Re: Re: Dating: sideline question

[Guest guest]

But if Chivalry isn't dead, then neither is feminine inferiority surely?

Chivalry dictates the man opens the door for the woman, allows the woman to go

first, proffers a hand when the going gets tough walking, paying all the

expenses on at least the first dates, etc etc etc.

But doesn't all that go contrary to women's demand for equality?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a sufficiently old fart of a fella who finds NOT doing

these things for a woman, a very difficult thing to 'correct'.

But then, these posts have the effect of making me ask WHY do we do these

things? Deep down, the answer has to be because a) it's THE thing to do, but

WHY is it the thing to do, because the woman IS inferior and DOES need this

extra help, but...............c) total rubbish, deep, deep down it is the male

chauvanist who gets a great kick, kudos out of being THE male who helps the

female.

AND, to balance things up, dare I suggest that the female, in accepting all this

chivalry, gets an equal kick out of BEING the weaker (wouldn't dare say

inferior) sex, whilst at the same time, banging the drum of equality in the work

place?

Or am I just being TOO honest with myself?

Fred

Re: Dating: sideline question

Alyce,

Interesting question, and about 5 years ago - I would've totally

jumped up and said, " Hear hear! "

But as stated earlier, I don't think Chivalry is dead. In

today's age where women are moving up in the corporate world and

making as much income, responsibility and positions the same (or

higher) to our male counterparts - it makes sense to believe women can

be independent and self-sufficient.

However - and this is only my personal opinion - for a guy to open the

door, to pick up the girl, pay for your drinks, offer to pay for the

bill naturally (and not wait for the girl to pick up the tab, as I've

experienced)... to be a gentleman speaks volumes. It is a disappearing

trait, just like thank you cards. I think it's one thing to expect a

man to pay (then that's just being cheap) in the beginning stages of

dating, but it's a nice gesture when he does: He cares, he's

self-sufficient, he wants to impress you.

Whatever happens later, the two of them can work out the roles in the

relationship. Just my semi-feminist thoughts.

Irene

>

> I am intrigued by the discussion on dating (especially the psychology of

> dwarfism), but one thing that was mentioned keeps sticking in my

head, and I

> would like to invite some younger women to explain it to this 70s-era

> feminist " I Am Woman Hear Me Roar " lady. Is there no contradiction

between

> wanting to be accepted as an independent, intelligent,

career-oriented woman

> and still having the guy pay for the date? Isn't the guy paying

something

> left over from the days when women usually didn't work, and hence

had little

> money of their own? I would be appreciative if the guy offered, but

I'd be

> insulted if he insisted.

>

> Alyce :-)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I hope that if Chivalry isn't dead, it is at least on its last legs! I

don't see how it can accomplish anything beyond maintaining stereotypes

about women needing to be taken care of.

That said, I quickly add that everyone needs to be taken care of sometimes.

I think an important part of a successful relationship is knowing when to

take care of your significant other and when to butt out. When I don't feel

well, I want to be properly sympathetic, ask if he can help, bring

me a drink or something like that . . . and then LEAVE ME ALONE. He, on the

other hand, wants to be fussed over a bit, which I (usually) do.

Holding doors open, etc.: it's just polite to hold a door for someone, big,

small, male, female, whatever. I appreciate anyone who holds a door open

for me, though it is very annoying when they act like they are desperate to

do so because they're sure I couldn't possibly open it myself. As for being

picked up, if I didn't know the guy, there's not a chance he'd pick me up.

I'd meet him somewhere public. After that, convenience rules - maybe it

would be more convenient for me to pick him up after work. Whatever works.

Adults living with parents: I think there are a variety of circumstances in

the life of an LP that could keep them at home longer than most people, so I

wouldn't immediately rule out such a person, but I hope that independence is

always the goal (for men and women). If not, yes, that would be a big

turnoff.

Who pays: I like the suggestion that the one who asked the other out pay -

and women are allowed to ask! I think straightening that out early on is a

good way to communicate respect and a clear understanding of what one is

purchasing. :-)

Like Aretha sang, R E S P E C T! I don't expect to be treated like a

princess because I'm female, but I do expect respect and courtesy.

Alyce :-)

On 10/18/07, FRED <mail@...> wrote:

>

> But if Chivalry isn't dead, then neither is feminine inferiority surely?

>

> Chivalry dictates the man opens the door for the woman, allows the woman

> to go first, proffers a hand when the going gets tough walking, paying all

> the expenses on at least the first dates, etc etc etc.

>

> But doesn't all that go contrary to women's demand for equality?

>

> Don't get me wrong. I'm a sufficiently old fart of a fella who finds NOT

> doing these things for a woman, a very difficult thing to 'correct'.

>

> But then, these posts have the effect of making me ask WHY do we do these

> things? Deep down, the answer has to be because a) it's THE thing to do, but

> WHY is it the thing to do, because the woman IS inferior and DOES need

> this extra help, but...............c) total rubbish, deep, deep down it is

> the male chauvanist who gets a great kick, kudos out of being THE male who

> helps the female.

