Feminism Means Gender Equality, Not the Quashing of Flowers

In a late-night bout of procrastination tonight, I read through my friend Matt’s most recent blog entry in a series on communication, and feel obliged to comment in a place that is slightly more suited for my ramblings. I was going to refrain from commenting on people’s dating-themed blogs, mainly because my ideas of romantic relationships are rather unique and based purely on vicarious experience through my friends who have in fact seriously dated. Nevertheless, Matt referenced a piece in The Gateway that I read with Crystal on Tuesday and was somewhat agitated by, and I therefore feel an urge to play contrarian for a short while. I already briefly discussed with Matt and Rob how the article mentioned by Matt in his blog irked me during a pre-play tea break at Steeps on the routine Tuesday study group night, but this likely requires some actual argumentation. Of course I have an opinion on nearly everything (I really can’t think of anything that I don’t have a clear view on, though hopefully I’m still slightly flexible and open-minded), so I’m commenting on my blog despite a lack of expertise and lucidity at this hour of the evening. Essentially, the article proposed that the world of dating had been injured by the achievements of feminism in the previous century, and that a relationship is bettered when she is treated “like a princess.” I can only speak for myself, though I suspect that most of my friends (probably not most girls, though) would agree, in saying that the requisites for a good night vary widely depending on the two hanging out (I know, hanging out doesn’t sound very romantic, but I was going to use “spending the night together,” which suggests an entirely different batch of things, and I’m too tired to use nice cliché words). Clearly, some people find that engaging in the (perceivedly by me) antiquated rituals evolved from times when a girl was bought are quite fun and excellent modes of displaying affections, and they also feel that practices centred around motivations for a girl getting married involving primarily financial matters make a couple happy. Clear too is the fact that I disagree with this, but in general would have to state that whatever works for people works for me, as long as both people in the relationship are satisfied, and it is recognized that love isn't about material things, or the roles we play. At least a naîve view of romantic love would see love as being above purchased things and inauthentic gestures that are acted out simply out of good manners.

In studying love and romance a few times in psych courses, I’ve yet to come across anything that indicated that acting as if a girl might break at any moment (seriously, walking on the outside of the sidewalk? slightly presumptuous!) would deepen, further, or nurture the couple’s love. In the past, a guy would have assisted his date with the door, her chair, and the bill because she would have been burdened by constraining clothes, understood to be delicate, and unable to work. In fact, women are now quite capable of seating themselves and paying for things independently. Don’t get me wrong (which I’m sure most of you are by this point); it’s lovely to be the receiver of such courtesies, but is there something innate in females that allows them alone to appreciate courtesy? I certainly hope not. Thus, if somehow this civility does allow for respect and admiration to mature, and I suspect that they mostly do, then it might as well be reciprocal. If any of you have ever been with me in a Bible study wherein we are instructed to tell each other that God loves us like his princesses (and I know that a couple of you reading this have!), you already know how ridiculous I find that.

Why would one ever want to feel like a princess? I certainly enjoyed dressing up as one as a child for Halloween, and pretending to be Princess Diana with Jess as the prince when we were younger, but what use is having a boyfriend spend money on you and perform unhelpful rituals that effectively presume your fragility, weakness, one-dimensionality, materialism, inferior status, potential to be bought, and role as some sort of object whose purpose it is to be pretty and pampered. I’m sure that dear little Michelle does indeed want to feel adored, and people have a natural desire for love and acceptance, but to me at least, adoration does not at all connote purchases of plants, the opening of apparently onerous doors, or bizarre and antiquated practices of the somehow less vulnerable gender walking closer to the threat of cars driving onto the sidewalk. Not that I’m not delighted by others’ courtesy when a door is kept open for me, or the thoughtfulness of a lovely flower, but when these things are so gender specific and the possibilities for showing someone you care are so limited, I find them peculiar. For some reason, at times it apparently seems strange for a girl to open a door for a guy, yet I see no reason for it to seem strange; while those of us with an extra X chromosome (yay alliteration!) do have slightly less muscle mass than those with a Y chromosome, we are more than capable of walking through doorways without assistance.

As I assured a feminist-wary Dustin a while ago, I don’t get upset when a guy opens a door for me. That would be preposterously ridiculous. Conversely, I am slightly perturbed when guys open doors solely for those of the opposite sex, even if they’re married/dating (and thus clearly not simply opening doors for people who they are “interested” in, but rather acting out of a notion that girls are happy and greatly obliged when they don’t have to open the door for themselves). And hopefully I open doors, and act in similarly gracious ways when there’s an opportunity, whether for girls or guys. Similarly, if a guy enjoyed flowers, which is entirely in the realm of possibility, then a girl could totally get flowers for him once in a while; my dad definitely got a bouquet last Valentine’s Day, and had a splendid time painting them. I realize that all of these aforementioned “chivalrous” things are only done in an attempt to make the girl feel exceptional, cherished, revered, and worth all of these silly behaviours, but there are more than a million ways of conveying these things. It’s all about doing what’s right in that relationship I suppose, which may sometimes involve enacting a Michelle-style nineteenth century crazy date. If it thrills Michelle to completely disregard all of the many results of the women’s and feminist movement (and there are many; I am appalled that this writer appreciates roses more than the hundreds of things she now has the opportunity to do as a result of the women’s movement), then I have very few problems with her indulging these strange yearnings to her heart’s delight. It strikes me as unhealthy to be happiest with someone who you might spend the rest of your life with when you’re both dressed to the nines, he’s given you a flower, and he’s once again left to plan your time together. But perhaps that’s just because I’m my own person with my own preferences and beliefs about guys, the history of romance, and the course of relationships. Matt is totally dead on in remarking that there are many different “variables” that could be put into the dating formula (certainly more than 26!). I guess it’s perfectly fine for a guy in a dating relationship to be happy opening doors for his girlfriend, and for the girl to expect a rose on every date (but really, I struggle to think of that as anything but a completely superficial requirement). There are a nearly infinite number of ways of communicating affection, have fun with that special someone, learn and grow together, challenge each other, and glorify God through your time spent together. And, suffice it to say, there are a nearly infinite number of views on this subject; these are simply my tautological and late-night views on the issue at hand.

Long live chivalry! (In the gender-neutral, equitable, considerate, intelligent sense, of course.)