This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.

John,

You have raised a very good point here: education. The nature of a man may not be changed, but the values and ways he expresses them are more likely to be affected by society. In one case, a man may deal with his worst enemy by burning his abode and drinking the blood of his children; in another society, it may be the hostile takeover of a corporation and early retirement. The values are taught by the family and the society overall, which is a concern to me. (turn on harangue mode) Many modern people have remarkably little sense of their own rich heritage, probably worst in the US but also affecting other countries. I am deeply disturbed by people who don't realize that stories existed before motion pictures; and if a movie is based on a book, the movie is inevitably a simplification of the book and sometimes a travesty of the book. A fellow named Chris Smith wrote a book on the Lord of the Rings movies, describing the arms and armour as if Peter Jackson's films were history. I have not seen this myself, but I am assured that some people have used this book, derived from a movie, derived from a (great) work of fantasy fiction, as a guide to the realities of pre-gunpowder warfare! From the Iliad, we have Troy; from the Mort D'Arthur we get King Arthur and Excalibur (which is quite a good movie, but only touches on a fraction of Malory), instead of William Wallace, we get Braveheart. The complexities of life and its contradictions, tend to melt when these stories are boiled down into movies. I don't hate movies; but I do wish people would read the great works of fiction and history where the stories came from.

This sort of devaluation of " Values " seems cyclic and has happened many time before: Human nature it's vices and virtues haven't substantially changed in 50,000 years and probably won't in another 50,000 years unless some serious genetic engineering or cybernetic merging of mind and machine makes some dramatic changes. Then for good and probably for lots of bad, human nature will change into something we would not recognize as human.

Read a lot of Sci.Fi. ! ( Including a lot of Baen books ! )

Reading the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides many long years ago, I seem to remember him saying or quoting others to the corrosive effects of the war on the morals of the times: The virtuous, the brave, the honest and honourable being mocked as old fashioned or being stupid to not profit from the war or being generally suckers for wanting to do the right thing. ( Obviously I'm not quoting his exact words. )

In any case a lot of the " Virtues " are hard wired in us and they tend to come back after a period of chaos: Humans can't function long without codes of conduct, even bad ones. When society breaks down completely family, clans, gangs even become the nucleus of rebuilding organized and eventually the society get rebuilt, but only after a log period of pain.

Funny thing though in the early days of rebuilding the strong and ruthless, and not very moral, attract followers and in time the more extreme " crazy " leaders are replaced by more moderate leaders as the need for some minimal stability in society bring outlaw savagery closer and closer to a society of laws.

Tribal, feudal, dictatorial, monarchic, socialistic, democratic, theocratic etc .... All are organized societies some we might like better than others, but they all function better than total anarchy.

Bottom line things can be bad, things can get worse but eventually things get better! At least if we don't make ourselves extinct eventually.

As a historian and an archaeologist/anthropologist, I tend to agree with Jean.
Today's gang-banger or cult leader is tomorrow's hallowed leader or revered prophet.
Just look at what the ancient Romans, full of good old-fashioned Republican virtue, thought of Christianity . . . . .

I have been following this thread for the last couple of days (and have even e-mailed family and friends to encourage them to do the same), but I have not posted until now partly because I lack a clear idea of what I want to say. I am convicted, inspired, and vindicated by what I am reading here.

I am convicted largely by what has been said regarding repect. My parents raised me to be polite, but I was not expected to use titles (such as Mr., Mrs., Sir od Ma'am), and adopted the habit of using them only to help assuage the anger of those I encountered while I was a Parking Lot Enforcement Officer (more commonly called a "Parking Nazi" or "Meter Maid") in college. I know that I have been considered rude by at least a few people (not leaset of which would be my own Aunt and Uncle) because of this.

I am also guilty of perpetuating this trend. I was recently (about three weeks ago) promoted, and now have soldiers under me. I permit them to call me Brown, Greyson, or Turbo outside of work, and, even at work (where they do know not to use my first name), I do not insist that they use the title of "Sergeant" with me. Part of this is because three weeks ago we were all of the same rank, and there was no reason for any of us to view the other as unique. I do not regret the decisions that I have made, but I cannot help but wonder if I am not, in some small way, part of the problem rather than the solution.

