Answer by The Gent:
Dear Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to write to us, and more importantly, for challenging us rather than simply agreeing with us.
Your letter raises a question that deserves a serious answer.
If GC speaks about the gentleman as a cultural ideal, then we should ask a harder question: what kind of culture allows gentlemanly values to flourish in the first place?
A gentleman exists within relationships, families, communities and institutions. His courtesy and sense of duty become meaningful when they meet other people, and values that recognise and reciprocate them.
This is where your argument becomes interesting.
You are asking whether the conversation about the gentleman is incomplete when we never examine the relationship between masculine virtue and the values expected from the other gender in that relationship.
We think that is a legitimate question.
Chivalry, properly understood, was always part of a broader social code involving honour and responsibility. Noblesse oblige was about the responsibilities that accompany one's position and character.
These ideas become meaningful through reciprocity.
Reciprocity can take different shapes for each partner. Femininity can carry strength, independence and self-possession just as easily as softness. What it means, at root, is that a relationship draws on both people's virtues to last but never one person's alone.
Your personal experience during COVID gives weight to the question.
You described having a well-paid career, purchasing a home in Bangsar and building a lifestyle that you believed you could sustain. Then the pandemic changed your circumstances. You lost your job, sold your car and watches, and eventually found yourself considering a less expensive home because the life you had previously been able to provide was no longer financially sustainable.
We recognise we are hearing only one side of a marriage, and we'll leave judgment of its reasons where it belongs with the two people who lived it.
The underlying question stands on its own.
What happens to a relationship when circumstances change dramatically?
What happens when the person who was once able to provide a certain lifestyle can no longer do so?
Does the relationship adapt with the circumstances?
Does the couple redefine what "comfortable" means?
Does one partner carry the other through a difficult period, knowing that circumstances may eventually reverse?
Or does the relationship become defined by what one person can continue to provide?
These are uncomfortable questions, but they are important ones.
Marriage and long-term relationships move with real life. Careers change. Businesses fail. Economies contract. Health changes. Parents age. Children arrive. Priorities evolve. Wealth can disappear and, sometimes, return.
The person who enters a marriage at 35 may not be the same person who reaches 50.
The salary that exists today may not exist tomorrow.
The house that once represented success may eventually become a financial burden.
The car may have to be sold.
The lifestyle may have to change.
The deeper question is whether the relationship has enough substance to survive those changes.
This is why we believe your letter is ultimately less about women than it is about the meaning of partnership.
You have asked what is "in it" for men when they are expected to become gentlemen.
That question deserves to be taken seriously.
A gentleman behaves with courtesy as a matter of character. But gentlemanliness also has to leave room for a man's own dignity, wellbeing and circumstances, or it curdles into self-erasure.
There is a difference between generosity and self-destruction.
There is a difference between responsibility and being expected to carry an entire relationship alone.
These distinctions matter.
At the same time, we'd guard against swinging from one extreme to the other. The answer is character, on both sides, held for its own sake. Not men waiting for women to earn their decency, and not women carrying the blame for a man's retreat from it.
Character has to hold regardless of circumstance.
A man should strive to be decent because decency is valuable in itself.
Relationships are lived by two people and never conducted as one person's solo philosophy.
That is where reciprocity becomes important.
If we ask men to cultivate responsibility, perhaps we should also ask whether women cultivate gratitude.
If we ask men to practise generosity, perhaps we should also ask whether women practise consideration.
If we ask men to demonstrate loyalty during difficult periods, perhaps we should also ask whether loyalty is expected from both sides.
If we ask men to protect the dignity of their partners, perhaps both partners should protect each other's dignity.
These are human virtues, expressed by both genders, before they belong to either one.
Yet they can manifest differently within a relationship, and those differences are worth discussing openly.
This is also where the idea of the "lady" deserves a more thoughtful treatment.
Perhaps the real objective is to recover the qualities modern life has taught us to overlook, rather than return men and women to rigid roles.
This is where your observation about the perceived "transactional" nature of modern relationships becomes worth examining.
We live in an age where almost everything is measured.
Career progression.
Net worth.
Property.
Social status.
Social Media Followers.
Even relationships can become subject to the language of optimisation.
What does this person add to my life?
What do I gain from being with them?
Can I find someone better?
What lifestyle can this person provide?
Those questions are understandable, but building a relationship's foundation on them makes commitment fragile.
Because one day, every person eventually becomes less than the ideal version of themselves.
The young become older.
The wealthy may become less wealthy.
The successful may experience failure.
The attractive become less youthful.
The confident may become vulnerable.
The strong may eventually need help.
The real test of character may therefore begin when the conditions that made the relationship attractive become less certain.
That is why your letter deserves more than a simple "Yes, GC should write about women too."
It deserves a broader conversation about what we expect from men and women when they choose to build a life together.
And we accept your criticism that GC can contribute more to that conversation.
Our editorial focus has naturally centred on the gentleman, because that is the founding premise of GC. Studying the gentleman also means studying the environment that lets gentlemanly behaviour exist.
Indeed, perhaps the next stage of the conversation is to examine the relationship between the gentleman and the lady, on their own terms rather than as stereotypes.
You also raised an interesting point about generational wisdom.
We believe there is real value in listening to people who have lived through different eras as each generation experiences its own social expectations and definitions of marriage, family, success and responsibility.
Someone who has lived through several decades of social change may see patterns that someone in their twenties has yet to encounter. That makes their perspective worth hearing on its own merit, whether or not it turns out to be right.
Perhaps GC's founders and senior contributors can contribute to that conversation, alongside younger voices and, importantly, female perspectives.
This has to be a conversation held with women, rather than a lecture delivered at them.
The conversation should instead be about character.
What does it mean to be a gentleman or a lady when neither person is living a perfect life?
We also want to name one thing plainly: the problem here isn't a gender. Not women, not men. It's something more interesting than that.
It is the possibility that modern society has become increasingly good at teaching people their rights, preferences and expectations, while growing less comfortable discussing duty, sacrifice, responsibility and what we owe to one another.
Perhaps that is why your letter resonates.
The gentleman's code has always contained an element of noble values.
But noble values without reciprocity can become resentment.
Love without sacrifice can become convenience.
And sacrifice without appreciation can eventually become bitterness.
A mature relationship has to find a balance between all of these things.
So, Mikel, we accept the challenge because the study of character should always be a two-sided exercise, held for both genders rather than aimed at either one.
If we are serious about chivalry, we should examine the culture that makes chivalry meaningful.
And if we are serious about the gentleman, we should be willing to ask what kind of woman, relationship and culture allows the gentleman to flourish.
Perhaps the more important question is not:
"What does a gentleman get in return?"
Perhaps it is:
"What kind of relationship makes both people want to become better versions of themselves?"
That, to us, is a much more worthwhile conversation.
Thank you for starting it.
Warm regards,
The Gent
Gentlemen's Code has your back! We're thrilled to announce our brand new section on our website: "Ask the Gentleman." Submit your burning questions on all things refined living, health & fitness, relationships, culture, style, and etiquette by emailing editor@gentlemanscodes.com.
Please note:
1. We no longer accept letters on divorce issues.
2. We do not entertain unconstructive correspondence, race and religion topics, or hate speech.
3. If you are writing on behalf of an institution, organisation, or formal body and wish to submit a letter to GC, we kindly request that you provide reasonable proof of your affiliation or existence. This helps us maintain the integrity of all correspondence.
4. We reserve the right to adjust the tone or language of any published letter- without altering its core content or context - to ensure that the standards of tact, respect, and public discourse are upheld.
Thank you for your understanding.
