We Are All Originals
“We are all originals”. What does that statement mean to you? Does it give you a sense of individuality? Does it allow you to do as you please without fear of being judged? Some might argue it means that they don’t need to contour into society’s molds to exist. Adidas’s “We Are all Originals” campaign gives viewers the reassurance that everyone is unique in their own way, and special for the very things that make them different, whether it be location, social status, or wealth. Through ads such as Icons, The Streets Where Originality, and Snoop Doggs Extended stories, Adidas appeals to it audience by expressing their ideology of originality which they are trying to promote. Adidas does this through the use of logos and ethos by explaining that it is logical to be unique and by appealing to its target population through the use of celebrities and catchy music. Providing footwear and apparel to fit a broad spectrum of fashions, statuses and activities, they successfully appeal to a very broad belief that we are who we are, and we don’t need to be told what is “normal”.
The Adidas “Originals” campaign attempts to appeal to a common problem in society being that we all need to be trendy in particular ways in order to fit in. Adidas successfully argues this point by using a mixture of celebrities and athletes along with various random individuals, showing that the company has fashions for all walks of life, and we should be proud of the things that make us different. We each have our own unique style and flare that makes us “all originals”. Adidas also reinforces this point with a smooth voice over with a cleverly written dialogue, written in the form of a slow rap, used to describe how our differences are what make us exciting.
Despite all the lights and special effects, Adidas presented its case very strategically. The use of “logos” in this ad campaign is very apparent and logically thought through in its delivery. Adidas know that people want to feel accepted for their individuality and uniqueness, so Adidas plays off of this. They are initially telling the people what they want to hear. Adidas strongly plays off the fact that its consumer base and target population for the ad, whom tend to be young adults ages 15 to 30 from all walks of life, are not the same. They take the fact that everyone is unique and build off of that. Whether it is occupation, location, hobbies, or skill set, Adidas attempts to put the message across that they believe and support the fact that these differences are what make us “Originals”. In a sense, they are selling two different things based off this ad campaign. They are selling (actually, promoting) the ideology that everyone is unique and that they should be proud to show it, and also selling off their products as being a source for people to express their originality. They display Adidas as being the bridge that links these two things together, by providing the product and ideology as one.
Not only does Adidas logically appeal to its target audience, but they also appeal to their inner beliefs about individuality. One way Adidas attempts to visually show their support for originality through this ad campaign is by throwing street parties in various parts of the world. Ads of this basis have been shot in Los Angeles, Chile, Shang hi, and Britain. Adidas would encourage different artists, musicians, dancers, and talents to show what they are capable of and what makes them unique. This encouragement of public individuality is a great form of “ethos” of the viewer in that it gives the viewer a sense of pride for remaining unique and not conforming into society’s expectations. It supports the ideology that most people are taught as children that everyone is special in their own way. When the media is telling us to do nothing but conform to the guidelines it has set as the “norm”, Adidas acts as salvation from the oppression by the media.
Adidas’s use of speech is very strong in these ad campaigns. The voice over in the All Icons ad is very appealing due to the rhythmic tone being used by the narrator. Another way Adidas is attempting to take advantage of spoken words is by having a few of the major celebrities’ give their own definition of what it means to be original and how they were able to succeed in life. For example, in Snoop Dogg’s extended edition commercial, he explain his definition of being original and how his urge to be original has earned him the label of being an Icon. Through the use of speech, Adidas attempts to instill what it actually means to be original. In Big Sean’s extended story, he says that “authenticity is something that can’t be duplicated, the originality always shines through”. This line, to me personally, was very powerful in that he explains the significance of being original and not doing as others expect you to do. Big Sean also explains how through his originality and refusal to just “observe” but rather, as he says, “by being me”. He also goes on, promoting originality in fashion (Adidas), saying that one’s individual “style is an extension of who you are”. These accounts by celebrities help Adidas in its efforts to promote originality in that they show that being original can potentially be very beneficial, as displayed in Big Sean and Snoop Dogg’s careers.
Behind all the smokes and mirrors, Adidas is subliminally portraying to its viewers the importance of wearing their brand. Regardless of explaining that everyone is unique, they persuade the viewer that if they want to be like many of the celebrities shown in the ad, they must wear Adidas. The clever use of celebrities and famous athletes gives the viewer a sense of urgency to be like their idols to the point where they feel that dressing like them would make them feel special as well. I personally view this as an indirect use of “pathos,” in which Adidas appeals to the viewers’ emotions of wanting to be like the people they idol. This is very clever marketing propaganda on the part of Adidas in that they tell everyone to be original, yet they are sending the message that if you want to be like certain stars, you must wear their products.
Adidas was also able to use a key medium to send their message to their audience in the Originals campaign:. Music. Adidas masterfully selected different types of music in their various ads as a way of appealing to a broad spectrum of people. In doing so, Adidas is also reinforcing their message that everyone is different and has different tastes. For example, in All Icons, an upbeat hip hop tempo was used which, from personal experience, hyped the viewer up in a sense. A different commercial, The Street Where Originality Lives, plays a different genre of music. This serves as Adidas’ way to appeal to a vast majority of people by crafting the commercials to an individual’s liking. The ads also display, through dance and club scenes, these different genres of music.
