This week's edition of my school's newspaper, the Huntington News, had a column that seriously pissed me off. The piece, entitled Trick or Tramp, decried the tendency of young women to wear slutty costumes, and did so in a very judgmental manner. The author insisted that wearing a skimpy, store-bought costume was a waste of money and dignity, and encouraged readers to get off the stripper pole and go the creative, homemade route.
Now, let's get one thing straight. I'm not a fan of Halloween costume options for young women either. The majority of costumes are supposed to be sexy, and the ones that don't go the sexy route are crazy expensive. I don't like that women feel pressured to be sexy on Halloween either just to fit in. I did like that the author posed some more creative and clever options, though honestly I've seen better suggestions in Reddit.
However, the author ultimately pissed me off by saying that women shouldn't choose sexy costumes, period, and that she had harsh, judgmental words for women who did. There's nothing wrong with showing skin on Halloween if someone wants to do so. There's also nothing wrong with opting for a store-bought costume if you're so inclined. Let's face it, not everyone has the time and mental energy to put a unique costume together. Yes, it's cheaper, but it also requires a lot of thought during a time when many people are bogged down with papers and midterm exams, and it also takes time to go out to various stores looking for the necessary pieces of the costume. Not everyone can just reach into a vast closet and put together a costume. I commend people who are able to pull off something creative and funny, but I don't judge people who settle for a trip to iParty two days before the Halloween party.
That said, because some people do resort to store-bought costumes, it's a downright shame that all costume options for women are skimpy. Growing up and browsing the teen costumes, I remember growing increasingly frustrated as my mom vetoed every costume I liked because she thought they were too slutty. Even when I fell in love with a gothic ballerina costume (though I was dismayed that the costume had a tiny tutu rather than a full tulle skirt), my mom didn't want me wearing it to school. So yes, I've worn Halloween costumes that showed a little more thigh than necessary, but I don't think that warrants judgment from a self-important university columnist.
The answer to the trend of sexualization during Halloween isn't to call women who wear sexy costumes "tramps," or do hold up the option of quirky homemade or put together as the better option. Rather, the remedy is to encourage young women to choose whatever option is best for them, and to frame either choice as valid in its own right. Another remedy is to encourage designers to come up with women's costumes that are actually scary, or funny, or powerful, and not just sexy.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Evil Slutopia: Cosmo's Guy Guru Doesn't Understand Consent
(this isn't my work, I just really wanted to share it)
Evil Slutopia: Cosmo's Guy Guru Doesn't Understand Consent: There's a regular column in Cosmo called Ask Him Anything that features sex and relationship advice from "guy guru" Ky Henderson. We're generally not fans of Mr. Henderson's advice (or 99% of the other advice that appears in Cosmo), but one answer that he gave in the November issue really set us off.
(click the link to read more)
Evil Slutopia: Cosmo's Guy Guru Doesn't Understand Consent: There's a regular column in Cosmo called Ask Him Anything that features sex and relationship advice from "guy guru" Ky Henderson. We're generally not fans of Mr. Henderson's advice (or 99% of the other advice that appears in Cosmo), but one answer that he gave in the November issue really set us off.
(click the link to read more)
The "Women As Victims" Assumption
One big criticism I hear about feminism, especially from the men in my life, is they perceive feminism to be painting women as victims of society. To them, it looks like feminism degrades women by assuming that women as a whole are weak-minded, weak-willed individuals who cannot take care of themselves or hold their own against what society throws at them, and therefore they need to be protected and given extra support.
These men probably know strong women, and thus assume that all women are strong. The women in their lives either live up to people's expectations, seemingly taking it in stride and making it look effortless - OR they manage to stand up to society and telling it to fuck off. Perhaps these men are able to resist all the pressures and expectations society exerts on them, or are even unaware that these pressures even exist, and they can't understand why some women can't do the same, thus perceiving women who cannot hold their own against the bullshit expectations society has for them as weak, and exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself.
Feminists don't assume women are weak. We don't assume that all women are strong either - expecting every woman to be Superwoman and "do it all" is counter productive, and only makes women who fall short of that expectation feel like crap. Unrealistic expectations for any group of people - whether the expectation is to be unerringly polite, to be stick-thin, or to get straight A's and excel academically - is unhealthy to that group. Rather, feminism believes women are human. Thus, not only do we believe women should have basic human rights at an institutional level, but that they should be treated like humans at the societal level as well. As humans, women have weaknesses, they aren't perfect or infallible.
Feminists not only acknowledge that women are human, but that the societal pressures put on them are too much for any human to be expected to bear, and that those pressures shouldn't exist in the first place - at least not to the extent to which they do exist.
