Chivalry vs Equality
- Astrology Houses
- Chart Interpretation
- Chinese Horoscopes
- Moon Signs
- Relationships & Astrology
- Zodiac Cusps
- Current Events
- UFOs & Aliens
- Education & School
- Fashion & Beauty
- Food & Drink
- Green Living & The Environment
- Home Improvements & DIY
- Personality Types
- Workplace & Career
- The Arts
- Science & Technology
|So girls and guys which one would you prefer?|
I was talking to a guy friend about this recently. He was a buying a drink from some random girl at a bar and afterwards I asked him why, and he said "because its the right thing to do" I was very confused. The woman can afford to be out in the bar so she can afford to buy her own drinks! I assume she had a job which paid for her fancy hair extensions, manicured nails and designer shoes, so why should he have to buy her a drink?
Back in the olden days when women stayed at home and didnt work and were unable to make their own money then I understand why the man was supposed to take the girl out and pay for her meals and drinks, since he was going to be the one finacially supporting her once they were married while she kept the home and looked after the children.
But in this age where woman are working just as much as men and in some cases earn more than their partner why should the guy be paying for everything?
I choose equality everytime (partly because chivalry is just about dead lol), I would support my partner if he was going through hard times and out of work and I would expect him to do the same for me. I pay for my fare share of meals, and nights out. Yes it would be nice to be a lady of leisure, but I enjoy having my own money. My mum always bought me up with the teachings that you should "never let yourself be financially dependent on a man as if you ever need to get out of the relationship you are screwed" and I stick to that advice. So just wondering what you guys thoughts are?
|Buying a drink for a woman have not met before is not common chivalry I think. It may seem right to him but normally an action like that would imply that the man's intentions swim deeper than chivalry.|
|Chivalry doesn't mean buying everything for her.|
Chivalry means courage, loyalty, honor, and service... and no it is not dead
I took a female friend out for lunch the other week (just friends). We each paid our own way but I held open every door we came to, I pulled out her chair, etc. When you type things like this it seems odd but it doesn't seem out of place at the time. It's part of who I am. That's the thing with chivalry, it's about who you are. I even walk closest to the street no matter who I am with.
I do not buy drinks for girls at the bar, I see no reason to. I'm actually against the idea of doing it. It feels like "will you talk to me if I buy you a drink" and that is... well, weak. Plus, what if I buy her a drink and she's a weirdo? Would he still say it's the "right thing to do" to sit and keep talking if he wasn't interested? Just go talk to people. They'll either like you or they won't.
Too many people try to act different to impress someone. What the guy you described did was not chivalry, it was trying to buy approval.
I'd actually say that chivalry leads to equality. Don't do good things because you expect a certain result. Do it because it's good or helps someone else... and do it for everyone. I hold doors for strangers too.
|Omg...not even close for me. Chivalry 100000%. |
I honestly find that chivalry makes me feel much more powerful than 'equality' ever could. In fact, I'll take it a step further and say it empowers both myself and my significant other. Its a win-win situation. So equality can kiss my ass!
|I think BOTH are equally important. And both should be given in moderation. |
Chivarly is still important b/c even though times are changing, women still like to get the sense that a man is ok with being the provider. And women nowadays still like getting that sense just like women back then did.
It may sound silly, but men & women back then believed that there were subtle ways men could immediately show a woman his sense of what it means to provide. And men showed this by doing the little things like paying for dinners, opening doors, etc. Now obviously, women these days are alot smarter & more hip to the game, so we now know that just b/c a man buys us something it doesn't mean shxt! There are plenty of "pretenders." Nowadays, there's really no real way to know/prove a man is a solid provider unless you live with him and/or put him in certain financial situations.
Equality is important too, b/c it's just as important to a man to know that JUST IN CASE, she can hold her own too. Women may hate men that can't provide for them, well guess what? Men hate women who expect them to do it all even if they too are capable. Relationships shouldn't be all about 1 person/side doing more than the other just to prove a point. When 2 people love eachother, they should both give & receive equally. Same goes with laundry, cooking and/or raising the children. BOTH people should equally contribute.