In conclusion, Adidas is attempting to win over its consumers by promoting their ideology that rather than being told what to wear and how to act, we should all be proud of who we are and what makes us unique from one another. Adidas does this through the use of strategically selected music, carefully written dialogue, and through the star power of several big name celebrities. Despite the Adidas message of individuality and originality, they subliminally sneak in the idea that in order for one to be original like their idols, they must dress like them. This is kind of contradictory, but goes unnoticed by most.
The Adidas “Originals” campaign attempts to appeal to a common problem in society being that we all need to be trendy in particular ways in order to fit in. Adidas successfully argues this point by using a mixture of celebrities and athletes along with various random individuals, showing that the company has fashions for all walks of life, and we should be proud of the things that make us different. We each have our own unique style and flare that makes us “all originals”. Adidas also reinforces this point with a smooth voice over with a cleverly written dialogue, written in the form of a slow rap, used to describe how our differences are what make us exciting.
Despite all the lights and special effects, Adidas presented its case very strategically. The use of “logos” in this ad campaign is very apparent and logically thought through in its delivery. Adidas know that people want to feel accepted for their individuality and uniqueness, so Adidas plays off of this. They are initially telling the people what they want to hear. Adidas strongly plays off the fact that its consumer base and target population for the ad, whom tend to be young adults ages 15 to 30 from all walks of life, are not the same. They take the fact that everyone is unique and build off of that. Whether it is occupation, location, hobbies, or skill set, Adidas attempts to put the message across that they believe and support the fact that these differences are what make us “Originals”. In a sense, they are selling two different things based off this ad campaign. They are selling (actually, promoting) the ideology that everyone is unique and that they should be proud to show it, and also selling off their products as being a source for people to express their originality. They display Adidas as being the bridge that links these two things together, by providing the product and ideology as one.
Not only does Adidas logically appeal to its target audience, but they also appeal to their inner beliefs about individuality. One way Adidas attempts to visually show their support for originality through this ad campaign is by throwing street parties in various parts of the world. Ads of this basis have been shot in Los Angeles, Chile, Shang hi, and Britain. Adidas would encourage different artists, musicians, dancers, and talents to show what they are capable of and what makes them unique. This encouragement of public individuality is a great form of “ethos” of the viewer in that it gives the viewer a sense of pride for remaining unique and not conforming into society’s expectations. It supports the ideology that most people are taught as children that everyone is special in their own way. When the media is telling us to do nothing but conform to the guidelines it has set as the “norm”, Adidas acts as salvation from the oppression by the media.
Adidas’s use of speech is very strong in these ad campaigns. The voice over in the All Icons ad is very appealing due to the rhythmic tone being used by the narrator. Another way Adidas is attempting to take advantage of spoken words is by having a few of the major celebrities’ give their own definition of what it means to be original and how they were able to succeed in life. For example, in Snoop Dogg’s extended edition commercial, he explain his definition of being original and how his urge to be original has earned him the label of being an Icon. Through the use of speech, Adidas attempts to instill what it actually means to be original. In Big Sean’s extended story, he says that “authenticity is something that can’t be duplicated, the originality always shines through”. This line, to me personally, was very powerful in that he explains the significance of being original and not doing as others expect you to do. Big Sean also explains how through his originality and refusal to just “observe” but rather, as he says, “by being me”. He also goes on, promoting originality in fashion (Adidas), saying that one’s individual “style is an extension of who you are”. These accounts by celebrities help Adidas in its efforts to promote originality in that they show that being original can potentially be very beneficial, as displayed in Big Sean and Snoop Dogg’s careers.
Behind all the smokes and mirrors, Adidas is subliminally portraying to its viewers the importance of wearing their brand. Regardless of explaining that everyone is unique, they persuade the viewer that if they want to be like many of the celebrities shown in the ad, they must wear Adidas. The clever use of celebrities and famous athletes gives the viewer a sense of urgency to be like their idols to the point where they feel that dressing like them would make them feel special as well. I personally view this as an indirect use of “pathos,” in which Adidas appeals to the viewers’ emotions of wanting to be like the people they idol. This is very clever marketing propaganda on the part of Adidas in that they tell everyone to be original, yet they are sending the message that if you want to be like certain stars, you must wear their products.
Adidas was also able to use a key medium to send their message to their audience in the Originals campaign:. Music. Adidas masterfully selected different types of music in their various ads as a way of appealing to a broad spectrum of people. In doing so, Adidas is also reinforcing their message that everyone is different and has different tastes. For example, in All Icons, an upbeat hip hop tempo was used which, from personal experience, hyped the viewer up in a sense. A different commercial, The Street Where Originality Lives, plays a different genre of music. This serves as Adidas’ way to appeal to a vast majority of people by crafting the commercials to an individual’s liking. The ads also display, through dance and club scenes, these different genres of music.
