Killing Chivalry

When my current boyfriend and I first started dating, I remember very distinctly the first time he tried to pull out a chair for me. I just assumed he was pulling that chair out for himself, and so I walked to the other side of the table and sat down. He looked at me, a little surprised and said, "Oh, I was pulling this out for you..." I looked at him, a little surprised myself and said, "Oh, sorry, I didn't even realize that you might do that. Thanks, but I don't need you to pull out a chair for me." It was a fairly awkward moment, and one that I probably brought on myself by breaking my cardinal rule with him (always mention the f-word, feminism, on your first date) but it's a moment that I will never forget. Even though a year has passed, and I am still dating that boy, I am not sure he really understands why I don't want him to pull out chairs for me. He was raised to be a "gentleman." The only problem with that is then I would have to be a "lady."

Now I'm not one to scowl and grumble at a man when he opens a door for me, but honestly, I would only view that gesture as polite were it not based on my gender. Chivalry is not something I desire, because it promotes sexism. As a woman who desires equality, I have to acknowledge that means kissing chivalry goodbye. And I for one am happy to do it.

We cannot expect to be viewed as equals economically, politically, and socially, only to expect doors opened for us and chairs pulled out for us. We're setting up our own double standard that keeps us unequal. It comes down to this: we need to choose between being viewed as princesses and being viewed as people. I know it can feel nice to be treated like a princess because it makes you feel special, it makes you feel important. But honestly, is that as fulfilling as being viewed as a person? Maybe you get a brief satisfaction from being placed on a pedestal. The problem with being put on a pedestal is you can't come down. You can't expect special treatment but then want a man to view you as his equal.

There is a difference between admiration and respect. I would much rather my boyfriend respect me than admire me. I would much rather have my views acknowledged as equal opinion than to have every date paid for. When you are placing expectations on a man because he is a man, you are acknowledging that the two of you have different roles in a relationship. That's not to say that we need to force equality, counting out every dime that a man spends and making sure we match it. Honestly, it's about give and take. I just think it's a better plan to either switch off or just have whoever has more money pay than to expect a man to always pick up the check.

When I hear a woman complain that a man didn't open the door, or that a man didn't offer to pay for the date, I have to wonder how these women expect equality in all spheres of life if they don't even want equality in dating. We have to kill chivalry if we want equality to stay alive.

Here are some brief ways to kill chivalry:

1. Open a door for a man. I often do this and I get odd looks, but most of them will at least mutter a thank you and walk through the door. This establishes that as a woman I am fully capable of being as polite as a man is, and that I do not need special treatment.
2. Offer to pay for dates, or split the cost. I think splitting can get sort of tricky and it's easier to just switch off. Honestly, my boyfriend pays for most dates, but I pay for some and we don't go out very often, because we're both poor college students. When I have money I always try to offer, and I always pay if I was the one who suggested the date. I don't want him thinking he needs to provide for me.
3. Pull out a chair for a man. I did this once, it didn't go over very well. But I got a nice laugh out of it and I will fondly remember the look on that boy's face for the rest of my life.

So go out and break up some gender roles. Punch stereotypes in the face. We are not damsels in distress and we don't need special treatment. If our actions command equal treatment, then chivalry will slowly give way to something so much better and more fulfilling: true respect.

The Ruined Woman

Have you ever heard the story of the "ruined man?" You know, the man who had sex before marriage and then had nothing to offer his wife on their wedding night? Yeah...I haven't heard that story either. Because it isn't being told. Why then is the story of the "ruined woman" being shoved down young women's throats? Why are they being told that if they have sex they will have nothing left? Especially when that is simply not true at all. It is a myth being told by society in order to maintain the sexual double standard in our society. I recently read The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti, which covers this topic in great detail. Valenti suggests that the purity myth in our society is a major problem that is harmful to women.

