For the Love of Men

by Liz Plank

  Let’s just say it went from skinny jeans to knocking down people’s teeth and throats pretty quickly. For John, chivalry wasn’t personal; it was political. And it was clearly not a topic John felt on the fence about. It felt like a conduit for another larger conversation about masculinity being redefined. He clearly was holding on to a definition of manhood that his father probably subscribed to and older generations of other men held on to as well. For John, the proliferation of what he called “beta males” signaled much more than a threat to courtship and dating; it presented an attack on the family. Judging by how heated he was about the topic, this evidently was hitting a nerve that went beyond just paying for dinner:

  It’s the respect thing of “she is with me.” I love her and I respect her and I want her to be protected. […] I believe that a child needs a mom and a dad. You need the compassionate mother figure the child runs to, but you also need a disciplinarian, the father figure, to raise that child.

  When I asked him what he would do when the modern world couldn’t guarantee these rigid and more traditional roles, the ideological system he spoke so highly of started to fall apart. I asked him what would happen if he lost his job or got injured or if he had to become a stay-at-home dad. For the first time in our conversation he went a bit quiet. “The way I was raised, no, I could never be a stay-at-home father. I’d have to go out and work. I can’t fathom the idea of a woman supporting me. It’s just I want to take care of her; that’s how it should be.” He chalked it up to a fear of being “reliant on somebody else” and him not being able to fathom the idea of not “bringing anything to the table.” It made me sad to think that John didn’t think he could bring something valuable to the table as a man in a relationship unless it was money.

  My conversation with Tomi and her friends crystallized a pretty clear double standard: that while we’re comfortable with women existing outside of the bounds of femininity, we’re not comfortable with men existing beyond the bounds of masculinity. “I think alpha women need an alpha male, because I know personally if you’re not, if you’re a beta, I will walk all over you,” Tomi explained. “Not because I want to, but because that’s what happens. I need someone that’s a little stronger than me; otherwise they can’t handle me. I’m sure it’s your same experience,” Tomi said as she looked to her friend Laura, who was nodding her head vigorously.

  “When I get off [work], I’m still an alpha female, but I want to be able to feel like I’m actually taken care of, and that if for some reason I can’t defend myself, he’s going to be able to take care of me,” Laura said.

  I found it interesting that Tom and Laura could dip in and out of the gendered ideals about their gender but didn’t appear to think that the men were entitled to the same luxury. It’s almost as if men needed to remain ultra-entrenched in masculine norms so that it was okay for the women to transgress the normal bounds of femininity and be assertive and dominant in their daily lives. To my surprise, two women who said they subscribed to traditional gender norms called themselves alpha, which is the opposite of a term traditionally associated with femininity. Interestingly, being a beta male was an insult for men, but being an alpha female wasn’t for women. They both talked about getting their own paychecks, being assertive and strong, a clash with at least what’s considered traditional ideals of femininity, and yet when they talked about men there was no flexibility for their gender roles, no room for error.

  They seemed to feel less concerned with how their changing roles were perceived and more worried about how these changes could impact men. In fact, the two women seemed more worried about how men felt about changing gender dynamics rather than how they felt about it. Tomi said she was the one who often paid because she was wealthier than many of her peers, but she was worried about how the men would handle that. “It’s emasculating for a man. I feel like it gets to a point where it’s emasculating for a man if a woman pays all the time,” Tomi said.

  It’s at that moment that I realized why chivalry annoyed me. Although it’s presented as something that men do for women, it’s really something men do for themselves. Why would John insist on doing something that a woman didn’t want him to do if it were really all about her? John didn’t express anger that women were able to open doors; he expressed anger that he couldn’t do it for them. It wasn’t about women not being allowed to be strong; it was about him not being able to show them that he was. In other words, the moral panic about chivalry “being dead” wasn’t about women being too empowered; it was about men feeling like they were giving up an important part of their identity, perhaps the only part of their identity that they felt they had left. It was a sense of: If men can’t open doors for women anymore, what do they do with their hands? While it’s interesting to have these conversations and vital to address the shifting identities of men, if we abandoned the old rules, if we let go of men’s obligation to open doors and pay the checks, perhaps we could have a more interesting conversation about coming up with other ways for men to be men and show respect to women.

  While I was speaking with Tomi and her friends, I felt personally conflicted. Although I disagreed with the premise of chivalry, the truth was that I actively participated in this culture by letting men pay for dates, gifts and trips. Hell, a part of me even came to expect it—just like them. In fact, I had developed a steady pattern of dating men who went above and beyond in the chivalry department. One guy I was in love with sent me an intricate s’mores-making machine (yes, this exists) after our second date because I had mentioned in passing that I love marshmallows. One particular boyfriend would send me giant cookie cakes with romantic messages, enormous edible arrangements and ridiculously large flower bouquets at my office. I thought these grand gestures were expressions of love and maybe he did, too, largely because that’s how our culture classifies this kind of behavior. People’s reactions would also form my own perception and opinion about his romantic gestures. Women would walk by my desk and smile, but I could tell it was laced with envy. These same women would express confusion if I didn’t place the large bouquet on my desk because I was uncomfortable with the attention it was attracting.