In conclusion, Adidas is attempting to win over its consumers by promoting their ideology that rather than being told what to wear and how to act, we should all be proud of who we are and what makes us unique from one another. Adidas does this through the use of strategically selected music, carefully written dialogue, and through the star power of several big name celebrities. Despite the Adidas message of individuality and originality, they subliminally sneak in the idea that in order for one to be original like their idols, they must dress like them. This is kind of contradictory, but goes unnoticed by most.
Whatchu Say
Getting your point across. Letting your opinion be known. Changing the opinions of others. These are just a few of the many reasons people engage in arguments everyday. People argue about everything from religion and politics, to fashion and sports. We each want to make our points known and we support them with evidence to make it seem as solid as a brick house. We do this by using solid facts, and a lot of knowledge on the subject. Or do we? Jamie Whyte begs to differ. In Crimes against Logic, Jamie Whyte uses his expertise in philosophy to argue that arguments in this day and age are nothing but a bunch of smokes and mirrors covering up a lack of real evidence and truth. Through logic, Whyte refers to specific examples in the world, such as politics, religion, and books to expose the truths behind the smokes and mirrors, and states the real skills used by many to effectively, or ineffectively persuade an audience.
Jamie Whyte organizes this book around the idea of being able to recognize and interpret fallacies used in arguments and speeches by people, such as friends, families, politicians, and businesses. The book is divided into chapters with each chapter focusing on one main fallacy. Each fallacy is then broken down into subcategories, which explain different aspects of that fallacy. Specific examples are given to demonstrate the use of each fallacy, which is then analyzed to expose the truth and evidence, or lack there of, in the statement.
In his preface, Jamie Whyte compares his book to a manual found in people’s cars, which allow them to become familiarized with their car and all aspects of it. His aim in writing this book is to teach people the ability to recognize and interpret rhetoric. This skill would, as Whyte is intending it to do, allow people to more closely analyze what they are being told, rather than just ignorantly accepting everything at face value. Through explaining the different fallacies and providing specific examples, Whyte is able to empower people with the knowledge of recognizing these fallacies, rather than being fooled by them. By doing so he establishes an ethos by establishing himself as a helper to the people in a world of tricky rhetoric.
The basis behind almost every argument is that people have their own opinions. Mr. Whyte argues that stating the fact that “I am entitled to my own opinion” is the weakest argument that one could possibly make. He states that […]“by pointing out that he is entitled to his view, he has changed the argument from the original topic to a discussion about ones rights” (Whyte 3). He sees this technique as a form of self-defeat. Whyte emphasizes that by doing so, one is refusing to hear opposing views, regardless of their truthiness or falsity. He argues that yes, although everyone has the right to their opinion, we have the duty to change the opinion of that person if it may be wrong and detrimental to that persons health. Whyte chooses to elaborate on this fallacy because many people tend to have a common misconception about what their opinion entitles them, and it causes people to be closed minded about certain issues.
Aside from opinions playing a major role in arguments and the shady business that Whyte indicates it to be he also puts blame on motives for affecting what people choose to say and whom they choose to say it to. Whyte chooses to elaborate on motives because behind every action, there is reasoning. He is aiming to enlighten the reader about the fact that politicians, for example, have other reasons for doing what they do. Everyone has a motive for saying or doing what he or she chooses. Whether it is a job, hobby, passion, and political, or religious affiliation. Everyone’s viewpoint in an argument is biased by these motives. Motives, regardless of what they are, may not be easily spotted. Whyte explains that although one may claim to have good intentions for having a specific viewpoint, it may in fact be based on negative motives, which in turn, becomes a dirty secret in terms of the argument. An example emphasized by Whyte is that certain politicians may claim to support a certain bill, but only say so to gain the support of voters. It is also made clear that although someone may have negative motives, the outcome may be believed to be for the common good making the motive irrelevant. For example, Whyte refers to Bush’s reasoning for being in Iraq. Whyte explains that although Bush may have had personal motives for being in Iraq, stating, “He wanted to finish his fathers work” (Whyte 15). He goes on to state how since the general public seems to believe that it is doing the world good that America is in Iraq; Bush’s motives become irrelevant.
Whyte also attempts to expose the deliberate inconsistencies in arguments due to authority figureheads. Whyte elaborates on this fallacy because people tend to allow the authority status to unjustly act as “evidence”. Through this argument, he targets individuals who use their authority to cover up the lack of evidence needed to support the argument in question. For example, Whyte uses the common “Because I say so” (Whyte 19), phrase used by parents in arguments with their offspring. Since parents have “authority” over their offspring, the offspring is required to take abide by this saying, regardless the topic in question. By using the aforementioned phrase, the authority in question is basically admitting the lack of evidence to properly support their case, so they turn to means that, although off topic, gets their way. This, in turn, is irrelevant to the argument, therefore works as a type of immortality in an argument. Due to this “immortality’, the argument is therefore made irrelevant. Whyte is trying to teach the reader that authority is not always right, and rather than just blindly following their lead, one should learn to choose what’s right or wrong for him or herself. He uses this example because everyone at one time or another has experienced this fallacy.