The idea of virginity in our society is both illogical and dangerous for three major reasons in my mind. First, it perpetuates a very degrading double standard of sexuality among men and women. Second, it is perpetuated by abstinence only education groups that promote misinforming our youth. Third, virginity in it of itself is an idea which has no true meaning.

There is a horrible double standard on virginity among the genders. Men who are not virgins are not perceived as anything negative. Women, however, are either virgins or whores. The "purity myth" (Valenti's term, coined to describe the theory that women must maintain virginity or cannot be pure) harms women by making them believe that there is no place for responsible sexual expression in women, and that it is their job to keep sexual activity out of a relationship. I for one am fed up with the old girls-keep-your-legs-crossed-but-boys-will-be-boys idea. Women are every bit as sexual as men, and both are responsible for the choice to have sex or to abstain. And should women choose to engage in responsible, reasonable sexual expression, they should not have to suffer unfair and outdated stereotypes about their lifestyle. A woman is not "ruined" if she has sex. What about rape victims? The purity myth damages victims of forced sex. After all, do they have nothing to offer, even though they never had the choice about giving it away? And the "ruined woman" bit is cruel to women in general. That idea leads to the thought that a woman's only purpose on this earth is to give her virginity to her husband. Who cares if she has a wonderful, sparkling personality? If she is the most loyal woman on earth? If she would make the most perfect partner and mother? If she has had sex, all of that is invalid, because she clearly has nothing left to offer, according to the purity myth. It doesn't matter if she's had sex with one person or one hundred people, if she is not a virgin, she is somehow considered impure.

Abstinence-only education thrives off of this purity myth. Valenti tracked down several examples of the way they demonstrate the idea of sex making a girl impure. Among these were "Miss Tape," a piece of tape stuck on the arm of a boy, then ripped off (the break-up), leaving Miss Tape dirty and unable to stick to anything. So not only does sex make you dirty, but it also leave you unable to form another bond with a person. If you're a woman, of course; Mr. Tape doesn't exist. I was the unfortunate victim of an abstinence-only education group myself. The way they demonstrated it was showing a gift box with chocolate in it. They unwrapped the box and had all the boys stick their finger in and mash the chocolate. By the time it was around the room, that chocolate wasn't very appealing. Nobody would ever want that chocolate. So girls, better to not let the boys stick their fingers in your chocolate. You want your husband to be able to enjoy an untainted gift. It's sad that young women are being compared to tape and chocolate, and that they are being told that they are worthless if they choose to have sex. But that's not all that abstinence-only education groups do. They not only lie about something you can't prove--purity--but they also lie about facts. Though they are technically required to tell the truth, there is no system of checking on this, and Valenti found countless instances of such groups flat out lying about contraception. Some even told girls that birth control pills will kill them. I, personally, remember distinctly being told that condoms were only seventy percent effective against pregnancy (in actuality, they are 97 percent) and were more or less ineffective against STD's, particularly HIV (completely untrue). My school didn't even mention birth control pills or alternatives.

So abstinence only education is basically trying to frighten teenagers into not having sex with lies. But it doesn't work. Studies have shown that teenagers are no less likely to have sex (Though they state otherwise. And of course we should believe them, seeing how responsible they are with statistics about birth control). But of course, they are less likely to use protection. Why would you bother if you were taught that it doesn't work? I don't see why abstinence-only education is even realistically accepted at all. When the options are teach something about a topic or teach everything about a topic, why would you not want your children to learn more? Especially when it could protect them from STDs or unwanted pregnancy. But unfortunately, abstinence only education is thriving. And if it is going to thrive, fine, but we should at least implement a system to insure that our youth are not being lied to.