  It took me a while, but I came to realize the reason why this particular partner’s grand gestures bothered me was because they weren’t ways to draw attention to me; they were ways to draw attention to himself. It was a way to exert control inside the relationship and to impact how he was perceived by others. It took me some time to figure this out. For the longest time, I blamed myself for feeling uncomfortable, and not being appreciative, failing to realize that the problem was not me. When I asserted myself and kindly asked him to stop sending lavish packages to my office, he kept doing it. This summed up the ultimate paradox of chivalry: If the act really was for me, why did he do something I specifically said I didn’t like? When he continued to send things to my office, all I could think about was that scene in Friends, where Ross shows up at Rachel’s new job when she’s working late with a picnic and a loud electric pepper grinder when what she needs is to be left alone so she can meet her deadline and not get fired. When Rachel asks Ross to leave, he gets upset at her for not accepting his gifts, failing to realize she didn’t ask for them in the first place. Just because someone wants to do something for you does not mean that you have to accept it. It’s simple, but because of deeply entrenched gender norms it took me thirty years to figure it out. Of course grand gestures can be romantic, beautiful and absolutely perfect for the person on the receiving end of them, regardless of gender. We should all do things for our partners to show them that we love them. But ideally, both partners should be giving and receiving and gender shouldn’t be dictating your role in the relationship; the people who are in the relationship should.

  When I realized this, I cut chivalry out cold turkey. I learned the most about chivalry when I stopped participating in it. It wasn’t until after going on a self-imposed chivalry cleanse that I really started seeing the ways it was setting up my relationships wi
th men to fail or at least unnecessarily struggle. I couldn’t see its effects because I knew nothing else and it was ingrained in my own perceptions about relationships between men and women. I approached every relationship moving forward by splitting everything as equally as possible. It certainly made some men uncomfortable, especially at first. They would always say they were appreciative, but I could tell it made them uneasy because suddenly they were giving up a form of control. Ultimately, though, it freed up a power dynamic that I hadn’t even known was there all along. Because I was expected to accept all these gifts, I was also expected to accept everything else. It made me more reluctant to ask for what I needed and made me less assertive in the relationships. It made some situations more uncomfortable because we weren’t falling back on familiar gender dynamics, but ultimately the result was a healthier relationship between two equal partners undefined by roles and rules that someone else had made up. It also felt good to release the men I was dating from the financial pressure of providing and paying for everything. It was only when I quit chivalry that I realized how unfair it was to men and how much I had bought into the idea of a gendered stereotype for men when I was so against them for women.

  I wasn’t the only one on the abandoning-chivalry gravy train. We are witnessing a tidal change where women are giving less importance to old chivalrous rituals. Only 17 percent of women now expect the guy to pay on the first date. Even several men I spoke to were rethinking the relationship and participation in chivalry. Michael Barnes said that coming to terms with the lies about masculinity changed his outlook on it. Growing up in the South, he felt a pressure to perform being a gentleman, but he realized that this implied doing things for one gender rather than all genders. “I make sure to not do things solely for women, such as opening doors, offering to buy drinks, giving hugs, et cetera,” he explained. “For me, degendering my generosity was a way to honor a fundamental aspect of myself and a way of balancing how I treat people. I consciously felt a need to have it be clear in my public interactions that I didn’t just do these things for women, but that I did them for people, regardless of gender or other aspects of identity, because this is just what I do.” He wanted to remove the intrinsic transactional aspect and instead approach every relationship from a place of equality and generosity. “I didn’t want my actions to be construed as just being connected solely to heterosexual desire or attempting to get something in return for being a nice guy,” he said. “Women might think that I’m being a certain way because I’m expecting something in return or that I have notions of women needing to be taken care of or provided for. This also helps to redefine my relationships with men and model better/wider definitions of masculinity and platonic intimacy.” When Michael decided to rethink his approach to romance and chivalry, he didn’t just notice an improvement in his relationships with women but also with men because he found himself treating everyone with more respect regardless of their gender.

  Of course, some chivalry is just actually courtesy. Opening doors for people, offering to help them with their bags and giving special gifts are lovely acts of kindness that I want to see more of, not less. But if a man is nervous about whether what he’s doing is patronizing or polite, just think of one simple rule: if you wouldn’t do it to a man, don’t do it to a woman. Modern chivalry is not about what you do; it’s about why you do it. More importantly, when you are attempting to perform traditional symbols of chivalry, intention matters more than the gesture. It’s crucial for men to at least reflect about why they’re opening doors for women. If you’re opening the door to be nice because a woman is carrying a bunch of bags (and because women still get burdened with domestic labor that largely goes unpaid), then you get ten points. If you’re opening the door for her because she’s the weaker gender, rethink that. In fact, the only rule you need to live by is that if you open doors for women, you need to open doors for men, too. Think about how great your biceps will look! If you’re only doing it for one gender, you’re probably doing it for the wrong reasons. You can be as chivalrous as you want, as long as you’re applying the same rules for everyone. Being polite can never backfire. Why does intention matter? Because intention informs actions and the belief that underlies even a perceived “good” action can in fact perpetuate harmful stereotypes that make all genders worse off.