Perhaps more misleading than evidence is the wording of the argument. The strategic wording of an argument gives a debater an edge. Whyte focuses on this fallacy because he wants to train the general audience to not be fooled by clever wording. This appeals to his audience in that it allows the audience to feel rather empowered and less intimidated when they come across more cleverly written statements. When in an argument or debate, proving ones point is a matter of how an idea is presented. Though one may have a poorly supported view on a certain subject matter, the way that the present makes up for the lack of evidence. Whyte emphasizes that through the use of what he calls “empty words” (Whyte 63), an ordinary, intellectually lacking sentence can be spruced up to the extent that it seems to have more meaning than it actually does, and in turn, making the statement seem more credible and worthy of replacing hard evidence.
All in all, Whyte argues that through sleazy tactics, arguments have become pure bogus that aims only at pleasing ones mind, and not the actual topic in question. This is commonly achieved through cleaver wordplay, ulterior motives, and inconstancies on the questions in question.
Jamie Whyte organizes this book around the idea of being able to recognize and interpret fallacies used in arguments and speeches by people, such as friends, families, politicians, and businesses. The book is divided into chapters with each chapter focusing on one main fallacy. Each fallacy is then broken down into subcategories, which explain different aspects of that fallacy. Specific examples are given to demonstrate the use of each fallacy, which is then analyzed to expose the truth and evidence, or lack there of, in the statement.
In his preface, Jamie Whyte compares his book to a manual found in people’s cars, which allow them to become familiarized with their car and all aspects of it. His aim in writing this book is to teach people the ability to recognize and interpret rhetoric. This skill would, as Whyte is intending it to do, allow people to more closely analyze what they are being told, rather than just ignorantly accepting everything at face value. Through explaining the different fallacies and providing specific examples, Whyte is able to empower people with the knowledge of recognizing these fallacies, rather than being fooled by them. By doing so he establishes an ethos by establishing himself as a helper to the people in a world of tricky rhetoric.
The basis behind almost every argument is that people have their own opinions. Mr. Whyte argues that stating the fact that “I am entitled to my own opinion” is the weakest argument that one could possibly make. He states that […]“by pointing out that he is entitled to his view, he has changed the argument from the original topic to a discussion about ones rights” (Whyte 3). He sees this technique as a form of self-defeat. Whyte emphasizes that by doing so, one is refusing to hear opposing views, regardless of their truthiness or falsity. He argues that yes, although everyone has the right to their opinion, we have the duty to change the opinion of that person if it may be wrong and detrimental to that persons health. Whyte chooses to elaborate on this fallacy because many people tend to have a common misconception about what their opinion entitles them, and it causes people to be closed minded about certain issues.
Aside from opinions playing a major role in arguments and the shady business that Whyte indicates it to be he also puts blame on motives for affecting what people choose to say and whom they choose to say it to. Whyte chooses to elaborate on motives because behind every action, there is reasoning. He is aiming to enlighten the reader about the fact that politicians, for example, have other reasons for doing what they do. Everyone has a motive for saying or doing what he or she chooses. Whether it is a job, hobby, passion, and political, or religious affiliation. Everyone’s viewpoint in an argument is biased by these motives. Motives, regardless of what they are, may not be easily spotted. Whyte explains that although one may claim to have good intentions for having a specific viewpoint, it may in fact be based on negative motives, which in turn, becomes a dirty secret in terms of the argument. An example emphasized by Whyte is that certain politicians may claim to support a certain bill, but only say so to gain the support of voters. It is also made clear that although someone may have negative motives, the outcome may be believed to be for the common good making the motive irrelevant. For example, Whyte refers to Bush’s reasoning for being in Iraq. Whyte explains that although Bush may have had personal motives for being in Iraq, stating, “He wanted to finish his fathers work” (Whyte 15). He goes on to state how since the general public seems to believe that it is doing the world good that America is in Iraq; Bush’s motives become irrelevant.
Whyte also attempts to expose the deliberate inconsistencies in arguments due to authority figureheads. Whyte elaborates on this fallacy because people tend to allow the authority status to unjustly act as “evidence”. Through this argument, he targets individuals who use their authority to cover up the lack of evidence needed to support the argument in question. For example, Whyte uses the common “Because I say so” (Whyte 19), phrase used by parents in arguments with their offspring. Since parents have “authority” over their offspring, the offspring is required to take abide by this saying, regardless the topic in question. By using the aforementioned phrase, the authority in question is basically admitting the lack of evidence to properly support their case, so they turn to means that, although off topic, gets their way. This, in turn, is irrelevant to the argument, therefore works as a type of immortality in an argument. Due to this “immortality’, the argument is therefore made irrelevant. Whyte is trying to teach the reader that authority is not always right, and rather than just blindly following their lead, one should learn to choose what’s right or wrong for him or herself. He uses this example because everyone at one time or another has experienced this fallacy.
