Well, now, I'm glad you asked, as it allows me a Father's Day disquisition on this dangerous and pernicious concept. Yes, I said it: Gentlemanliness is an outdated and nonsensical idea, for it is based on simple morality, common to both sexes.
The gentleman is, conventionally, one who is kind, self-effacing and self-sacrificing – and what makes those values essentially masculine? Are women not expected to be gentlemen too? The answer lies, of course, in history, and history has not been kind to women.
A woman was not, until recently, expected to be strong and brave because she was held to be basically helpless. She needed men to protect her and to go out and do things for her – and by implication make all those difficult decisions for her (such as what ideas about the universe and politics were true).
Furthermore, the idea of the gentleman comes from a feudal class structure in which men of aristocratic birth – the warrior class – were held to be braver and better than others. “Gentle” birth from Middle English onward had nothing to do with gentleness – it meant “coming from good family.” (The word comes from the Latin gens, gentis, for clan or race of people.)
To this day, the idea of the gentleman is inseparable from the idea of good breeding – in other words, social class.
All the words associated with gentlemen contain within them an etymological reference to bloodlines: chivalrous (from chevalier, knight); courteous (“of the court”). Even virtuous comes from the Latin for “man.”
So why are we still in love with the idea – with the idea of nobility, with the idea of the strong silent man who does things no woman wants to do? We are nostalgic, of course, for something that was always a myth.
Even women who command armies and corporations fantasize about the surrender of responsibility: hence the persistence of meaningless male traditions like opening doors and booking restaurants. These are holdovers from a time when women were believed to find such demands frightening.
And that's largely what we mean by “gentlemanly” today: We think of trivial social gestures such as ordering wine rather than helping a stranger or resigning over a scandal.
But since we all find the idea of the strong and selfless male attractive, let us indulge ourselves in this romantic myth and list the properties of the gentleman as he exists today – bearing in mind, of course, that all these traits (except the last two) are equally admirable in women.
He is not a showoff. He does not taunt his enemies in battle or sport. He does not gloat after a goal, or say “Who da man!” unless in self-mockery.
He treats everyone equally – waiters, gas station attendants and cabinet ministers.
He does not complain, nor explain himself unnecessarily (i.e. he does not launch into an apologetic preamble before doing anything).
He does not respond to taunting with taunting; he does not allow an argument to descend into personal insult.
He does not expect his lover to do his laundry and ironing. (And he knows how to cook.)
He is grateful for favours small and large. (And he is willing to do favours small and large.)
He is true to his word, and honours his debts very quickly.
He is sensitive to the failings of others and does not draw attention to them.
He offers the lady a drive home in the morning.
He takes out the garbage, quietly kills and removes large centipedes, and dispatches and disposes of wounded birds and rodents without hesitation or histrionics.
All the other stuff – holding the umbrella, walking on the street side of the sidewalk, making the first phone call, getting in the cab first, holding the door open – doesn't really matter. But it's romantic.