Plus men like to be spoiled too. Whereas a woman sees a man paying for her drink (or anything) as her way of knowing he's a provider, men see a woman occassionally paying for his things as her being sweet/self-less enough to actually do something for HIM for once! That kind of stuff really matters to men. They want/need gifts & to be spoiled sometimes too.
I think couples should alternate. 1 night the man pays for the entire date; the other night the woman picks up the tab. That way, the friendship/relationship is already starting off on balanced/equal terms =)
|The same goes for wedding rings. Idk about now, but back in the day a man giving a woman an engagement ring was a symbol to the bride's/fiance's family that he could provide/protect their daughter. Technically, it's just a freakin' ring & nowadays anybody can buy anybody a ring, BUT back then engagement rings spoke volumes about the men. That is another reason why men often had to get permission from his fiance's family to marry her. |
This is how I see chivalry in terms of a man paying for a woman. Technically, a man can spend millions on you & not give a flying damn about you BUT the symbolism though is that if a man pays for a woman, that he can provide for her long-term persay the relationship were to progress to marriage.
Buying a drink for me isn't necessarily what I consider chivarly, b/c nowadays people are crazy! Instead of thinking "Awww how sweet!" I'd probably be paranoid & worried to see if he spiked/put something in my drink! And depending on the circumstances, I might even question why he'd buy a drink for me, a complete stranger, considering I didn't ask for it or haven't yet spoken a word to him.
Posted by libra sun
This... is being responsible. Not chivalrous.
Real chivalry equals to respect for the woman, which gives a greater hand to them for equality (in a different sense). The guy pays in a gesture of appreciation to the lady who was willing to spend time with him, etc.
Acts of chivalry, too, allows a guy to "feel like a man". A smart woman would allow a man to be chivalrous. To not allow him to do so will hurt his manly pride. Oh, she knows very well that she can live without these things... but, really, a woman should always feel like a woman.
Oh, of course there's fake chivalry, where there are impure, hidden motives behind the acts. There is then close to no respect for the woman, which is another matter.
In conclusion? Chivalry and equality comes together.
|"never let yourself be financially dependent on a man as if you ever need to get out of the relationship you are screwed" and I stick to that advice"|
How can this be compared to a man buying a woman a drink? It doesn't make her dependent on him at all, its just the way it goes.
I don't understand why women are so against men behaving like men. There is nothing wrong with a man buying you a drink, paying for your meal if he takes you out, etc. Its not to mean you aren't independent, just that you're a lady and he is a man.
I would be completely turned off by a man who wanted me to pay for dinner on a date. And yes, if I am at a bar and a man and I begin talking, there is nothing wrong with him buying me a drink.
This feminism stuff has gone to the heads of too many women. What does all this even have to do with equality?
Posted by MsPisces.
But here's my thing. I agree that a woman isn't any less of a woman and/or independent if she allows a man to pay her way, BUT I don't think it's fair to insinuate that a man isn't a "man" simply b/c he won't pay for her. Some men have their reasons for why they don't pay for certain women & usually those reasons are actually very valid reasons.
If a man can provide for HIMSELF, he is a man. Whether or not someone period (male or female) can provide for themselves paints the best picture of what they can do for someone else.
But it'd be unfair of me to say that a man isn't being "the man" simply b/c he refuses to provide entirely for me. I mean I agree with the men on this one. Ladies love to claim full independence but yet they get short-term memory loss the minute the bill/tab comes.
If a man wouldn't pay for my drink, I wouldn't consider him any less of a man. If a man doesn't pay for/entertain my expensive shopping tastes, he's no less of a man. Now if I lived with my man & yet he never helped out with the bills and/or if he always got ghost the minute the bills are due, THAT'd be a different story.