Perhaps more misleading than evidence is the wording of the argument. The strategic wording of an argument gives a debater an edge. Whyte focuses on this fallacy because he wants to train the general audience to not be fooled by clever wording. This appeals to his audience in that it allows the audience to feel rather empowered and less intimidated when they come across more cleverly written statements. When in an argument or debate, proving ones point is a matter of how an idea is presented. Though one may have a poorly supported view on a certain subject matter, the way that the present makes up for the lack of evidence. Whyte emphasizes that through the use of what he calls “empty words” (Whyte 63), an ordinary, intellectually lacking sentence can be spruced up to the extent that it seems to have more meaning than it actually does, and in turn, making the statement seem more credible and worthy of replacing hard evidence.
All in all, Whyte argues that through sleazy tactics, arguments have become pure bogus that aims only at pleasing ones mind, and not the actual topic in question. This is commonly achieved through cleaver wordplay, ulterior motives, and inconstancies on the questions in question.
Chivalry
Chivalry . We’ve all heard this word. But what does it mean exactly? Most would tell you that it’s an ancient way of life for men back in the medieval times. That’s certainly what first comes to mind when I hear this word. We would be right by saying this in a sense, but what happened to this concept? Where is it today? This is the problem. We don’t really know what chivalry is in our modern society. To us, its just the way of life for knights in the middle ages; it doesn’t concern us. The definition of chivalry is outdated, yes, but it shouldn’t be. In our modern day and age, filled with disrespectful men and douchebags from a certain shore, a new definition of this historic term is very urgent. It’s time for men to grow up and stop acting like children.
Many men today are constantly taking advantage of women, beating them, and disrespecting them in ways never thought possible. They have turned into self-absorbed zombies who view nothing as relevant except what happens to them. According to the most recent Census, marriages have reached an all time low (Hope). I want you to ask yourself why. This downward spiral needs to stop. Women used to be seen as things of beauty and grace who demanded more respect then their male counterparts. Now, they are seen as second-rate citizens. Society has discriminated against them, abused them, and neglected their rights (Shah). Rather than men standing up for women and defending them, they have become the oppressors. In an interview with a Malaysian woman for an article titled “Where are the heroes”, the woman stated “They don't make men, […], like they used to, and they don't make heroes anymore" (Kong 9). Seeing the way men have been acting lately, I completely agree with her statement. Reality is truly harsh.
In a recent poll, Americans were asked questions about how men treated woman. The results are as shown below.
"Eight out of 10 Americans, in fact, say, “Women today are treated with less chivalry than in the past.” Seven out of 10 say women do not receive equal pay for equal work, a bulwark of the feminist war on the status quo. Two-thirds say women are “discriminated against” when it comes to supervisory or executive jobs, while an equal number agree that the U.S. has “a long way to go” to reach gender equality. Just 35 percent said women got equal pay for equal work” (Harper).
These are some sad statistics. Most men and society have lost a grasp of how they should conduct themselves. Women are just as capable as men and should be treated as equals. Sex of the individual should not play a role in factoring these decisions because it is as irrelevant as the color of shoes one chooses to wear as they get ready for work in the morning. Argue that and you’d be showing bigotry. The choice is yours.
My goal is to redefine chivalry in such a way that it would fit in with our modern times and ideology. In doing so, I also hope to be able to give a general archetype of what a true man should behave like and carry himself out. In his book The American Gentlemen, Hall states that "Men will behave and act chivalrous only if these beliefs and behaviors are taught" (Hall vii). It’s time to redefine chivalry and teach these behaviours. Remixing it in a sense. In order to successfully update this definition, we must first go back in time and see what the old ideas of which chivalry were comprised of were. We must then evaluate what each of the subcategories (courtly love, honor, virtue) meant in particular to that time period. After doing so, we must provide a definition of each sub category that fits with the modern norms of society, giving definitions that would make sense in today’s world. How should the ideal man behave? Courtly Love shouldn’t only be about a mans love interest anymore, honor needs to be more universal, and virtues should be more active as opposed to what the “patriotism” we call it today. Lastly, we must tie these three subcategories together in order to achieve a completely redefined modern definition of chivalry. Let us begin by defining Chivalry.
Chivalry is a medieval term for how a knight should conduct himself. This term breaks down into 3 fundamental ideas. As defined by Wikipedia, these 3 ideas are “knightly virtues, honor, and courtly love” (Chivalry). Knightly virtues refers to loyalty to ones king and country (Chivalry). The knight was expected to defend his country at all costs. Knights were seen as the protectors of the country. The second fundamental idea is honor, which is based on how the knight carries himself. The knight is expected to live up to his family legacy by showing courage and strength (Chivalry). He must also be kind to the people and put others needs before his own. The third fundamental ideology of chivalry is courtly love. This is defined as a knight fighting for and protecting his love (Chivalry). He would be expected to treat her with the utmost respect and protect her with his life. A knight would be more than willing to put his life on the line for his woman. After defending his woman, the night is then responsible for the respect and caring of all women.
