Feminist Dating Advice #4: The Feminist Approach to "Who Pays"

(This one is for men and women)

The debate on "who pays" still rages on, and for feminists, it's not as simple as "the man" or "the woman." Feminism gets a lot of heat from men who are unhappy with the discourse that demands that men pay for most or all dates they go on, despite the fact that feminists aren't the ones perpetuating it - if anything, feminists are more likely to pay on dates than non-feminists. No I don't have an official statistic for it, but it's pretty fair to assume that someone who believes in gender equality for women also believes that men shouldn't be shouldered with all the financial burdens in a relationship.

First of all, it's important not to assume that just because someone's a feminist, they definitely want to either go Dutch or pay for everything, just like it's important not to assume that all feminists want to be dominant in their romantic and sexual relationships with men in general. Gender equality means that both parties in a relationship pay on dates. Being on a date means that, for the most part, one person pays for both people for each transaction - rather than each person pay for his or her self, which is something friends do when they're hanging out.

Now, if you ask someone on a date, whether you're a man or a woman, you should be prepared to pay for that date. Don't ever take someone somewhere, and then expect them to pay or say "by the way, you owe [X amount of money] for this." If you're expecting someone to pay for something you initiated, you should tell them in advance.

Douchebag story time: this summer a guy took me to the mountains for a weekend, and it wasn't until we got there that he said "oh yeah, you owe $20 in lodge fees for the weekend." Umm, what? I was a bit peeved for two reasons: 1) he hadn't told me that, and probably just assumed that despite being a full time student on a part-time hourly wage $20 would have been nothing; it wasn't a huge expense for me, but it was a substantial amount that I would have liked to have known about before going. 2) I felt that because he had initiated it, he invited me to go with him to a place that was practically his territory (property of a school club he, not I, was a member of), he should have at least offered to pay the fee. Being a feminist, and one who's constantly called out on less-than-feminist behavior, accused of not being a "real" feminist or being a "bad feminist," I didn't ask him to pay lest I risk sounding like a hypocrite. It wasn't a sexist move on his part, but it was a dick move, and one that I'm sure a lot of guys make in their attempts at more egalitarian dating dynamics. But guys, don't do this.

If two people agree to go somewhere in a "what should we do tonight" conversation, who pays for what is a little more up in the air. It can be decided based on who paid last and who has more disposable income at that moment, among other things - it's reasonable to have a dynamic where the person with more money, regardless of gender, pays more than the other. I've been in relationships where I paid more (almost all the time) because I had more money than he did, it just made more sense.

If you feel that you're paying more than the other and you want to make things a little more equal - guys, pay attention - sit the person down and have a conversation about it. Maturely. Without getting mad or making accusations. Before you go out on another date. Do not call the person out while on a date, get grouchy about having to pay, or murmur some hostile, passive-aggressive comment that's only going to bring down the evening for the both of you. This isn't something that should turn into a public argument.

In short, if you want gender equality in the relationship, you need to take gender out of the equation when deciding who pays.

The Politics of Holding Doors

A lot of people don't really understand why I don't usually like it when guys hold the door for me. They think I'm being overly sensitive, that they're just being nice. I know that, most of the time, they're only following gender roles.

Let's get this whole thing straightened out once and for all. Holding the door for someone who is right behind you is fine. That said, if I hold the door for the person behind me, I expect that person to go through the goddamn door. I can't stand it when the person behind me happens to me a man, and he just gets all nervous and insists I go through first while he holds the door for me. I have to wonder, is it really that emasculating to let a woman hold a door for you?

I also hate when a guy rushes ahead of me to get the door, just so he can be a gentleman. Sorry, but it's not polite to treat me like some frail being who can't push a door open by herself (it's one thing if I'm carrying a fuckton of luggage or something, but this usually happens when I'm completely unburdened).

Finally, I get annoyed when a guy stops to hold the door for me even though I'm still 50 fucking feet away from the door. Great, now I feel like I have to hurry up, or I'll feel guilty for taking up so much of his time. Really, I don't need that much kindness, go ahead with your day, seriously, I can handle the damn door myself.