Idk, I just think the code for which women consider men "A real man" is a bit shallow too. It's about 2 people who BOTH have it together/independent who just so happen to not mind giving to the other person out of love/companionship. Technically, a man doesn't owe a woman anything. And the women who can provide for themselves never have a problem with that. It's usually the women who want to sit at home & be trophy wives & let the man do everything that usually are quick to call out definitions of what a "real man" is. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but hey it's true. Alot of the women who are only independent PART-TIME are always trying to measure a man's "manhood"/worth based on what he will/won't buy her
|When I'm trying to measure a man's worth in the "provider" department, it's not about me. I could care less what he is/isn't buy for me. Hell, a man can spend millions on a woman he doesn't give 2 shxts about.|
As with anything, all people like to know that when they are giving something, they will get credit for it vs. simply giving w/o any effort or feelings being behind it.
If you'll notice, alot of the men who don't pay for women usually only don't pay for CERTAIN women. They may not splurge on the women they don't take seriously and/or see themselves with long-term, b/c if they did, they'd be fools to invest in someone they already know 1. Won't last much longer & 2. Wouldn't invest in them.
Alot of men actually don't mind paying, & from what I've been told, it's just that they'd prefer to show their "providing" side to the women they feel actually matter/count. Can you really blaim them for that? I can't blaim a man for not buying the drink or dress for the woman he just met. Most people's 1st priority when they meet someone new is to see if that person is even what they're looking for & as with anything, men are human beings too; they don't go out of their way to show everything they're worth to a woman they're not even sure is worth it yet. And if you'll notice, when men actually do find the women they feel are "worth it," they won't mind paying for everything and/or atleast most of it.
Men aren't stupid, they know that alot of women nowadays think they're entitled to what's in someone else's wallet even if they've technically done nothing to earn it. Men know that women use them sometimes simply for a free meal. Some women only bring out that "Men should pay for everything/manhood" shxt when they want a man to entertain their expensive tastes, b/c they secretely don't want to foot the bill. And if you think about it, that's a mindset that's deprived from selfishness.
As a woman, I don't mind cooking, cleaning, raising the kids, etc. Ya know, the things that society says "women" should do. BUT I'd be 10Xs more willing to do those things for a man who doesn't make me feel like he's entitled to it. I'd be more willing to a man who doesn't make me feel that cooking is my job/obligation, b/c that takes all the fun out of it. I will cook for my man simply b/c I enjoy doing so & not b/c he'll think I'm less of a woman if I don't
Posted by MsPisces.
It wasnt being compared they are two seperate points which was why they were not writen together.
To me gender equality should have no influence on our use of common courtesy. I think everyone should be chivilrous towards eachother. Is it nice when a guy wants to take you out? of course it is, but I also feel nice when I take a guy out. If a guy feels less of a man because he is having his drink paid for or a woman feels he is less of a man because he didnt pay for her drink then that is their issue. I earned more than twice as much as my ex, so why should he be the one who paid for all the dates?
I am not a damsel in a tower or a fair maiden, I do not need a night in shining armour, do I want respect and loyalty? of course I do, as thats the way I treat others.
I especially agree with Librasids point about holding doors open, I do it for everyone, if i was on a date with a guy and he held it open for me than let it swing in the guy behind me's face then I would not be impressed lol.
Also I agree with the comments about FAKE chivalry. It is not chivalry if you are only doing it to get a girl to drop her pants!
Posted by CappyyLuv30
|I hear you Krys, but I think you're over complicating things.|
Atleast for me, I have no hidden agendas, nor am I selfish, looking for a meal ticket, etc. I do fairly well for myself. Perhaps I'm old school, but I just believe that if a man is courting a woman, he should pick up the bill on dates. That's how it has always been in my family, as well. If I go out to dinner with one of my brothers,an uncle, one of my male cousins, etc....they will pick up the tab. Its just the way it is. Of course if a man can't afford it, that's a different story, but then...I probably wouldn't be dating a man who couldn't afford dinner either, so.
Eh. Different strokes for different folks. I'm not expecting to go on shopping sprees and all that other stuff. Of course, if he wants to take me shopping thats great too At the end of the day though, there are certain things men do just as there are certain things women do. If you take me out on a date and split the bill in half, I won't be dating you again. It's just tacky to ask a woman out on a date and then go dutch.
|This is a hard question.|
In a perfect world, I want both.
I'm selfish, I suppose.
But what is wrong with having both?