What does all this mean to us? Just because times have changed, doesn’t mean that we’ve made progress. If anything, men have been going backwards in regards to the way they act and carry themselves. It’s time for this childish behavior to end. I’m here to offer a new definition to the word Chivalry, one that fits with the modern day and age. Now that we have a sense of what chivalry means, we can truly begin to update every aspect of it to fit the modern lifestyle.
For the first ideology of chivalry, knightly virtues, we need to stop and think. Knightly virtues refer to the knight’s loyalty to his lord and country. A knight would be expected to defend his country and lord at all costs. Knights were seen as the defenders of the land, and showed great pride in the land in which they inhabited. They would actively defend and support their country by going into battle, and even to go as far as to give their life in order to protect their land and lord.
In modern times, we don’t necessarily have knights, so one may think this is ideology is unnecessary. This part can be redefined as ones loyalty for his country. In a sense, it is patriotism, but at the same time, its not. Patriotism is more of a passive approach for this term. Everyone says they love their country, but that’s usually where everyone stops. Knightly virtues refers to actively being involved in ones love for their country. If everyone in this great country actually were actively involved, more would be achieved and progress would be made at an alarming rate in terms of national advancements. We all say we love this country, but very few actually got out and serve. On top of that, with all due respect to those who serve, defending this country shouldn’t only depend on when the country tells them to serve. It should be a constant effort to defend this country and its values even at when it is not time for battle through the way we act and carry ourselves. We must represent our countries in a way that protects them and their ideologies.
The second ideology of chivalry that we will redefine is honor. This criterion refers to a knight’s image and legacy. A knight was expected to live up to his family legacy and potential. He would do so through courageous acts, acts of kindness, generosity towards the needy, and respect towards all. A knight’s honor was his portrayal in the eyes of others, so knights attempted to keep it as polished as possible. Dishonor was never an option, resulting in the preference of death rather than dishonor.
Unfortunately today, honor is a blaring issue that almost every man has. Honor used to be achieved by showing respect towards other and being generous towards those in need (Chivalry). The problem today is that most men only worry about themselves. They don’t take the time of day to worry about others and do what they could to help someone in need. It has become all about the individual. It’s truly a mental illness more than anything else. This narcissistic trait is disgusting, causing men to get caught up in nothing but their own selfish ways. By far, this modern mentality has been one of the main causes for the death of chivalry. This needs to change.
In redefining honor, men need to change their mindset about the way they carry themselves. It needs to stop being all about the individual but rather about society. Rather than indulging in unnecessary, expensive products, we should attempt to reach out to the poor and those in need and help improve their standards of living. How can anyone in their right mind live lavishly and wasteful while people are dying of hunger on the streets? Time to wake up people. It doesn’t take much to make a change, and it shouldn’t stop there. Honestly improving ones image in the public eye should be a priority. The way we are perceived in the public eye gives off our first impression. The more good deeds towards one does others, the better his image will be, thus earning him respect and admiration from many. This new definition of the way men should carry themselves allows men to have a sense of individual responsibility to others, rather then have a narcissist mentality.
The third criterion for chivalry that needs to be redefined is regarding the issue of “courtly love.” In medieval times, courtly love referred to a knight fighting for his true love (Chivalry).He would go out of his way to ensure the safety and well being of his woman. After his woman, a knight was expected to show the same respect and politeness to all women. He would go about doing so by helping women when they needed it by doing favors, for example, carrying her baskets. These simple actions go a long way in regards to the knight’s chivalrous label.
Through these three definitions we have redefined, I have come up with a modern term for chivalry. Chivalry is the conduct of an individual in society through national virtues, honor, and love for all. Respecting ones self as well as respecting others is the cornerstone of this new form of social behavior. In doing so, one can achieve the respect and admiration of others. Looking at men today, it is very hard to deduce a definition of what a “man” is and does. I would like to offer this new and redefined definition of chivalry to serve as the archetype of what a man should be.
Some may argue against singling out woman for special treatment shows women’s inferiority to men. They argue the treating woman in such a way becomes “a form of ‘benevolent sexism’” (Stenson 50). In order to redefine this portion of chivalry and avoid sexism, the scope of chivalry needs to be broadened. A man should not only act in a chivalrous way towards woman, but rather towards everyone. It should be a love for everyone rather than directed towards woman. One should act kind and helpful for everyone. If someone is in peril and needs assistance, every man should feel the obligation to go out of his way to help that individual. This love for all makes for a society where everyone assumes responsibility for taking care of each other.
In conclusion, chivalry has received a long overdue facelift. Men can now have an ideology in the way they should conduct themselves that lives up to modern times. It takes a true man to be chivalrous.
