I often hear women making appeals to chivalry as something universal and authoritative while placing stipulations as to how men should act towards them. Well have I got news for you!

In the Oxford English Dictionary (which all English students perspicuously know is the final “word”), there is not a single definition – in the more than two-dozen examples of the historical definitions of chivalry – that has anything at all to do with romance, or with codified behaviourisms toward women.

The definitions instead pertain to gallantry, military prowess, cavalry units and bravery. For instance, in the great literary piece The Song of Roland, chivalry is used to denote a worthy action on the battlefield.

Here are two definitions from the OED that are archetypal and encapsulating:
“In early use, esp. Bravery or prowess in war; warlike distinction or glory.”
“The knightly system of feudal times with its attendant religious, moral, and social code, usages, and practices. Age of chivalry: the period during which this prevailed.”

The entrance of love and sexuality into the idea of chivalry is not at all a medieval Christian creation, but is actually an intrusion from Arab love poetry. So in that sense, there is some relation to sexuality and courteousness. But this idea did not become widespread for a long period of time, and the Christian West significantly modified it. Essentially it came to mean a sort of “courtly love,” which became a subcategory of the various requirements of knights. These knights were in the service of a lord who himself accepted the code. The duties that were given to knights were under three categories:
1. Duties to countrymen and other Christians. This included acts of service, fairness, mercy, valour and protection of the helpless. Submission to the lord was also important.
2. Duties to God. This would contain being faithful to God and the Church, being pious and helping innocents.
3. Duties to women. The knight is to serve his lady and all other ladies with gentleness.

Courtly love was always a disinterested love. It meant loyalty to a woman who was not your wife; but who it was your courtly duty to help.

Today, chivalrousness is often self-interested: for the purpose of men coaxing women to sleep with them. Have I read a single popular novel, or had a single conversation that enshrines the first two incredibly noble duties as chivalric values? No, because the word chivalry has become a word equated with the social norms modern women often unreasonably place upon men, which are completely removed from what it actually means.

The first two noble duties are never talked about, and when it comes down to it, they are only distantly and abstractedly valued. It is a harlequin heresy to believe that modern women, in their selfish desires to be treated a particular way, should have the right to redefine chivalry, and demand that men uphold their obscured idea.

I would conjecture that no God-fearing woman could resist a man who had perfected the first two duties. The chivalric code was meant to have honour preside over the actions of the knight. Perhaps it is simply honour that is missing in our culture today.