That said, I am also inspired and vindicated by this discussion, as it proves to me that others share my views of honor, right, justice, integrity, self-control and strength (both of character and of body).

I owe a great debt of gratitude to three men, they are namely, my father, a gentleman named Mark Fauth, and John Eldridge, author of Wild at Heart.

Though my father and I did not always get along when I was younger, he is still directly responsible for me becoming the person that I am, and I would not ever desire to be anyone else. Both my father and I have changed much (for the better) in the past few years. We both agree with Sean Connery's line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, "You left home just when you were getting interesting." But, now more than ever, he encourages me in everything and everyway. It is becaue of him that I was ever even receptive to Chivalry.

I met Mark Fauth when he said to the group of teenagers, including myself, in front of him (he had just become the Youth Pastor at our church), "if you don't show up [to decorate the youth room], I'm going to decorate it in chain mail and swords." Anyone on this forum can see why I had a natural affinity for this man, and we became good friends. He spent a lot of time with me explaining the importance of what he calls "a Knight Protector," and why, even if they is unpopular, Chivalry, and a modern form of knighthood are absolutely necessary.

Shortly after meeting Mark, I was introduced to the book Wild at Heart by John Eldridge. I know that Jonathan Blair has already mentioned this work, but I feel that there is no endoursement quite strong enough for it. This book shares much with Lewis' article, and in it, Eldridge explains why men were intended to be (not simply are) wild, strong, and ferocious. As Eldridge points out in the introduction, "Men don't need another self-help book. What they need is permission." He also talks about the need in every man to have a battle to fight and a maiden to rescue, but he also makes it a very important point out that strength misused is as or more destructive than strength withheld. Sadly, it is the latter that most of us have been trained for, even though it denies our very nature. I feel it is very important for any man or boy to read this book.

I have often said that, "Chivalry is not dead for a lack of willing practitioners, but of willing recipients." I was shocked when a young lady in High School actually yelled at me for holding the door. Since then, I have seen repeated instances of people who take offence at Chivalry because they think it is demeaning to one party or another, and excuse for arrogance, a pretty mask trying to hide violence, or simply outdated. True, like any object or idea, Chivalry can be, and has been, abused, but I still find it shocking that people would reject it out of hand, usually (as has already been pointed out) while searching for the benefit of that code which they so readily discard. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle phrased it in The White Company, "A man is but a beast as he lives form day to day, eating and drinking, breathing and sleeping. It is only when he raises himself, and concerns himself with the immortal spirit within him, that he becomes in very truth a man." That quote is a reference to religion, but for me, like Lewis, Religion and Chivalry walk hand in hand.

I am afraid that I have just gone in circles around anything that I was trying to say, but I want to thank everyone for this topic. I feel that is is an extremely important issue, and am glad to see that there are others who share my views on it.

-Grey

I tend to think that anyone who would become openly hostile at common courtesy is the victim of a mental disorder. I don't mean that in a casualy perjorative way. If the sweet milk of human kindness has become so repugnant that you must make open war on it, somethin' ain't stirrin' the koolaid.

The details of courtesy can become out of style like tipping one's hat at every gentleman or lady one walks by on the street or saying good day to everyone etc ...... But the spirit of courtesy, consideration for others and respect for all until proven wrong, is the important thing and never goes out of style.

As to the opening the door for a lady thing I would say, if the " offended lady " gave me the time to explain I would say that " if you had gotten to the door first and been nice enough to NOT let me slam into it, I would have accepted the gesture even if I was a man " . This might " offend " 19th century norms of politeness but seems like the 21 century " more equal " period appropriate equivalent .

Greyson, I have to agree completely with you and Jonathan concerning "Wild at Heart" by Eldridge. I was quite moved by it, and it was of great aid to me a few years ago. It's one of the few modern books out there that actually struck a deep chord in me, and I was definitely impressed by it.