Work Cited:
"Chivalry" Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
Hall, Micheal James. The American Gentleman: A Contemporary Guide to Chivalry. 1st Book Library, 2002. Ebook.
Harper, Jennifer. (2010, AUGUST 16). Poll: Women today treated with less chivalry. Washington Times.. Web. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/poll-shows-mixed-feelings-about-feminism/
Kong, Chan Wai. (2001, April 1). Where are the heroes? Sunday Mail,p. 09. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 70422473).
Shah, Anup. (2010, March 14). "Woman’s Rights." Global Issues. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights
Stenson, Jacqueline. (2005, September). MAYBE CHIVALRY SHOULD BE DEAD. Shape, 25(1), 50. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 885490451).
Yen, Hope. (2011, October 25) "United States Divorce Rate: 2009 Census Report Reveals Startling Marriage Trends." Washington Times. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html
Many men today are constantly taking advantage of women, beating them, and disrespecting them in ways never thought possible. They have turned into self-absorbed zombies who view nothing as relevant except what happens to them. According to the most recent Census, marriages have reached an all time low (Hope). I want you to ask yourself why. This downward spiral needs to stop. Women used to be seen as things of beauty and grace who demanded more respect then their male counterparts. Now, they are seen as second-rate citizens. Society has discriminated against them, abused them, and neglected their rights (Shah). Rather than men standing up for women and defending them, they have become the oppressors. In an interview with a Malaysian woman for an article titled “Where are the heroes”, the woman stated “They don't make men, […], like they used to, and they don't make heroes anymore" (Kong 9). Seeing the way men have been acting lately, I completely agree with her statement. Reality is truly harsh.
In a recent poll, Americans were asked questions about how men treated woman. The results are as shown below.
"Eight out of 10 Americans, in fact, say, “Women today are treated with less chivalry than in the past.” Seven out of 10 say women do not receive equal pay for equal work, a bulwark of the feminist war on the status quo. Two-thirds say women are “discriminated against” when it comes to supervisory or executive jobs, while an equal number agree that the U.S. has “a long way to go” to reach gender equality. Just 35 percent said women got equal pay for equal work” (Harper).
These are some sad statistics. Most men and society have lost a grasp of how they should conduct themselves. Women are just as capable as men and should be treated as equals. Sex of the individual should not play a role in factoring these decisions because it is as irrelevant as the color of shoes one chooses to wear as they get ready for work in the morning. Argue that and you’d be showing bigotry. The choice is yours.
My goal is to redefine chivalry in such a way that it would fit in with our modern times and ideology. In doing so, I also hope to be able to give a general archetype of what a true man should behave like and carry himself out. In his book The American Gentlemen, Hall states that "Men will behave and act chivalrous only if these beliefs and behaviors are taught" (Hall vii). It’s time to redefine chivalry and teach these behaviours. Remixing it in a sense. In order to successfully update this definition, we must first go back in time and see what the old ideas of which chivalry were comprised of were. We must then evaluate what each of the subcategories (courtly love, honor, virtue) meant in particular to that time period. After doing so, we must provide a definition of each sub category that fits with the modern norms of society, giving definitions that would make sense in today’s world. How should the ideal man behave? Courtly Love shouldn’t only be about a mans love interest anymore, honor needs to be more universal, and virtues should be more active as opposed to what the “patriotism” we call it today. Lastly, we must tie these three subcategories together in order to achieve a completely redefined modern definition of chivalry. Let us begin by defining Chivalry.
Chivalry is a medieval term for how a knight should conduct himself. This term breaks down into 3 fundamental ideas. As defined by Wikipedia, these 3 ideas are “knightly virtues, honor, and courtly love” (Chivalry). Knightly virtues refers to loyalty to ones king and country (Chivalry). The knight was expected to defend his country at all costs. Knights were seen as the protectors of the country. The second fundamental idea is honor, which is based on how the knight carries himself. The knight is expected to live up to his family legacy by showing courage and strength (Chivalry). He must also be kind to the people and put others needs before his own. The third fundamental ideology of chivalry is courtly love. This is defined as a knight fighting for and protecting his love (Chivalry). He would be expected to treat her with the utmost respect and protect her with his life. A knight would be more than willing to put his life on the line for his woman. After defending his woman, the night is then responsible for the respect and caring of all women.
What does all this mean to us? Just because times have changed, doesn’t mean that we’ve made progress. If anything, men have been going backwards in regards to the way they act and carry themselves. It’s time for this childish behavior to end. I’m here to offer a new definition to the word Chivalry, one that fits with the modern day and age. Now that we have a sense of what chivalry means, we can truly begin to update every aspect of it to fit the modern lifestyle.
For the first ideology of chivalry, knightly virtues, we need to stop and think. Knightly virtues refer to the knight’s loyalty to his lord and country. A knight would be expected to defend his country and lord at all costs. Knights were seen as the defenders of the land, and showed great pride in the land in which they inhabited. They would actively defend and support their country by going into battle, and even to go as far as to give their life in order to protect their land and lord.