Lastly, the definition of virginity. What is it? There isn't one. Valenti struggled hard to find a medical professional who could provide her a real definition. She read articles, asked people....nothing. Because it means something different to everyone. The first time I went to the gynecologist, she asked me if I was sexually active. "No." I said. "You're a virgin?" She asked. "Um...yes..." I said. "Oh, like a full virgin?," She asked. "...what?" I answered. "Like a complete virgin?" Needless to say, that conversation went on for about ten minutes, because she wouldn't even tell me what she was asking. When does a person cease to be a virgin? Hymen? Well, obviously, the hymen is unrealistic as a basis, since it often gets stretched or even broken by itself over time and sometimes has to be surgically broken. Penetration? Penetration leaves out homosexuals, not to mention people who have engaged in oral sex. Any sexual activity? What does that even mean? Nobody can really pinpoint it. It's funny that we put so much emphasis on something which cannot even be defined.

In conclusion, the purity myth is extremely harmful to women for a number of reasons. And at the end of the day, purity doesn't really exist. Virginity doesn't really exist. And they are certainly not the only thing a woman is good for. Women and men are both sexual and should be allowed to make realistic, sexual choices. And everyone should read The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti.

Female Chauvinist Pigs

In Female Chauvinist Pigs, Ariel Levy attempts to dissect the reasoning behind the "raunch culture" that has swept our nation. Why do women take pole dancing classes, go to strip clubs, get bikini waxes, and walk around in skimpy clothing? Though I personally do not think those actions are harmful to women, I do agree that the reasoning behind such actions comes from insecurity more often than empowerment. According to Levy, that insecurity stems from a desire to be perceived as "like a man" instead of "like a woman." Modern women want to be free sexually, which is wonderful. However, many end up landing themselves in some pretty degrading acts, such as Girls Gone Wild, along the way, all under a guise of sexual empowerment. These women want to be able to do whatever they want just "like a man."

This is a problem for two major reasons. First, they are not behaving like men. Men are not flashing their naked bodies on camera, or drastically altering their bodies by getting implants, or taking classes on how to be a male stripper. They do not have to do those things to be perceived as sexy. Yet women somehow feel the need to do so. It is a double standard that women are imposing on themselves: they want to be sexy for men and they want to be like men. Where does that leave them? With their bare breasts all over television and still feeling unfulfilled because they haven't acheived the sense of freedom they desired.

The second reason why this is a problem is a point that I had not considered before reading Female Chauvanist Pigs. In striving to be "like a man," women are admitting that there is something wrong with being "like a woman." And it is there that she coins the phrase "female chauvanist pig." It describes women who lead Playboy and Girls Gone Wild, who admit that though they may contribute to degradation of women, they are living in a man's world and therefore must behave like a man to win. It describes women who flock to strip clubs with their male friends in order to be viewed as one of the guys. It describes women who identify themselves as "not like other women" to give themselves a greater feeling of empowerment. These women feel that if they play by men's rules and they act like men, they will come out on top. But what they don't realize is that by setting masculinity as the goal, they are contributing to women being viewed as inferior by nature. As Levy states, "it can be fun to feel exceptional, to be the loophole woman, to have a whole power thing, to be an honorary man. But if you are the exception that proves the rule, and the rule is that women are inferior, you haven't made any progress."

Levy's book made me realize that in a way, I have been a female chauvinist pig in my past. Before I openly admitted to myself and others that I was a feminist, I always wanted to be one of the guys. I have been told that I am a textbook case of penis envy. And it's true. Though I don't actually want to be a man, I have always been very jealous of men. If I was like a man, I would never be told that I should submit to another person's will. I would never be told that when I got married my husband would be my provider. I would never be viewed as timid, or gentle, and therefore not taken seriously. In my mind, men have the upper hand, so why would I not want to be like a man? But what I should have been focusing on then, what I do focus on now, is not trying to prove that I am more masculine than other women, but instead trying to prove that gender does not determine one's behavior. Instead of wanting to be like a man, I should be wanting to eliminate the view that being like a man is superior.

Some women think that they will only achieve equality by behaving like a man. But instead we should be moving towards everyone behaving like people. That is when we will achieve true equality.