Let's examine the gender dynamic, shall we? Guys rarely hold the door for other guys, women rarely do it for other women, and most men shudder at the very idea of letting a woman hold a door for them. Door holding is almost always a gesture done by men for women, and it sets up a power dynamic. Holding a door for a woman does not give her power, but rather puts her in a subordinate position where she's being taken care of; the guy is doing the muscle work.

If a guy is just trying to be nice, that's great, and that's usually only the case when he happens to get there first, I'm right behind him, and he lets me get the second door if there is one. If he's just trying to "be the man" in the situation, or prove his manhood, I get a little pissed off.

Power in Numbers

I live in an apartment with three bedrooms: two singles and one double. I live in a single, as does one girl I vaguely knew before move-in, and the double is occupied by two girls who are very good friends.

The girls in the double are the ones in power, even though they're only 50% of the people living in the suite. They determine the level of cleanliness me and the other girl are expected to live by. They rearranged the common room furniture after moving in, and then re-arranged it this semester. The common room is full of their belongings.

This is not new for me. In fact, almost every set of roommates I had new each other well before moving in, and because they were so close and lived in the same room, they made the decisions, and often took over the common areas of the apartment, usually without consulting the odd girl out.

I've seen this power dynamic other places as well, like on the sidewalk. When people walk in a group, they're less likely to make room for anyone trying to get past them. When girls are mean, they're usually mean in groups, often swarming an individual as their attack method. To put it simply: people have more power in groups than they do alone.

Not a ground-breaking discovery, I know. But considering this principle, it's no surprise that the second wave feminist movement grew out of women getting together in groups and talking. Women gain power when they work together.

The problem is, we don't. Sure, girls have friendships and sisterhoods. Problem is, there's a lot of fighting between girls and between groups, even sororities compete for members, bids to pair up with fraternities for events, and even general prestige - not to mention countless games between Greek houses. Girls are in constant competition with each other, and they learn this from an early age when they watch Disney movies where a female villain tries to screw over a pretty girl to get the attention of a man. Many girls may understand that this is wrong at first, but that virtue may go out the door when girls realize that they need to do just that.

And we live in a competitive society as it is. Kids compete in sports and spelling bees, teenage girls compete for homecoming queen and prom queen (traditions my school thankfully got rid of), and teenagers of both genders compete for grades, scholarships, spots on teams and roles in plays, and finally college admissions. And the competition never stops. Ever.

So if both genders compete all through life, why do girls seem more competitive against each other than guys, and why are they more likely to compete against other girls than guys? Is it that they don't think they're strong enough, or smart enough, or good enough to win against guys, or do they avoid it out of fear of intimidating guys, thus turning them off? After all, even modern relationship advice warns women against being too intimidating. A guy needs to feel manly, and masculinity involves being dominant - the best.

So if being dominant and being the best is so important to men, why aren't they the more competitive gender? Maybe it's because men are more confident than women. Men's self-esteem isn't eroded nearly as constantly by the media as women's self-esteem, and men typically have outlets for their competition such as sports and video games. Where do women compete? Women do play sports and video games as well, but competitions that really test which women are "better" are things like beauty pageants and ____ queen competitions (homecoming queen, spring fling queen, prom queen, carnival queen, etc.). And let's not forget that cheerleading, one of the few sports where women need to look good while they compete, is the most widely accepted sport for women in this country.

Remember, beauty pageants were created as a way to remind women of their "priorities" in the wake of them getting the right to vote.

Too many women and girls make comments, either directly or to their peers, about other women. Typically, those comments insult the woman in question's appearance, figure, fashion choices, makeup, complexion, hair, etc. - or they insult her for being a bitch (unfeminine) or call her a slut (immoral). When girl is laughed at by her female peers in the classroom, it's not because she was necessarily wrong, but that she dared to try being smart instead of merely pretty - the mocking is even worse when the girl in question had the gall to speak with authority instead of uptalk and sprinkle her speech with "like," "um," and "you know?"

Many people blame the patriarchy for all this. I'm not sure whether men decided to do this intentionally, but it certainly benefits them to have girls fighting each other all the time. The infighting means less solidarity, less power, and less awareness of the gender inequality that still remains.