  I know you’re thinking, How could a “good” action have any “bad” consequences?

  There’s a phenomenon called benevolent sexism, and there’s a likelihood you’ve participated in it before. I have a master’s degree in gender studies and heck, I do it all the time. Benevolent sexism is sort of like the Macarena: you don’t remember when you learned it, but for some reason you’re really good at it. Benevolent sexism is the grand equalizer. While women are less likely to participate in hostile sexism, when it comes to benevolent sexism, the gap pretty much disappears. Just like breathing, we all do it.

  Benevolent sexism is when someone advances a favorable attitude toward women, but it’s actually rooted in sexism. In the world of dating it shows up when a man orders for a woman, refuses to ever let her pay, insists on walking on the side nearer the street, must lead when they walk in a crowded place, et cetera. This may seem normal, perhaps even justified, but the reason is never rooted in equality. The logic is rooted in an inequality that women require protection from men, but the result appears to be preferential treatment for women. Benevolent sexism is like misogyny with a wink. It may seem inoffensive, but it replenishes the well of sexism every time we do it.

  DON’T BUY INTO THE BS BARGAIN (THE BENEVOLENT SEXISM BARGAIN)

  Even once you have her, once you’re in the relationship and are exclusive, the tension we explored in dating doesn’t go away. Benevolent sexism is bad for men because it makes the women they’re in relationships with less happy. One study from the University of Auckland in New Zealand found that women who hold benevolent sexist views had lower marital satisfaction. When women think they need to be “protected” or “cherished” (can you spot the world leader whose favorite playbook this is from?), it increases their likelihood to view any type of conflict with their male partner as contradicting that worldview. It makes sense. If you expect your partner to treat you like a princess, any disagreement or criticism (which is normal in any healthy relationship) is perceived as uncalled for. Benevolent sexism enforces a belief system that’s just not realistic. Study coauthor Matthew Hammond has said that “expectations built from ideas in society about what men and women ‘ought’ to do will be hard for reality to match.” In fact, subscribing to conventional norms means that any deviation from that can feel destabilizing. It also proposes a bargain that’s impossible for both parties to adhere to. It imposes a rigid structure where women invest in the relationship more (put their needs second, perhaps stay at home or forgo a career) and where men are expected to deliver outside the home to make women feel “protected” when, as we all know, life is not always that simple. Men get laid off, men get injured and the benevolent sexism complex doesn’t make space for real life. Another researcher who has examined this phenomenon, Pelin Gul from Iowa State University, has said that “as researchers, we’re not looking to give relationship advice, but understanding the detrimental and beneficial aspects of men’s benevolent sexism could help women and men have more satisfying relationships.”

  Now it’s important to note that the research shows that men in BS relationships reported being happier in their relationships. The increase in conflicts in their relationships wasn’t enough to make them miserable. Because they’re getting the good end of the bargain (ultimately the BS model reinforces their dominance), they report being pretty satisfied. But the happiness a man might get from benevolent sexism is sort of like the happiness people experience when they eat a lot of cake or get a lot of likes on a selfie. It’s impermanent. Can happiness be truly sustainable if it depends on fixed roles that could change (and that according to most structural economic indicators are changing)? What happens when t
he roles that the men are expected to take in the relationship aren’t available? What happens when “the man of the house” loses his job? What happens if he gets sick? What happens when a thing called life happens and when he is no longer available because of external factors that are out of his control?

  Despite the data showing that traditional chivalry and benevolent sexism aren’t leading to healthy heterosexual relationships, there’s a panic about preserving these traditional gender roles. Because our culture is invested in the myth of a gender war, a fixed system where women’s and men’s interests are in opposition rather than in concert with each other, it creates a tendency for pundits and even so-called thought leaders to blame women’s problems on men and vice versa, failing to see that perhaps the root of both women’s and men’s problems could be the same ill: unvarying and unwavering patriarchal gender roles.

  Instead of giving up our obsession with distinct gender roles, there’s a tendency to further entrench ourselves in them. This insistence on preserving the past is led by many people, like contrarians Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. But Suzanne Venker, the niece of anti-feminist conservative lightning rod Phyllis Schlafly, has also been particularly vocal on the issue of relationships between men and women. Venker’s a writer responsible for extremely subtle headlines such as “Chivalry Is Dead Because Women Killed It” and “Men Called. They Want Their Balls Back.” Without any visible supporting data, she argues that young men are not settling down because the opposite sex’s rise has “undermined [men’s] ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family.” She writes that “men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families—it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”