>

> AND, to balance things up, dare I suggest that the female, in accepting

> all this chivalry, gets an equal kick out of BEING the weaker (wouldn't dare

> say inferior) sex, whilst at the same time, banging the drum of equality in

> the work place?

>

> Or am I just being TOO honest with myself?

>

> Fred

>

> Re: Dating: sideline question

>

> Alyce,

>

> Interesting question, and about 5 years ago - I would've totally

> jumped up and said, " Hear hear! "

>

> But as stated earlier, I don't think Chivalry is dead. In

> today's age where women are moving up in the corporate world and

> making as much income, responsibility and positions the same (or

> higher) to our male counterparts - it makes sense to believe women can

> be independent and self-sufficient.

>

> However - and this is only my personal opinion - for a guy to open the

> door, to pick up the girl, pay for your drinks, offer to pay for the

> bill naturally (and not wait for the girl to pick up the tab, as I've

> experienced)... to be a gentleman speaks volumes. It is a disappearing

> trait, just like thank you cards. I think it's one thing to expect a

> man to pay (then that's just being cheap) in the beginning stages of

> dating, but it's a nice gesture when he does: He cares, he's

> self-sufficient, he wants to impress you.

>

> Whatever happens later, the two of them can work out the roles in the

> relationship. Just my semi-feminist thoughts.

>

> Irene

>

>

> >

> > I am intrigued by the discussion on dating (especially the psychology of

> > dwarfism), but one thing that was mentioned keeps sticking in my

> head, and I

> > would like to invite some younger women to explain it to this 70s-era

> > feminist " I Am Woman Hear Me Roar " lady. Is there no contradiction

> between

> > wanting to be accepted as an independent, intelligent,

> career-oriented woman

> > and still having the guy pay for the date? Isn't the guy paying

> something

> > left over from the days when women usually didn't work, and hence

> had little

> > money of their own? I would be appreciative if the guy offered, but

> I'd be

> > insulted if he insisted.

> >

> > Alyce :-)

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Alyce, when yer fed up with , will yer marry me? I love your

philosophy:-)))))

Fred

Re: Re: Dating: sideline question

That said, I quickly add that everyone needs to be taken care of sometimes.

I think an important part of a successful relationship is knowing when to

take care of your significant other and when to butt out. When I don't feel

well, I want to be properly sympathetic, ask if he can help, bring

me a drink or something like that . . . and then LEAVE ME ALONE. He, on the

other hand, wants to be fussed over a bit, which I (usually) do.

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

Going off of Fred's post, maybe it is confusing for a

man today because women want to be and are equal and

liberated, yet some of us want the old fashionness.

So I could see where maybe it is confusing on what a

man's role in society is when it comes to women or

even just how to act on a date.

I can say that for me I want the old fashioness, I

want my date to pay for the dinner, to open doors, to

make the effort. Yes I can live on my own perfectly

fine lol, but I want the man to be my protector. I

still do take value in gender roles.

I've lived in a few households growing up and I've

lived with my grandparents since I was 13. They are

the Ozzy and Harriet, however unlike marriages of

today where the divorce rate is 50%, there " old

fashion " marriage works!

Maybe some marriages of the past were not PC, but my

goodness they lasted! With today's marriages are lot

seem to be a joke, obviously we've lost something

along the way through the decades.

My advice for men is to go out of their way, be old

fashion and if she has an issue with it then that can

be discussed. I'd rather have a guy overly try than

not make any effort.

-

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

My grandparents (both sets) had great marriages, but I don't think applying

the gender roles of their day will guarantee me a great marriage as well.

The world has changed drastically and I think it's unrealistic to expect

things to play out the way they did a generation or two ago. I think roles

have improved for both women and men: women are allowed to be independent,

and men are not expected to bear all the burdens alone. Yes, we have lost a

lot of stability along the way, but I don't think we can chalk that up 100%

to changing gender roles. And I can see a guy thinking, " Hm, she wants to

be treated as an equal, but she wants me to buy dinner . . . what's wrong

with this picture? " Again, courtesy is a wonderful thing, and " party

manners " should definitely come out (for both) on a first date, but I see no

future in a relationship that does not begin with equality.

Alyce :-)

On 10/18/07, irish_p_butter@... <irish_p_butter@...> wrote:

>

> Hi all,

>

> Going off of Fred's post, maybe it is confusing for a

> man today because women want to be and are equal and

> liberated, yet some of us want the old fashionness.

> So I could see where maybe it is confusing on what a

> man's role in society is when it comes to women or

> even just how to act on a date.

>

> I can say that for me I want the old fashioness, I

> want my date to pay for the dinner, to open doors, to

> make the effort. Yes I can live on my own perfectly

> fine lol, but I want the man to be my protector. I

> still do take value in gender roles.

>

> I've lived in a few households growing up and I've

> lived with my grandparents since I was 13. They are

> the Ozzy and Harriet, however unlike marriages of

> today where the divorce rate is 50%, there " old

> fashion " marriage works!