And as Jean and Gavin point out, someone who is offended by common courtesy has a screw loose, or has been so infected by seditious, anti-social philosophies as to be pretty much beyond help. :eek:

One thing to keep in mind though is that throughout our lives, we always are in need of mentors, and are in our own turn mentors to others. I have been extrordinarily lucky to always find mentors to help guid me, and to help me learn and grow, be it my Father, Grandfather and Uncles in my youth, or various other fine gentlemen since then. In my own turn, I have been honoured to be considered a mentor to other young men (some more successfully than others, I'll admit!) many of whom have turned out to be fine men of honour and courtesy. But it's part of that great circle, to be taught, and to teach in turn; to be aided, and to give aid in turn; to be loved, and to give love in turn. If you do your part, it will continue.

But carry on, we can only lead by example, and reach one individual at at time.

Cheers!

Gordon

PS: And Greyson, go ahead and have your men call you "Sergeant". You earned the rank, and now need to fulfill it, on-duty at least. As Joe quoted his mentor saying: "I'm not here to be your friend, I'm here to show you what you need to know to do this job". gef

Have not read,l or even heard of, Wild and At Heart...will look it up. Concerning the Sergeant. My first wife's uncle (she was killed in a car wreck in 1979) was a sergeant in the First Marine Raiders in WWII. Recently died. Seems I was the only one he would ever talk to about the war. Had the fruit salad allover the place, one right under the CMH, was the highest.He stated that after his first combat, he never made any friends with the guys under him. Said he did his best to keep everyone alive, but only after the job was done. Rank has its priviliges, but it has its responsibilities as well.
I'm afraid that common courtesy is no longer common. I was set straight by a friend's girlfriend many years ago. I was complaining that our society did not seem to have the wits, the intellectuals, the high culture individuals that were prevelant when I was growing up. She responded that although she agreed with me, because they were not prominent, and may not even exist anymore on the national stage, there was no reason for me to abandon my own thoughts and actions that may, or may not reflect my own feelings and thoughts. She was, of course, quite right. I have no illusions of being in the same league with Broun, Cerf, Parker, Kaufman, etc. But I won't abandon my standards to fit in with a corrupt and vulgar society.

I hope you gentlemen don’t mind if I chime in on this topic.

First of all, I admire the attitude that you have towards chivalry and courtesy. It is that atmosphere of courtesy and respect that keeps me coming back to myArmoury and something that seems to be missing from other forums.

I think along with the decline in courtesy is a decline in appreciation for masculinity and femininity. You have brought up some valid and important points about what it is to be a man. I don’t think I can add anything there ;) , but I can tell you that I appreciate a gentleman as you have defined him.

I call myself a feminist, but I have a different definition of that word than most people do. I think a feminist is someone that finds power in those traits that are considered feminine. This is not a politically correct viewpoint, but in my opinion men and women are hard wired differently. We are made to fulfill different roles, but just as Eve was created from Adam’s rib, we are two parts of the same whole. Both roles are needed and important. Men are built, physically and mentally, to fight, whether it is fighting to provide for the family and community or to protect the family and community. Women are built to nourish and protect. That nourishment may be physical, spiritual, or the nourishment of relationships. Whenever I have to fill out a form that requires me to fill in my occupation, I put down “homemaker”. I like the sound of it and I am proud to be one. (Notice the difference from housewife or housekeeper. You’d really notice the difference if you saw the state of my house. :D Clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be happy. ;) )

I get a lot of a “put down” attitude about not having a paid job outside of the home and most of that attitude comes from other women. “Oh, you can do that task. You have the time.” Except those tasks are often things like chaperoning their children on a field trip, helping their children check out books from the school library, being their sons’ Cub Scout Den Mother (another out moded term :) ), etc.

To me the whole concept of the romantic view of chivalry is a respect by both genders for what it truly means to be a man or a woman.

