lifetimes; i.e., males are here to protect and provide.

The victories of legendary cinematic heroes whose brave deeds are rounded with applause and happily-ever-afters appears to seal the fate of chivalry as the future path of every man.

Those few who do pause to question chivalry’s values however – its rote expectation of male sacrifice, possibility of danger or injury, impacts on mental health, potential for exploitation and abuse, or the question of valid compensations for ongoing sacrifices – may conclude that it serves as a poor life map, or worse that it amounts to a malignant and toxic form of masculinity.

This book examines the realities of chivalry beyond the usual platitudes and cliches to see what’s really at stake for men in the present zeitgeist. The essays, written by men’s advocates Peter Wright and Paul Elam, survey the roots of the chivalric tradition and examine real life examples of chivalry in action.

Chapters include:

1. The Birth Of Chivalric Love
2. A Bastardized Chivalry
3. What Ever Happened To Chivalry?
4. Sporting Tournaments: ‘It Will Make A Man Out Of You’
5. Intervening for women
6. Chivalry: A Learned Deathwish
7. Death By Chivalry: Portland Edition
8. Aggrieved Entitlement: Women’s Reaction to Temporary Loss Of Chivalry
9. Can A Woman Be Chivalrous?

Aggrieved Entitlement – women’s reaction to temporary loss of chivalry

/ Peter Wright / Leave a comment

woman on fire commons

It’s no secret that women feel entitled to special treatments from men based on the European culture tradition of chivalry: i.e., allowing women to go through the door first; showering the “fairer sex” with compliments about being beautiful, caring or pure; paying for dinner and other life luxuries; and offering them costly care and protection around the clock. In the modern context chivalry boils down to the male posture of deference to women’s needs and wants, which understandably fosters a positive self-concept in women and a sense that they must be “worth it” as we are reminded by the ubiquitous advertising jingle.

The expectation of male chivalry, or benevolent sexism as some prefer to call it, is nothing new and there are countless studies confirming that women generally expect such treatment from men.1 So we will take that expectation as a given. What hasn’t been studied sufficiently in women is the reaction men’s failure to provide expected level of chivalric supplies, and this is where we run into the useful concept of ‘aggrieved entitlement.’

The phrase aggrieved entitlement was popularized by feminist Michael Kimmel who refers to it as a gendered emotion displayed by disenfranchised males, entailing “a fusion of that humiliating loss of manhood and the moral obligation and entitlement to get it back.”2 By ‘manhood’ Kimmel is referring to rights that males have supposedly enjoyed over women that are subsequently denied them by a changing world. He further clarifies that men “tend to feel their sense of aggrieved entitlement because of the past; they want to restore what they once had. Their entitlement is not aspirational; its nostalgic.”3

In a recent paper Dennis Gouws suggests that the aggrieved entitlement descriptor can be equally applied to the behavior of women. Reviewing Kimmel’s concept he concludes:

Because Kimmel’s sympathies lie with gender feminism, he is uninterested in how this concept might apply to women’s behavior. Women might express aggrieved entitlement when they experience what they perceive to be a humiliating loss of the gynocentric privilege to which gynocentric chivalry, gender feminism, and hegemonic gynarchy have entitled them. Self-righteous, angry expressions of personal offense and even violent acts might result from their perceived moral obligation to regain their sense of gynocentric privilege. A cursory internet search of gender-feminist responses to men’s-issues speakers on campus and to the establishing men’s groups or other male-positive spaces on campus will provide examples of this aggrieved entitlement.4

Gouws provides a useful example of aggrieved entitlement by women who dominate university campus culture. Men attempting to establish male support groups on female-dominated campuses, or who attempt to invite speakers sympathetic to men’s health issues, have frequently been met with fury for apparently removing the chivalric focus from women and their issues. The resultant female rage has triggered violent protests, intimidation, vindictive and false accusations, or boycotting of male initiatives through financial and other means.