>

> Maybe some marriages of the past were not PC, but my

> goodness they lasted! With today's marriages are lot

> seem to be a joke, obviously we've lost something

> along the way through the decades.

>

> My advice for men is to go out of their way, be old

> fashion and if she has an issue with it then that can

> be discussed. I'd rather have a guy overly try than

> not make any effort.

>

> -

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

irish_p_butter@... wrote:

> Maybe some marriages of the past were not PC, but my

> goodness they lasted! With today's marriages are lot

> seem to be a joke, obviously we've lost something

> along the way through the decades.

I've been watching this conversation with some interest, and I had to

jump in here. I'm not so sure we've 'lost something' - I think that

sort of sentiment tends to whitewash the past and turn it into a sort of

Golden Era.

The divorce rate may be higher, but I don't think that's a measure of

how many of these marriages are 'failing'; rather, I think it reflects

the options that women (and yes, men too!) have to escape a bad

situation. In the past, a marriage that by any of today's standards

would be called a failed marriage - would have stayed together. If

there's a spectrum from " the love is gone " to things like " my spouse is

beating me " (and all the places in between), opinions may vary as to

where it's appropriate to call the marriage a failure and divorce; but

those same situations still happened in the past. The only real

difference is that it used to be far harder to escape unbearable

situations. (Which is not to say that the way we think of marriage

hasn't changed - I think it's pretty clear that it has changed. But I

don't think those changes are all for the worse.)

As far as gender roles go ... from a guy's perspective (and probably

from a girl's perspective, too), it can be confusing to try to live up

to the expectations of others - when do you stay with the old role?

When do you shift into the new one? In the end, I think the answer

there is communication and flexibility - just like everything else in a

relationship.

Ian

[Guest guest]

WOW if not all responses are great...

I myself technically make more money then my husband however he ends up year end

higher due to OT. Much higher. But it has never in my eyes mattered. He got

joked on by friends if they knew but all in fun, he honestly could care less.

Now after years of friendship, dating, marriage. He still opens the door to

wherever we end up. Yet rarely a car door since we have automatic locks. It is

a mix of chivalry and independence and I love it. He walks on the outside of

the sidewalk, but will ask I take out the trash sometimes. He does laundry and

I clean the pool. Go figure, some want it all, some want none, but if you find

the middle well... who's to say

Re: Dating: sideline question

Alyce,

Interesting question, and about 5 years ago - I would've totally

jumped up and said, " Hear hear! "

But as stated earlier, I don't think Chivalry is dead. In

today's age where women are moving up in the corporate world and

making as much income, responsibility and positions the same (or

higher) to our male counterparts - it makes sense to believe women can

be independent and self-sufficient.

However - and this is only my personal opinion - for a guy to open the

door, to pick up the girl, pay for your drinks, offer to pay for the

bill naturally (and not wait for the girl to pick up the tab, as I've

experienced) ... to be a gentleman speaks volumes. It is a disappearing

trait, just like thank you cards. I think it's one thing to expect a

man to pay (then that's just being cheap) in the beginning stages of

dating, but it's a nice gesture when he does: He cares, he's

self-sufficient, he wants to impress you.

Whatever happens later, the two of them can work out the roles in the

relationship. Just my semi-feminist thoughts.

Irene

>

> I am intrigued by the discussion on dating (especially the psychology of

> dwarfism), but one thing that was mentioned keeps sticking in my

head, and I

> would like to invite some younger women to explain it to this 70s-era

> feminist " I Am Woman Hear Me Roar " lady. Is there no contradiction

between

> wanting to be accepted as an independent, intelligent,

career-oriented woman

> and still having the guy pay for the date? Isn't the guy paying

something

> left over from the days when women usually didn't work, and hence

had little

> money of their own? I would be appreciative if the guy offered, but

I'd be

> insulted if he insisted.

>

> Alyce :-)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Now Ladies,

If you really want to impress or just freak a guy out. Just pay for it. Not

all the time but on one of the first dates. It happened to me a couple times

and I remember being very flattered and surprised. So please feel free to freak

me out. hint hint....hehe

Dean (still coughing smoke out of my lungs fron the fires)

Check out my photos at http://deanrogers.smugmug.com

Discount 1tQQBHCmAsttw in the promotion code

Re: Dating: sideline question

Awesome response, Kel. I totally would open the door too if it was an automatic

door on a

date.. but I'm just testing to see if the guy is a deadbeat or a cheapskate.

((haha) It would

totally be on middle ground after that.

Irene

>

> WOW if not all responses are great...

> I myself technically make more money then my husband however he ends up year

end

higher due to OT. Much higher. But it has never in my eyes mattered. He got

joked on by

friends if they knew but all in fun, he honestly could care less. Now after

years of friendship,

dating, marriage. He still opens the door to wherever we end up. Yet rarely a

car door since

we have automatic locks. It is a mix of chivalry and independence and I love it.

He walks on

the outside of the sidewalk, but will ask I take out the trash sometimes. He

does laundry and

I clean the pool. Go figure, some want it all, some want none, but if you find

the middle

well... who's to say

>

__________________________________________________