Gender stuff
This is from an article from The Sunday Times.
Etiquette and image consultant Teo Ser Lee, 42, feels that women who expect men to pay during dates and escort them home safely are nor being archaic, but simply being real.
"These are basic social graces," she says, adding that she expects her boyfriends to open car doors for her "even though it is faster to open them myself".
...The founder of dating agency Lunch Actually Violet Lim, 28, tells Lifestyle she has come across man female members who declined to go on a second date with a guy despite finding him witty and intelligent because he did not pay for her share.
"No matter how financially independent a woman is, ultimately, most would want to know that the guy is willing to provide for them should there be a need. Hence, seemingly small things like opening doors and paying during dates are tell-tale signs of their future to many women," she says.
Apart from the notion that such thinking reinforces a system of gender discrimination, as I have mentioned here previously, there is a serious flaw in the last paragraph quoted. For if those 'small things' that males do for females are indicative of commitment, care and concern for the relationship, then I question why it cannot be the females who do those very things, instead of the males. Why can it not be the female who opens the car door for the male, the female who offers to pay for the meal?
To the extent you find this counter-intuitive, gender discrimination will remain. There are no two ways about this. You cannot, on the one hand, expect it to be 'social grace' for males to pay for the meal, and on the other, deny that there are gender-related implications for doing so. To the extent you do not find this counter-intuitive, ie you find it logical and reasonable, there is still a problem because you rarely, if ever, see a female open a door for the male, be it a car door or any other doors. I believe it is a very rare occurence, too, that females offer to pay for the meal in a date. In this case can we accuse them of lacking social graces or unwilling to provide for the relationship?
Etiquette and image consultant Teo Ser Lee, 42, feels that women who expect men to pay during dates and escort them home safely are nor being archaic, but simply being real.
"These are basic social graces," she says, adding that she expects her boyfriends to open car doors for her "even though it is faster to open them myself".
...The founder of dating agency Lunch Actually Violet Lim, 28, tells Lifestyle she has come across man female members who declined to go on a second date with a guy despite finding him witty and intelligent because he did not pay for her share.
"No matter how financially independent a woman is, ultimately, most would want to know that the guy is willing to provide for them should there be a need. Hence, seemingly small things like opening doors and paying during dates are tell-tale signs of their future to many women," she says.
Apart from the notion that such thinking reinforces a system of gender discrimination, as I have mentioned here previously, there is a serious flaw in the last paragraph quoted. For if those 'small things' that males do for females are indicative of commitment, care and concern for the relationship, then I question why it cannot be the females who do those very things, instead of the males. Why can it not be the female who opens the car door for the male, the female who offers to pay for the meal?
To the extent you find this counter-intuitive, gender discrimination will remain. There are no two ways about this. You cannot, on the one hand, expect it to be 'social grace' for males to pay for the meal, and on the other, deny that there are gender-related implications for doing so. To the extent you do not find this counter-intuitive, ie you find it logical and reasonable, there is still a problem because you rarely, if ever, see a female open a door for the male, be it a car door or any other doors. I believe it is a very rare occurence, too, that females offer to pay for the meal in a date. In this case can we accuse them of lacking social graces or unwilling to provide for the relationship?
5 Comments:
Well I've long stopped reading TST. I simply find that they insult the intelligence of sensible people in their articles. Well done to them in making it sound as though every boyfriend should be chauffeur.
Hey Kenneth, do you actually believe that TST writes stuff (other than breaking news) that really reflect the truth of our society at large? :)
I know it can be hard to take a newspaper with a pinch of salt like one would a trashy magazine, but well, we learn when we toss out enough articles with disgust.
yt
Firstly, I think TST is more of tabloid, as compared to the normal Straits Times. I'm not sure why...Maybe they were just trying to attract attention and stir up controversy with this article?
That addressed, I would however like to say something of the article itself. The article interviewed actual people on the ground (females, one running a dating agency). Thus I won't criticise the article itself, for it is just reporting its observations and findings on its interviews. Personally, I do not know how reflective is this 'of our society at large'...I don't think they included a census.
But assuming this trend is true and running in our society, I would agree with SirWhale that it is reflective of the archaic mindset of males being the gentlemen and the females being the ladies. I think we are stuck somewhat in transit between pre-feminism and post-feminism. Career wise, our society has largely accepted that males and females can be equals. But socially, we are still conservative when it comes to gender eloquence and protocols.
Of course, this goes all the way back to the concept of romance and that kind of stuff, which I'm nowhere even close to being an amateur, thus I shall not address. But I would dare say if a female chooses a male for his eloquence, I do not think that is truly love, but marrying oneself rather. Marriage after all, is mutual, and in true love, I do think eloquence, whatever it is, goes both ways. As SirWhale once mentioned many years back: a gentleman is a patient wolf. Surely then, a lady is a willing sheep.
Aquila
Oh, I was writing this comment when I saw yours. Anyway yes, I agree with Aquila: I'm not finding fault with the article. In fact it was a fairly balanced one, just that I didn't quote the other perspectives and points made. I'm finding fault with what those people were saying.
Besides, isn't the truth of our society at large the occurence of males offering to pay for meals/movies on their dates instead of the other way around? Or that males push out the seat for his date to sit on? In fact I remember in a recent steamboat dinner how a male friend was expected to be 'gentlemanly' and exchange his seat, which was cooler, with a female's seat, which was hotter...Now, it may have been said in jest but I wonder if the converse would have been said had the male been the one seated on the hotter seat and the female on the cooler one...
Actually as an afterthought, I won't mind being a gentleman (in the enlightened sense of the word, ie. considerate and so on. I don't see how treating people free meals just cause they are of a different gender is considerate. Its just called getting fleeced) if there are ladies (likewise the enlightened sense of the word). In fact it need not be a lady per say. Being considerate comes without gender boundaries. I won't mind holding the door open for a male if I happen to be opening it.
An additional line for females who think males are not chivalrous or something like that nowadays, I don't think there are any more ladies than there are gentlemen today.
Aquila
Post a Comment
<< Home