These men probably know strong women, and thus assume that all women are strong. The women in their lives either live up to people's expectations, seemingly taking it in stride and making it look effortless - OR they manage to stand up to society and telling it to fuck off. Perhaps these men are able to resist all the pressures and expectations society exerts on them, or are even unaware that these pressures even exist, and they can't understand why some women can't do the same, thus perceiving women who cannot hold their own against the bullshit expectations society has for them as weak, and exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself.
Feminists don't assume women are weak. We don't assume that all women are strong either - expecting every woman to be Superwoman and "do it all" is counter productive, and only makes women who fall short of that expectation feel like crap. Unrealistic expectations for any group of people - whether the expectation is to be unerringly polite, to be stick-thin, or to get straight A's and excel academically - is unhealthy to that group. Rather, feminism believes women are human. Thus, not only do we believe women should have basic human rights at an institutional level, but that they should be treated like humans at the societal level as well. As humans, women have weaknesses, they aren't perfect or infallible.
Feminists not only acknowledge that women are human, but that the societal pressures put on them are too much for any human to be expected to bear, and that those pressures shouldn't exist in the first place - at least not to the extent to which they do exist.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Why Women Don't Run for Office
On last week's episode of Modern Family, Claire Dunfy - a stay at home mom - decides to run for local office. This isn't so much driven by personal ambition, she just hates the guy in office and wants to replace him. Anyway, at one point in the show she realizes that she has too much to do at home, and that her family falls apart when she has to step out for a few hours to fill out some forms at town hall (because her husband doesn't know how to handle the tasks she normally takes on), and she decides she can't run for office after all. Someone finally talks her into it, but it's fairly accepted that she won't actually win.
Now I realize the show is fiction, but I think Claire's struggle is one many women looking to run for office relate to. Despite how far we've come, many families rely on mom to run the family - make breakfast, pack the lunches, drive the kids to school, make the costumes for the school play, drive the kids to soccer practice and ballet class, make dinner, do many of the household chores, the list goes on and on. Even women with jobs are still expected to work the second shift (taking on the housework after a full day working outside the home). Being a mother is still a tasking, thankless job, and many people don't even realize how much they rely on mom until they have to somehow make do without her for a day or so. That said, I think it's common for women to feel like they can't run for office because they have too much to do at home, and they can't just up and leave their families to fend for themselves.
Another, related reason - one big reason keeping women from running for federal office, is the feeling that a wife and mother cannot uproot her family. Holding office in the executive branch requires one to live in Washington, and it also requires one to travel all over the country during the campaign. If a woman were to become president, her whole family would need to move to Washington with her, and I think many women feel like they cannot make the family move like that. What about the kids? What about her husband's job? Certainly, men have to ask themselves this too before moving for work, but such a move is generally acceptable for men because they are assumed to be the family's primary breadwinner, whereas his wife's occupation - if she has one - is often seen as secondary income, a job she holds just to make some extra money, rather than a career she's invested in. I know I often try to consider a career I can do anywhere, so that when I get married we can go where my husband needs to be and I can do what I want to do there. Sometimes I date a guy who wants to live and work in a specific region and I think "if we get married, I can't be president, because I have to be where he is and I can't expect him to move for me."
Maybe that's just me, but I can't help but feel like there are plenty of other women with the same dilemma. I'm sure many women don't feel like they have the right to move their families, or even their husbands.
Then there's the economic reason keeping women from running for office. A campaign costs money, and public service doesn't pay well at all. You need money to run and many women, single or married, can't afford it due to the still-present wage gap. Married women, again, don't feel like they have the right to that much of the family budget. That's for the husband and children. It's for family vacations, dance classes, Christmas presents, and of course dad's business trips.
In short, running for office is a selfish thing. It requires money and resources; it requires one's family to support you in the campaign, make television and live appearances, even go on tour in some cases; and running for and holding public office is a huge time commitment many women don't feel like they can make because of all the responsibilities they have at home. While men are still encouraged to go after their career ambitions and that it's okay for their family to be a close second to work, women still feel pressure to put their wants and needs last, behind those of their husband and children - they still feel that they exist to serve others before themselves. This may not be true for all women, and of course we see that many women run for office either despite these sociological obstacles, or because they are a non-issue for them - these issues are true for enough women that they need to be examined and addressed.