I also miss the days when adults called each other Mr. Lastname, Mrs. Lastname, or Miss Lastname until being told “Oh, please call me Firstname”. It encourages respect among those that do not have a close friendship, perhaps only acquaintances, neighbors or coworkers, and it creates an extra level of intimacy when a friendship moves to a first name basis.

Thanks for letting me blow off some steam. This is just a collection of some of my favorite rants. Just ask my husband, he’s heard them many times. :) And he is a gentleman.

Note: My use of the pronoun “you” should be understand as the plural form. :) I just didn’t feel right typing you all (or y’all) over and over.

Well said Pamela.

Pamela, Let me applaud your comments and thank you for such a delightful post. My wife, Toni feels the same way, and I think your husband is as luck as I. Best, Hank

Pamela;

To me a " real feminist " is someone who will not tolerate being treated as an inferior but is also not afraid to revel in the differences between the sexes: Equal rights in salary and job opportunities based on individual skill and aptitude.

In theory, as an example, I have nothing against a woman being a fire fighter, but if she has to carry or drag my unconscious 245 pound body she should be as able to do it as well as the average " male " firefighter. Probably takes two guys to carry a 245 person anyway ?

The whole idea originally in 1960 /70 for feminists was to have access to good jobs at equal salary for equal work: This has been turned into you have to have a " job " even if you don't want or need one and a lot of side issues and finding grievance after grievance and P.C. stupidities. The important thing is choice ! Including thinking that taking care of your kids is more important. And anyway most jobs are what you do because you need money to live and not how you would spend your time if you had the choice. Maybe 10% of people have jobs they enjoy or are suited to.

And quite frankly I'm glad that you are here on the forums: It's pleasing to have a woman here who shares our sense of " honour " as well as enjoying swords. ( Sorry if there are a few others that I am forgetting at the moment, this applies to all women on this forum now or in the future. )

This is a neat thread..... I share most of the opinions here. I'll say only this....History repeats itself and chivirly is never dead as long as there are those who practice it. A time will come when more people will share our opinion, and we'll laugh and say we told you so. But until then we're the select few , I think.

Pamela;

Logical thinking is also sorely missing as well as honour: Everyone has the right to their opinions, but when the capacity to critically evaluate the truth of premises is missing even good logic will fail. Things are even worse when people can't reach logical conclusions even when the premisses are true.

And then there is the " fashionable " idea in some circles that logic or rational thought is some sort of oppression of the patriarchy: 2 +2=4 is " unfair "to those who really " FEEL " that it should be 5.

I think this type of so-called thinking is called " Postmodernism " or something that I think I am fortunate to be almost completely ignorant about, but seems to be replacing rational thought in places of " higher learning ".

To make a simile: Think of someone at the wheel of a car who turn the wheel to the left, but because he " sincerely " intends to go to the right believes that sincerity will actually take him to the right. If he notices that he is turning in the wrong direction he will turn the wheel even harder to the left being unable to recognize or admit to a mistake.

Oh, and if, you as the passenger mentions the error you will be accused of antisocial behaviour insensitive to other values and "alternate ways " of thinking.

Unfortunately the driver and you drive off the cliff and can argue on the way down how unfair reality is.:p :p :lol:

Oh, and Pamela, up to algebra I was not too bad but the advances stuff really leaves me lost: I have to be able to visualize to be able to understand and a long string of trigonometry looses me quickly: The simple relationship between an angle, length and another length defined by the previous two I can see but when the trig. equation become longer I can't see in my minds eye what is going on.

Oh, when equations are shown as a plotted graphs I can see what is going on: Or why an equation can have more than one right answer when the plot curves back on itself.

I think in part it was me, but in part uninspired math teachers rushing you before you can have real understanding.
In some ways one can still pass math exams by knowing the rules and applying them and get the right answers but for deep insight one must " see " in ones mind what are the consequences of all modifiers ! ( Sorry, if I'm not using the right math terminology. )

Math RULES: Even in an empty universe with no God or even the possibility of existence 2+2 still equals 4 independent of all else. At some point thinking about the deep nature of Math brings you to all questions.