Is Chivalry Demeaning to Women

It is the season of prom in the local high schools. In a recent discussion with some students, the idea of the boy paying for the girl’s dinner came up briefly. One of the ladies in the group responded that girl’s don’t need a guy to pay for them, they can take care of themselves. While I totally agree that women are capable of taking care of themselves, this statement has had me thinking about what chivalry communicates. (see The Opposite of Masculinity) Does a man paying for his date’s dinner diminish the woman? That is a fair question. And I think the answer lies in the motivation for paying and is fundamentally an issue of identity. Payment could indicate control. Not paying could be a bruise to the man’s ego. It could subtly communicate that something is owed later. Now the woman is in the man’s debt. Another form of control Unfortunately, too many men have used finances in such a way. Making the response that woman can take care of themselves completely understandable. Needing to be in control and needing to demonstrate control are an issue of a poorly developed identity. One that seek to affirm significance by keeping another – in this case a date – under their thumb. And by the way, this is not just a man issue, women struggle in their attempts to control others as a way to sustain identity as well. (see The Opposite of Femininity) A man paying (or a woman paying for that matter) should not be for the purpose of controlling another, but rather as a way to demonstrate the significance...

Gain Perspective. Live Well.

Close
loading...