Now I realize the show is fiction, but I think Claire's struggle is one many women looking to run for office relate to. Despite how far we've come, many families rely on mom to run the family - make breakfast, pack the lunches, drive the kids to school, make the costumes for the school play, drive the kids to soccer practice and ballet class, make dinner, do many of the household chores, the list goes on and on. Even women with jobs are still expected to work the second shift (taking on the housework after a full day working outside the home). Being a mother is still a tasking, thankless job, and many people don't even realize how much they rely on mom until they have to somehow make do without her for a day or so. That said, I think it's common for women to feel like they can't run for office because they have too much to do at home, and they can't just up and leave their families to fend for themselves.
Another, related reason - one big reason keeping women from running for federal office, is the feeling that a wife and mother cannot uproot her family. Holding office in the executive branch requires one to live in Washington, and it also requires one to travel all over the country during the campaign. If a woman were to become president, her whole family would need to move to Washington with her, and I think many women feel like they cannot make the family move like that. What about the kids? What about her husband's job? Certainly, men have to ask themselves this too before moving for work, but such a move is generally acceptable for men because they are assumed to be the family's primary breadwinner, whereas his wife's occupation - if she has one - is often seen as secondary income, a job she holds just to make some extra money, rather than a career she's invested in. I know I often try to consider a career I can do anywhere, so that when I get married we can go where my husband needs to be and I can do what I want to do there. Sometimes I date a guy who wants to live and work in a specific region and I think "if we get married, I can't be president, because I have to be where he is and I can't expect him to move for me."
Maybe that's just me, but I can't help but feel like there are plenty of other women with the same dilemma. I'm sure many women don't feel like they have the right to move their families, or even their husbands.
Then there's the economic reason keeping women from running for office. A campaign costs money, and public service doesn't pay well at all. You need money to run and many women, single or married, can't afford it due to the still-present wage gap. Married women, again, don't feel like they have the right to that much of the family budget. That's for the husband and children. It's for family vacations, dance classes, Christmas presents, and of course dad's business trips.
In short, running for office is a selfish thing. It requires money and resources; it requires one's family to support you in the campaign, make television and live appearances, even go on tour in some cases; and running for and holding public office is a huge time commitment many women don't feel like they can make because of all the responsibilities they have at home. While men are still encouraged to go after their career ambitions and that it's okay for their family to be a close second to work, women still feel pressure to put their wants and needs last, behind those of their husband and children - they still feel that they exist to serve others before themselves. This may not be true for all women, and of course we see that many women run for office either despite these sociological obstacles, or because they are a non-issue for them - these issues are true for enough women that they need to be examined and addressed.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Still Frustrated
I wrote about this before, albeit briefly, but it's still frustrating me to no end so I shall write about it some more!
I'm tired of being called a "bad feminist," or a "fake feminist," because of the decisions I make and the insecurities I feel as a woman and as a human being. This time people criticized me for planning to wear a sexy outfit for Halloween. First I said I'm going to be sexy jellyfish, which I am, it's a plan I've had for months - to me it's more funny, almost satirical, than a strict adherence to a patriarchal norm - but not everyone saw it that way. They really didn't like it when I even suggested an even "sluttier" Halloween costume, something I wasn't really planning on doing but I thought the idea, the play on words, was pretty funny. No no, I'm a bad feminist for being sexy on Halloween.
It's not as though I'm doing this as any sort of real statement. I'm just having fun. I don't think that everything I do has to be some big feminist action, I don't have to "stick it to the man" every second of every day, it would be exhausting as hell to even try. Sometimes I do wear high heels, I wear sexy panties, I wear pushup bras, I wear makeup, I go through extensive skincare routines trying to make my face look more human and less like the surface of some undiscovered planet. I don't do all of those things all the time, but I don't make a point of keeping such "tools of oppression" at arm's length. There are some things I won't touch, like Cosmo - I might pick up a friend's copy if a cover story really interests me or I'm just really bored, but I can't remember the last time I bought that magazine, or one like it, with the intention of actually reading it instead of cutting it up to make a collage. There are also things I avoided, TV shows like Mad Men and Big Love, then I caved and got addicted to them, knowing that they weren't entirely feminist TV shows but loving them anyway.
I could list a whole lot of things I do, and things I have done, that don't qualify as "feminist" actions. And to me, that's okay. I don't kid myself into thinking that those are empowered choices, because I know they're not, but I don't think they make me the anti-feminist or a "bad feminist" either. Again, not everything I do has to be a statement. I pick my battles, I guess.
