My father opened the door for my mother. He sent her flowers and held her umbrella while he got wet. He was the type to order for her at a restaurant and push in her chair. There was a certain respect the two had for each other and a willingness for my mom (on occasions) to surrender the last say so to my dad.
Now don’t get me wrong, by no means am I an advocate to go back to the middle ages with the rights and treatment of women. However when it comes to chivalry, I would say I support the notion. My mom is one of the strongest willed women I know. She is extremely independent and
did whatever she wanted. But, there was something in the relationship where you could see my mother display a willingness to show that dad was in charge and she loved the role he took.
did whatever she wanted. But, there was something in the relationship where you could see my mother display a willingness to show that dad was in charge and she loved the role he took.
I’m a self declared hopeless romantic. Not chauvinistic or caveman like, but one who still holds values like my father with a willingness and strength to want to provide care for and protect my family. I come from a line of men who still treat a woman the way it’s supposed to be done. Yes guys, I’m the jerk who buys flowers, and remembers and celebrates every birthday and anniversary like it’s the last. To me, it’s become a lost art amongst men. For the past couple years it’s more common for the man to take the backseat to everything instead of “being a man” and stepping up to the plate. A lot of it is the evolution of our relationships and more strong minded women. Many women these days are career driven and view relying on a man in any situation as a weakness. So I ask, is it wrong for a man to enter a relationship with this mindset? Is it considered too old fashion or chauvinistic for a man to consider himself the provider, the protector, and the head of his household? Do women feel threatened by this thought or do they welcome the strength that this type of man possesses? Is it a lost art or a casualty of the evolution of women’s rights and political correct
ness?
ness? 
This is a pretty complex subject matter and question you pose. It needs a little unpacking. Your question deals with many subjects: chivalry, male/female gender roles, household economic/financial responsibility, male/female ego, mutual respect..etc. Acts of chivalry were depicted in fanciful stories told to ladies of the Court who were trapped within their social confines (which usually were not filled with joy and dance as movies depict) and needed a release. In reality, they were deemed as property and treated as such. Chivalrous gestures were nice, but they did not make up for the dehumanizing and objectification of the sex.
ReplyDeleteThe same can be said about gender relations of today when women continue to suffer from domestic abuse (both physically and verbally), objectification, and men continue to disparage their relationships through infidelity.
Acts of chivalry are nice, but only if the respect, love, and care for the relationship is present and regularly practiced. Assuming those and other basic relationship skills are working well in the relationship, acts of chivalry are positive because they can illustrate respect, concern, and awareness for the minutia of life and the relationship. Not getting her a gift that reminds her of something painful - or showing her you were listening when you bought that dress she casually mentioned 5 months ago are all acts of chivalry. Not because they are cliché, but because the man took the time to think about his wife/girlfriend at the most personal level of need. These acts should manifest themselves not out of honor, male dominance, or some archaic idea of male responsibility to the wife.
Moving on…Gender roles prior to the 60s were pretty steadfast and agreed upon. But we shouldn’t interpret the mere presence of these gender roles during the eras as accepted by both sexes and all families. Sometimes these roles worked and sometimes they didn’t. I would suggest that in the households where the traditional gender roles worked the husband and wife were able to create life purpose that co-existed with the gender role. Through whatever self-realization of their dreams and desires, they were able to find a fit. In the households where the roles did not fit and caused conflict and depression, the individual had desires that extended beyond what the gender role allowed.
the man should not have the chauvinistic attitude of “daddy knows best”. He should not impede the process for his wife to define her own purpose. Then they must mutually create the relationships roles based on the desires of both people. Forcing roles on people against their will is as detrimental as forcing sex to dominate.
Also, financial/economic dynamics have drastically changed since pre-feminist eras. More women are graduating from college. The last recession effected men more dramatically than woman (thus more men were left unemployed then women). Women are earning more than many of their husbands. Raising a family requires two incomes. Home purchases require two incomes in most cities…etc
The economic and academic reality is that woman are equal financial partners in a relationship and household. They may even be more intelligent. Sometimes they are even the primary financial partner. So, can a man take on the providing, protecting, and head of household when you need your wife as much (or more) than she needs you?...when she has the same ability or more to provide than you? Protecting doesn’t require a sword and ability to take a punch any more. Now we are protecting our families from financial, emotional, and social risks more so than physical danger.
Is it wrong to come into a relationship with the mindset of traditional male roles? It depends on the realities of your relationship and the needs of your significant other and yourself. This goes into a discussion of self-worth, ego, and how those need to be combined in a relationship to determine a healthy route for the relationship…but that is another discussion.
Ditto. What Richard said. For a man to be strong, a provider, and protective is great. A woman may be this too. What complicates a relationship is the shared decision making. Having one head of the household sure simplifies things, but this may be at the cost of the other persons realization of their full potential. In my marriage, working together with mutual respect and shared decision making power is challenging, but is also what we are proud of acheiving and modeling for our son and daughter.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous..you are right, shared decision making complicates relationships. But honestly, having to share anything complicates everything. Selfishness or dependence are much easier because either you only take responsibility for your desires or you give up responsibility.
ReplyDeleteHealthy relationships, regardless if it is romantic, platonic, or familial require awareness of others and willingness to act for the good of the relationship over the needs of the individual. So, it's fantastic you are modeling those skills to your children. Those are skills that will assist them not only in romantic relationships as adults, but in all relationships.
While in theory this all sounds great. In reality any relationship has "shared" responsibility. However, in certain situations, someone takes the lead role in decision making. Weither its finances, discipline of the children, or who gets to sleep on the couch. It is an unspoken "head" who makes those final decisions. Usually it is the person who is most comfortable in those situations, or who is most opinionated about those situations. Wether we want to accept it or not if we look deeply in our relationships these roles can clearly be seen.
ReplyDelete