In modern times, we don’t necessarily have knights, so one may think this is ideology is unnecessary. This part can be redefined as ones loyalty for his country. In a sense, it is patriotism, but at the same time, its not. Patriotism is more of a passive approach for this term. Everyone says they love their country, but that’s usually where everyone stops. Knightly virtues refers to actively being involved in ones love for their country. If everyone in this great country actually were actively involved, more would be achieved and progress would be made at an alarming rate in terms of national advancements. We all say we love this country, but very few actually got out and serve. On top of that, with all due respect to those who serve, defending this country shouldn’t only depend on when the country tells them to serve. It should be a constant effort to defend this country and its values even at when it is not time for battle through the way we act and carry ourselves. We must represent our countries in a way that protects them and their ideologies.
The second ideology of chivalry that we will redefine is honor. This criterion refers to a knight’s image and legacy. A knight was expected to live up to his family legacy and potential. He would do so through courageous acts, acts of kindness, generosity towards the needy, and respect towards all. A knight’s honor was his portrayal in the eyes of others, so knights attempted to keep it as polished as possible. Dishonor was never an option, resulting in the preference of death rather than dishonor.
Unfortunately today, honor is a blaring issue that almost every man has. Honor used to be achieved by showing respect towards other and being generous towards those in need (Chivalry). The problem today is that most men only worry about themselves. They don’t take the time of day to worry about others and do what they could to help someone in need. It has become all about the individual. It’s truly a mental illness more than anything else. This narcissistic trait is disgusting, causing men to get caught up in nothing but their own selfish ways. By far, this modern mentality has been one of the main causes for the death of chivalry. This needs to change.
In redefining honor, men need to change their mindset about the way they carry themselves. It needs to stop being all about the individual but rather about society. Rather than indulging in unnecessary, expensive products, we should attempt to reach out to the poor and those in need and help improve their standards of living. How can anyone in their right mind live lavishly and wasteful while people are dying of hunger on the streets? Time to wake up people. It doesn’t take much to make a change, and it shouldn’t stop there. Honestly improving ones image in the public eye should be a priority. The way we are perceived in the public eye gives off our first impression. The more good deeds towards one does others, the better his image will be, thus earning him respect and admiration from many. This new definition of the way men should carry themselves allows men to have a sense of individual responsibility to others, rather then have a narcissist mentality.
The third criterion for chivalry that needs to be redefined is regarding the issue of “courtly love.” In medieval times, courtly love referred to a knight fighting for his true love (Chivalry).He would go out of his way to ensure the safety and well being of his woman. After his woman, a knight was expected to show the same respect and politeness to all women. He would go about doing so by helping women when they needed it by doing favors, for example, carrying her baskets. These simple actions go a long way in regards to the knight’s chivalrous label.
Through these three definitions we have redefined, I have come up with a modern term for chivalry. Chivalry is the conduct of an individual in society through national virtues, honor, and love for all. Respecting ones self as well as respecting others is the cornerstone of this new form of social behavior. In doing so, one can achieve the respect and admiration of others. Looking at men today, it is very hard to deduce a definition of what a “man” is and does. I would like to offer this new and redefined definition of chivalry to serve as the archetype of what a man should be.
Some may argue against singling out woman for special treatment shows women’s inferiority to men. They argue the treating woman in such a way becomes “a form of ‘benevolent sexism’” (Stenson 50). In order to redefine this portion of chivalry and avoid sexism, the scope of chivalry needs to be broadened. A man should not only act in a chivalrous way towards woman, but rather towards everyone. It should be a love for everyone rather than directed towards woman. One should act kind and helpful for everyone. If someone is in peril and needs assistance, every man should feel the obligation to go out of his way to help that individual. This love for all makes for a society where everyone assumes responsibility for taking care of each other.
In conclusion, chivalry has received a long overdue facelift. Men can now have an ideology in the way they should conduct themselves that lives up to modern times. It takes a true man to be chivalrous.
Work Cited:
"Chivalry" Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
Hall, Micheal James. The American Gentleman: A Contemporary Guide to Chivalry. 1st Book Library, 2002. Ebook.
Harper, Jennifer. (2010, AUGUST 16). Poll: Women today treated with less chivalry. Washington Times.. Web. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/poll-shows-mixed-feelings-about-feminism/
Kong, Chan Wai. (2001, April 1). Where are the heroes? Sunday Mail,p. 09. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 70422473).
Shah, Anup. (2010, March 14). "Woman’s Rights." Global Issues. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights
Stenson, Jacqueline. (2005, September). MAYBE CHIVALRY SHOULD BE DEAD. Shape, 25(1), 50. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 885490451).
Yen, Hope. (2011, October 25) "United States Divorce Rate: 2009 Census Report Reveals Startling Marriage Trends." Washington Times. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html