The problem is that society has this view of what a feminist is, what a feminist believes (and this assumption goes beyond a belief in gender equality), what a feminist is supposed to love and hate, what a feminist wears, what a feminist eats, how a feminist dates, how a feminist feels about herself - and when a woman who declares herself to be a feminist strays outside the boundaries of that stereotype, she runs the risk of being attacked as a poser or a hypocrite, mostly by non-feminists who know little about what real feminism is. Now, there are some women who really are "fake feminists" like Sarah Palin, but I don't think that choosing to show my knees and cleavage on Halloween (le gasp!) puts me on the same level as her.
Now, when this happens, when I am attacked like that, I know a "good feminist" would defend herself, and take the time to argue and debate and tell people to back the fuck off when all else fails, but I don't always have the energy or the time - I'm a college student, people, my days consist of class, club meetings, homework, errands, trying to stay on top of the housework, and usually falling short in one or more area because I'M NOT SUPERWOMAN; I'm running on chemicals I know are bad for me and will probably make me sick (nothing illegal), but I don't have time to get enough sleep, so excuse me if engaging in a heated, intelligent debate on gender issues isn't always at the top of my priority list - a lot of the time I just let it go. Walk away. Go do something productive, or relaxing if that person really steamed my clams. It's not always worth it. I have one friend in particular whom I've been butting heads with for years over the topic of feminism, and I know he's probably not going to come around anytime soon. Sometimes it really is like talking to a wall, you're not going to get through to everyone.
I think this really links back to what I wrote earlier about us being in a complacent lull or a regressive period rather than a wave. The difference here is legitimacy - First and Second Wave Feminism may not have had sweeping public support, but they did have legitimacy in the public eye as a real social movement. Right now, we don't. We're seen as a joke, an unnecessary "movement" that has served its purpose, a bunch of angry women who complain about everything but aren't getting anything done. And you can direct your criticisms about feminism at me all you want, but I can't rev up the feminist movement single-handedly, or at all really. I'm doing some feminist work on my campus but I don't really have the time or resources to fix things beyond that right now. Someone actually accused me of not caring enough about a particular abortion-related bill because it passed and I wasn't able to stop it. The bill wasn't even passed on my state, it was passed in middle America, what did he want me to do, fly over there and storm the legislature? By myself? I am one very tiny human being with little influence, what do people expect me to do? Excuse me if I haven't changed the world at 22, to do so would be a remarkable, if not completely unrealistic feat. I want to change things for the better, that's why I'm going to school, but give me some time and stop jumping on me when I fail to live up to crazy expectations about what I, as a feminist, am supposed to be doing.
I got a little off topic. This was more of a rant than an intelligent, well-thought out and researched post, I'll admit that. I'm just very, very pissed off these days.
I'm tired of being called a "bad feminist," or a "fake feminist," because of the decisions I make and the insecurities I feel as a woman and as a human being. This time people criticized me for planning to wear a sexy outfit for Halloween. First I said I'm going to be sexy jellyfish, which I am, it's a plan I've had for months - to me it's more funny, almost satirical, than a strict adherence to a patriarchal norm - but not everyone saw it that way. They really didn't like it when I even suggested an even "sluttier" Halloween costume, something I wasn't really planning on doing but I thought the idea, the play on words, was pretty funny. No no, I'm a bad feminist for being sexy on Halloween.
It's not as though I'm doing this as any sort of real statement. I'm just having fun. I don't think that everything I do has to be some big feminist action, I don't have to "stick it to the man" every second of every day, it would be exhausting as hell to even try. Sometimes I do wear high heels, I wear sexy panties, I wear pushup bras, I wear makeup, I go through extensive skincare routines trying to make my face look more human and less like the surface of some undiscovered planet. I don't do all of those things all the time, but I don't make a point of keeping such "tools of oppression" at arm's length. There are some things I won't touch, like Cosmo - I might pick up a friend's copy if a cover story really interests me or I'm just really bored, but I can't remember the last time I bought that magazine, or one like it, with the intention of actually reading it instead of cutting it up to make a collage. There are also things I avoided, TV shows like Mad Men and Big Love, then I caved and got addicted to them, knowing that they weren't entirely feminist TV shows but loving them anyway.
I could list a whole lot of things I do, and things I have done, that don't qualify as "feminist" actions. And to me, that's okay. I don't kid myself into thinking that those are empowered choices, because I know they're not, but I don't think they make me the anti-feminist or a "bad feminist" either. Again, not everything I do has to be a statement. I pick my battles, I guess.
