The article, an opinion piece, is posted on a side called Elite Daily. The article is called, "Why Chivalry is Dead, From a Man's Perspective." I strongly encourage you to read the article as it will give you a better perspective of where I'm coming from. It's a relatively short piece but I don't intend of summarizing it line by line. Instead, I'll summarize a few notions thrown out and go from there.
First, I find it telling that the third comment posted about the article reads:
Article in a nutshell: "Man, I'm just trying to be a nice guy, but women these days are too busy being whores to appreciate me. Chivalry is dead!" Wait, wut?
A comment like that is disconcerting for an article; just an observation. Summary of general main points: we live in a hookup culture and thus dating is done, people would be surprised what you could learn from others by going on actual dates and not just looking to bang, men aren't treating women the way they are supposed to be treated, we don't know how to communicate, girls only get with jerks, women are complacent, eventually women will wise up and ask for what they deserve, the author still enjoys meaningless sex but comes back to his core values.
I deep down think the author's intentions are innately good. I do, in fact, think he means well and is trying to grasp the day and age we live in while sticking to traditional values. The problem is, though, he's just too off base for me.
I agree that communication is lacking in our world and we live in a hook up culture. It is really hard to deny these points when they are staring us in the face on a daily basis--especially as a single individual. While dating isn't totally done, it seems more and more people are looking for a hookup as a means to facilitate a relationship rather than courting (besides internet "dating"). Also, communication is totally messed up with the droves of technology communicating for us today. That's all fine and dandy.
He begins to lose me when he talks about women's complacency and how they merely get with jerks. Admittedly, I used to think that women just got with jerks; I guess part of me still does to some extent. I think, rationally speaking, that's a really ignorant and naive stance, though. For one, you can't justify grouping all women generically. Secondly, I'd like to think that not all guys dating women are jerks. Third, it feels like a copout to make such a claim. I once heard an explanation that really stuck out to me about this "issue" from a woman's perspective. Jerks are more confident in who they are and display that confidence; confidence is sexy. Ergo, jerks are sexy. Moreover, "good guys" often carry the stigma that they can't get with women because they aren't jerks and thus are lacking in confidence from the get go. Many flaws exist within women only date jerks, but that's a subject for a different time. The complacency is an issue that I'll couple with my biggest issue below.
He really loses me, and I think he loses sight of today's world, when he says that he believes women will wise up. It seems to me that the complacency and the predicted "wising up" go hand in hand. Again, I think this guy has good intentions at heart; I just don't think he thought this article through. By calling women complacent and suggesting they need to wise up, the author is clearly ignoring feminism. DONE DONE DONE! Some people out there may not be overly familiar with feminism while others may not be for it in general. I don't want to sit here and lecture anyone about the movement or debate it. The fact that this author and others need to realize is this: we aren't living in the same age as our mothers and grandmothers. While we still have work to do, real progress towards equality is being made. We don't live in an age where women are strictly housewives; we don't live in an age where women are strictly under educated; we don't live in an age where women are strictly powerless. I question if the author has ever thought that maybe women don't necessarily want what they "deserve." As a "man," I'd question if he considers it complacency for a man to let a woman pay for his dinner.
Chivalry isn't dead, it's adapting (or at least it should be). As the time shifts so too must our definition. I'll be honest, I'm someone who looks to pay for dinner, wants to buy flowers, hold doors, etc. I'm not someone, though, who wants to force it down someone's throat to so they get what they deserve. It boggles my mind to think that people still believe you HAVE to pay for dinner as a man--I'd venture to say some of these complacent women may carry the same confusion. Dude, it's okay for a girl to take you out; it's okay for a girl to hold the door for you; it's okay to have her send you a gift (maybe not flowers!). It's okay for there to be a certain give and take--an equality--between the partnership.
I couldn't help but laugh when the author's second to last paragraph concluded by mentioning (not long after saying booty calls were cool with him):
I’m not looking for a girlfriend, nor am I looking for a wife. If I take you out to a nice dinner, it’s because I’m a nice guy, and I am looking forward to spending time with you somewhere other than the bedroom.He talks about the loss of chivalry and this trueness of relationships, but doesn't even want a relationship himself. It's a little sketchy to me and seems to poke holes in his article's logical flow. Do guys take their friends out to nice dinners just to spend time with them?
I know my arguments and rebuttals aren't as drawn out and matured as they could be, but I hope my message is simple. It's cool to want to treat women nicely, but I think we need to understand, truly understand, where we stand today. I just feel like there is a better way to rejuvenate chivalry without having women wise up.
No comments:
Post a Comment