In reading thisarticleabout the Wall Street Bull and Fearless Girl by author Amanda Marcotte and what appropriate feminist reactions should be I wondered just how much latitude a man would be given if he deliberately ignored gendered male role “manners” like opening car doors, taking on heavier physical tasks, being protective in potentially hazardous situations, paying for first date dinners and a host of things large and small that men are expected to do in their standard gendered roles when dating or being in relationships.
If accused of being rude or oblivious to expected social manners when dating he explains he is a feminist and refuses to engage in standard chauvinistic patronizing behaviors as this denigrates women. He says they are equals and can open their own car doors, carry their own heavy boxes, pay for their own dating dinners, and kill their own spiders etc. His desire is to be a co-equal partner and respect women’s own agency in being able to do these things without him getting involved unless asked.
In all other ways he is a decent and honest person but he will* not *step into the expected protective or deferentially mannered man’s role in relationships.
Does this behavior and his position that this makes him a *true *feminist make him more or less attractive as a potential SO?
“Decent and honest” people do acts of kindness for the people they care about.
My husband carries heavy things for me when he can, because there are a lot times I have to do it alone (he travels a lot for work), not because I demand it or he thinks I’m weak. I open doors for him when I’m first, because it’s courteous to do so.
People should be doing acts of kindness for each other, in ways that their SO appreciates. This guy may be right at the theoretical level, but his rationale falls apart at the specific level. If the person he cares about likes those little kindnesses, why wouldn’t he do them?
So is this guy refusing the 22% of his salary that is higher than that of women doing the same job? No? Then he’s not a feminist insisting on total equality. He’s a greedy, lazy jerk.
I’d rather our hypothetical feminist dude use his brains to figure out which of those things are insulting or outdated, and which should more pro-socially be applied to ALL people he encounters, and which things are suitable in a context of making loving or helpful gestures toward someone you love in a manner that he knows will be best appreciated and useful to that specific other person.
Him acting in the manner described means he is either:
Lacking the introspection or mental acuity to make those distinctions.
Or wants to make an impression through a scorched-earth campaign because he cares more about people being aware of him and his adherence to this theory than about pro-social behavior.
Or is generally a boor anyway and is using this as an excuse.
None of those options are attractive in a potential partner.
Women are not paid 22% less for doing the same jobs as men. That is a complete myth that has been debunked years ago, and is obviously false because nobody would hire men if it were true. (But Democrats keep repeating it nonetheless.) The 78% figure compares the pay of all working men and working women and ignores the fact that men work longer hours, more years, more dangerous jobs and do different jobs than women.
I wouldn’t notice most of these things. If he gave me a speech about why he wasn’t doing them, I’d think he was a doofus, but if he just didn’t do them? I’d never think twice.
Not too contribute to a hijack re pay equality, but apparently the Clerk of the Virginia senate just got a raise. She has been doing her job for almost 30 years, and still made less than her male counterpart in the House. He had about 5 years in the job.
Whether he’s more or less attractive as a potential SO I’m sure depends on the person he is dating in the first place. If someone is expecting to have the door held open for her, doesn’t, notices, and brings it up, and is disappointed in the answer, I’m sure they’re not suited as a couple in the first place.
His position that this makes him a true feminist is garbage though. Imagine this scenario. His date brings up that he didn’t open the door, he responds that he is a true feminist. She says excitedly “Wow, me too! Who is your favourite feminist writer?” He replies “I haven’t read any feminist work, I just don’t hold doors open for ladies.”
So now he’s screwed up two dates, one that wants to have the door held open, and one that didn’t. Based on that I’d say that unless his goal is to have shitty dates, it is not “OK”.
I keep hearing that there is isn’t a pay gap. I also keep seeing studies that show there are persistent pay gaps, at least in my industry, which is high tech. If you want to argue that oil rig workers are making more money because there aren’t any women there, fine. If there is even one, btw, she should get the same money. Same thing with police, fire departments, first responders and every other “traditionally” male industry. If women are present, they should get the same money for the same job.
And, yes, as a hiring manager, I have been specifically told to hire women because they cost the company less.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a requirement to be well versed in feminist literature as long as you behave according to feminist principles. If he espouses and his actions adhere to the tenets of those principles he is being a feminist. “Feminist activism is the struggle for that equality.”
Feminist here. Here are my reactions to your suggestions:
people who care for each other are protective of them. We should both be protective of each other.
I always went dutch. I didn’t like feeling like I owed the guy something.
repeat, so let’s talk about other doors. In my household, whoever gets to the door first opens it and holds it for the others. Unless one party is carrying stuff, or otherwise disabled, in which case someone else holds the door for the person who would be inconvenienced to do so.
how heavy? The stronger person should carry heavy stuff.
repeat
lol, I prefer if no one kills the spiders. But if wasps need to be removed from the house, I’m your gal.
hmm, well, that’s probably okay with the heavy boxes, then. But if I need to ask for the door to be opened when I’m balancing boxes, that’s just a sign of inconsiderateness.
He doesn’t have to be well versed, but it’s disingenuous to call himself a “true feminist” if the only thing he understands about it is that benevolent sexism exists. What other aspects of his life and behaviour is dedicated towards understanding and reducing the effects of patriarchal social structures? Maybe he can’t name a particular author, but for a man to be thinking about the patriarchy, he must have had some sort of unique engagement with feminist thought.
My point is that if he’s going to be claiming feminism on a date, he needs to be able to carry on a decent conversation about it, or he’s seriously narrowing his field. He’s ruled out ladies that believe in traditional gender roles, but he’s also ruling out those who have studied the negative effects of gender roles. If he’s honest as you say, he’d probably be interested in the latter group. Therefore, if he doesn’t have a good understanding of feminism, he shouldn’t namecheck it. It would be safer to say he believes in independent women and see where that takes him.
This reads like a gotcha ya: “How can y’all expect a man to be a good feminist if that means he never gets laid? Huh? Huh? That’s totally unfair!”
It’s pretty theoretical for me: I met my husband in college, where there wasn’t so much dating as hanging out and after a while sleeping together, but it’s my understanding that dates are about compatibility. I like to think (and strive to be–though I am probably flattering myself) that I am thoughtful and responsive to other people’s needs in a gender neutral way. I would expect a compatible man to be the same. If was thoughtless and tried to explain that as a moral imperative–like letting a door slam in my face, or not offering to shoulder some part of the burden if I was carrying a bunch of stuff–I’d be annoyed. I don’t think the fancy, unneeded stuff–opening doors I could open myself, ordering for me in a restaurant, etc.–would come up, because most of that stuff involves the active participation by the woman: you have to stop and wait so he can open the door, you have to tell him what you’ll be eating. My own actions would make it clear it wasn’t expected or desired. If, despite that, he had to bring it up on the first date, I’d think he was self-aggrandizing and self-righteous.
In terms of paying for things, I always let someone pay for me if they offer, but if that happens I always make sure to pay the next time. It seems much more convivial. If he’d invited me out, I’d expect him to offer to pay, but if I’d invited him, I’d offer before he got a chance. Again, if he felt like this was so revolutionary that we needed to have a long boring talk about it, I’d likely be annoyed again.