The problem is that society has this view of what a feminist is, what a feminist believes (and this assumption goes beyond a belief in gender equality), what a feminist is supposed to love and hate, what a feminist wears, what a feminist eats, how a feminist dates, how a feminist feels about herself - and when a woman who declares herself to be a feminist strays outside the boundaries of that stereotype, she runs the risk of being attacked as a poser or a hypocrite, mostly by non-feminists who know little about what real feminism is. Now, there are some women who really are "fake feminists" like Sarah Palin, but I don't think that choosing to show my knees and cleavage on Halloween (le gasp!) puts me on the same level as her.
Now, when this happens, when I am attacked like that, I know a "good feminist" would defend herself, and take the time to argue and debate and tell people to back the fuck off when all else fails, but I don't always have the energy or the time - I'm a college student, people, my days consist of class, club meetings, homework, errands, trying to stay on top of the housework, and usually falling short in one or more area because I'M NOT SUPERWOMAN; I'm running on chemicals I know are bad for me and will probably make me sick (nothing illegal), but I don't have time to get enough sleep, so excuse me if engaging in a heated, intelligent debate on gender issues isn't always at the top of my priority list - a lot of the time I just let it go. Walk away. Go do something productive, or relaxing if that person really steamed my clams. It's not always worth it. I have one friend in particular whom I've been butting heads with for years over the topic of feminism, and I know he's probably not going to come around anytime soon. Sometimes it really is like talking to a wall, you're not going to get through to everyone.
I think this really links back to what I wrote earlier about us being in a complacent lull or a regressive period rather than a wave. The difference here is legitimacy - First and Second Wave Feminism may not have had sweeping public support, but they did have legitimacy in the public eye as a real social movement. Right now, we don't. We're seen as a joke, an unnecessary "movement" that has served its purpose, a bunch of angry women who complain about everything but aren't getting anything done. And you can direct your criticisms about feminism at me all you want, but I can't rev up the feminist movement single-handedly, or at all really. I'm doing some feminist work on my campus but I don't really have the time or resources to fix things beyond that right now. Someone actually accused me of not caring enough about a particular abortion-related bill because it passed and I wasn't able to stop it. The bill wasn't even passed on my state, it was passed in middle America, what did he want me to do, fly over there and storm the legislature? By myself? I am one very tiny human being with little influence, what do people expect me to do? Excuse me if I haven't changed the world at 22, to do so would be a remarkable, if not completely unrealistic feat. I want to change things for the better, that's why I'm going to school, but give me some time and stop jumping on me when I fail to live up to crazy expectations about what I, as a feminist, am supposed to be doing.
I got a little off topic. This was more of a rant than an intelligent, well-thought out and researched post, I'll admit that. I'm just very, very pissed off these days.
Monday, October 3, 2011
I'm a Feminist, and I Like Monogamy
That's right, I like to be monogamous. With men, no less! I've seen lots of feminists rail against it, and I don't get it. I see nothing anti-feminist about only being with one man. I don't like the idea of dating multiple people, really. While it works for some people, it doesn't feel right to me.
I can understand not wanting monogamy to be the only acceptable choice for men or women. I can understand not wanting marriage to be compulsory, and I certainly wish people would stop nagging unmarried women to hurry up and get a ring on their finger. But while I don't think women who choose to have casual sex, or opt for polyamory and open relationships should be judged as sluts, I want monogamy to remain an acceptable choice as well. I get irritated when people put down women who want monogamy as either old fashioned, prudish, or worse, just plain selfish.
And there's nothing wrong with choosing to be old fashioned. It may not be the most empowered or feminist choice out there, but it's not inherently a bad one either as long as it's an informed one. Being monogamous doesn't have to mean being submissive or letting someone own you, and the decision to be traditional and monogamous isn't always one made out of obligation (doing something because you believe it's how all women should act).
Feminists judging a woman for wanting a monogamous relationship is just as bad as people judging a woman for choosing polyamory.
I can understand not wanting monogamy to be the only acceptable choice for men or women. I can understand not wanting marriage to be compulsory, and I certainly wish people would stop nagging unmarried women to hurry up and get a ring on their finger. But while I don't think women who choose to have casual sex, or opt for polyamory and open relationships should be judged as sluts, I want monogamy to remain an acceptable choice as well. I get irritated when people put down women who want monogamy as either old fashioned, prudish, or worse, just plain selfish.
And there's nothing wrong with choosing to be old fashioned. It may not be the most empowered or feminist choice out there, but it's not inherently a bad one either as long as it's an informed one. Being monogamous doesn't have to mean being submissive or letting someone own you, and the decision to be traditional and monogamous isn't always one made out of obligation (doing something because you believe it's how all women should act).
Feminists judging a woman for wanting a monogamous relationship is just as bad as people judging a woman for choosing polyamory.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)