Chivalry (all the real dudes carry cool words, Sir).

Note : the gentleman in this image is not Three. This is a misleading image to include, and for that, I shall provide the response that is this : I am unable and simultaneously unwilling to provide an apology for any ensuing confusion. The image above is of a young warrior who is reading a book, or perhaps plotting a move involving the dispersion of various paints across a new carpet. I do not know. But I do know that he is not yet Three.

This is three

Can we do this every day, every summer day, can we make these recipes?
he asked his older sister,
holding a recipe book and lovingly perusing different ideas.

Failure : anthropomorphism versus personification

I engaged in argument; good argument, with my daughter, when I rejected her response a question I asked on a verbal test. The answer I was looking for was anthropomorphism. She responded with personification.

I said No, you are incorrect. She demanded to know why, as the answer she gave was, she felt, an accurate summation of the way I phrased the question. She aggressively pursued a defense of her response, a tactic that I was outwardly frustrated by and inwardly pleased by,

although, although, although (and this is truly maddening), I could not, in the moment, come up with a satisfactory description of the difference between anthropomorphism and personification.

Daughter 1, Dad 0. Or, student 1, teacher 0.
Or more accurately: teacher-student role reversal.

In summary:

Anthropomorphism gives human characteristics to a non-human entity that tends to be animalistic in nature, such as an animal or mythological or imaginary creature.

Personification also gives human characteristics to something, but that something tends to be a thing. In other words, a teapot, or a chair, or rain, or a rock, or some such object.

Lesson learned: phrase questions more carefully, more specifically, and don't try to defend something you’re not intellectually-prepared to defend articulately in the moment, with someone who is more ably-armed intellectually than you. In the moment.

Chivalry needs a new political party

I was thinking about the concept of chivalry, and how it’s gotten such a bad rap. A bad rap for good reason: it’s archaic, sexist, and reflects a way of thinking about gender in a very backwards and demeaning manner, albeit in a faux-glorious manner.

Aside: how about just opening the door for anyone who’s coming through?

Anyway. When I look at the prototypical example of “chivalry” today: the little boys’ club known as the Proud Boys; yes, the flag-dragging version of proud that salutes chauvinism and patriarchy, then I think: what was the original, the original definition of chivalry in the Middle Ages?

Early on, before knights went errant and rogue and sold their services and souls?

Early on, to be chivalrous meant, among other things, to:

1. Reject pride; to carry a sense of humility and sense of service

2. To signify honor; to show honor through respect for opponents and especially by sticking up for those who needed to be stuck up for (hint: that doesn’t mean other middle-class white males with beards, tactical vests, and 2A bumper stickers)

3. Honor, part II: because honor was such a big part. A knight would practice chivalry, in part (essential part), by respecting their opponent and by not ganging up on them.

4. So we got Humility, Honor, Respect

However archaic the concept of chivalry may seem, let’s at least try and understand what it might have meant at a certain point - and let’s not let troglodytic thinking and assholes with ammunition take the high ground over issues of honor, integrity, respect, and strength.

Strength comes from the showing of respect through restraint, wisdom, integrity, and valuing the lives of the defenseless.

Carrying a gun around doesn’t make you badass, it doesn’t make you chivalrous, and it sure as shit doesn’t make you an honorable warrior.

——

More posts below about Education and Learning