Looking at the sexual-relations contract that has been operating for eons we can see that a certain degree of narcissistic pride was encouraged in order to sweeten gender roles for men and women – “He’s an awesome strong man, a man’s man and a great provider” or “She’s a magnificent mother, those children never go without love or food”. Those adhering to traditional gender roles received compliments for their service, along with some compensatory payoffs by the opposite sex.

When an individual fails to adhere to their traditional gender role the bubble of narcissistic pride bursts, giving rise to aggrieved entitlement in members of the opposite sex. In the language of psychology we would say the expectation of narcissistic supply has been cut off, and narcissistic injury and rage steps forward to address the grievance. Most readers would know that some of the worst examples of aggrieved entitlement by women are displayed by feminists, about whose behavior Ernest B. Bax concluded in the year 1909; “Weakness, to whose claim chivalry may per se be granted, forfeits its claim when it presumes upon that claim and becomes aggressive. Aggressive weakness deserves no quarter.”5

Bax further elaborates on aggressive weakness (i.e., aggrieved entitlement) in the following passages:

I may point out in conclusion that the existing state of public opinion on the subject registers the fact that sex-conscious women have exploited the muscular weakness of their sex and have succeeded in forging a weapon of tyranny called “chivalry” which enables them to ride rough-shod over every principle of justice and fair play. Men are cowed by it, and fail to distinguish between simple weakness per se which should command every consideration, and that of aggressive weakness which trades upon “chivalry” and deserves no quarter.6

“Even taking the matter on the conventional ground of weakness and granting, for the sake of argument, the relative muscular weakness of the female as ground for her being allowed the immunity claimed by Modern Feminists of the sentimental school, the distinction is altogether lost sight of between weakness as such and aggressive weakness. Now I submit there is a very considerable difference between what is due to weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and weakness that is aggressive, still more when this aggressive weakness presumes on itself as weakness, and on the consideration extended to it, in order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weakness as such assuredly deserves all consideration, but aggressive weakness deserves none save to be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength. Woman at the present day has been encouraged by a Feminist public opinion to become meanly aggressive under the protection of her weakness. She has been encouraged to forge her gift of weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man, unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her weakness of all just claim to consideration or even to toleration.”7

Bax penned the above observations over a century ago, although the behavior he described had been around for much longer than that. The phrase ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ is usually attributed to the English playwright and poet William Congreve. He wrote these lines in his play The Mourning Bride, 1697:

Heav’n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d.

These lines describe a temporary loss of male chivalry by women and the aggrieved entitlement that ensues – a reaction that Michael Kimmel pretentiously emphasizes as a mostly male pathology. A more honest appraisal of the changing gender roles and the accompanying sense of aggrieved entitlement would admit that women’s roles and choices have expanded exponentially, which includes the throwing off of any expected responsibilities toward men and boys, while conversely the male role of providing benevolent sexism/chivalry for women has changed little. On the basis of such disparity men appear to be coping remarkably well in comparison to women who retain many of their traditional privileges and expectations, but who display extreme rage at micro-disenfranchisements and momentary lapses in chivalric supply.

chivalry kkk

Benevolent sexism toward women remains the norm, despite women’s traditional obligations toward men being wiped out

In summary the grief-reaction over loss of traditional roles is not a predominately male issue. Women have yet to experience the loss of gendered entitlements on anywhere near the same scale as men, however they are equally proficient at raging over micro-losses of chivalry and male deference. The theory of aggrieved entitlement thus applies to no gender in particular – so lets use it to describe the ever-present rage displayed by women in both private and public settings.

References:

[1] Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 422-429. (2014)
[2] Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 9(4), 451–464. (2010)
[3] Kimmel, Michael. Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Hachette UK, (2017).
[4] Dennis Gouws, Not So Romantic For Men: Using Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe to Explore Evolving Notions of Chivalry, in Voicing the Silences of Social and Cognitive Justice, 167–178. (2018)
[5] Ernest B. Bax., Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol.13 no.9, September (1909).
[6] Ernest B. Bax., Feminism and Female Suffrage in New Age, (1910)
[7] Ernest B. Bax., Chapter 5: The “Chivalry” Fake, in The Fraud of Feminism (1913)