"O aʻu o se fafine, ae e te totogia": e uiga i faʻamoemoega o le itupa ma le mea moni

The myth that feminists are militant against male chivalry and standard inter-gender games is often used as an argument that feminists are inadequate and out of touch with reality. That is why, they say, they dedicate their lives to fighting windmills, lawsuits against men who gave them coats, and growing hair on their legs. And the formula “feminists forbid” has already become a meme and a classic of anti-feminist rhetoric.

This argument, for all its primitiveness, is quite functional. Paying attention to minor details that disturb the public, it is easy to divert attention from the main thing. From what the feminist movement is fighting against. For example, from inequality, injustice, gender-based violence, reproductive violence and other problems that critics of feminism diligently do not want to notice.

Let’s, however, go back to our coat and restaurant bill and see how things really stand with chivalry, gender expectations and feminism. Do we have solitaire? What do feminists really think about this?

Stumbling account

The topic of who gets paid on a date is one of the hottest topics in any women’s discussion, feminist or not. And most women, regardless of their views, agree on one universal formula: “I am always ready to pay for myself, but I would like a man to do it.” This formula can vary from “I would love it” to “I won’t go on a second date if he doesn’t pay on the first,” but essentially remains the same.

Slightly more patriarchal-minded women usually declare their position proudly and openly. They believe that a man should pay, simply because he is a man and because it is an important part of the intersexual game, another unshakable rule of social interaction.

Women who tend to feminist views are usually a little embarrassed by their thoughts, feel some kind of internal contradiction and are afraid of counter indignation — “What do you want to eat and fish, and not get into the water?”. Look how mercantile — and give her equal rights, and pay the bills in the restaurant, she got a good job.

There is no contradiction here, however, for one simple reason. Regardless of what views a woman holds, our cruel reality is very far from a post-patriarchal utopia, where men and women are absolutely equal, have the same access to resources and enter into horizontal, not hierarchical relationships.

All of us, both men and women, are products of a completely different world. The society in which we live now can be called a transitional society. Women, on the one hand, have won the right to be full-fledged citizens, vote, work and lead an independent life, and on the other hand, they still bear all the additional burden that falls on the shoulders of a woman in a classical patriarchal society: reproductive labor, housekeeping care for the elderly, emotional work and beauty practices.

But at the same time, she must still be a good mother, a friendly and trouble-free wife, take care of the house, children, husband and older relatives, be beautiful, well-groomed and smiling. Round the clock, without lunches and days off. And without remuneration, simply because she «should». A man, on the other hand, can confine himself to work and reclining on the couch, and in the eyes of society he will already be a fine fellow, a good father, an excellent husband and earner.

“What do dates and bills have to do with it?” — you ask. And despite the fact that in the current conditions, any woman, feminist or not, knows for sure that a relationship with a man is likely to require a large investment of resources from her. Much more than from her partner. And in order for these relationships to be minimally beneficial to a woman, you need to obtain confirmation that a man is also ready to share resources, at least in such a symbolic form.

Another important point stemming from the same existing injustices. The average man has far more resources than the average woman. Men, according to statistics, receive higher salaries, they get more prestigious positions and, in general, it is easier for them to move up the career ladder and earn money. Men often do not share equal responsibility for children after divorce and are therefore also in a more privileged position.

In addition, in our non-utopian realities, a man who is not ready to pay for a woman he likes in a cafe is unlikely to turn out to be a principled supporter of equality, out of a sense of justice who wants to share absolutely all duties and expenses equally.

Unicorns theoretically exist, but in a cruel reality, we are most likely dealing with a completely patriarchal male who just wants to eat a fish and ride a horse. Save all your privileges and get rid of the last, even the most symbolic duties, along the way «taking revenge» on feminists for the fact that they even dare to talk about some kind of equal rights. It’s very convenient, after all: in fact, we won’t change anything, but from now on I don’t owe you anything at all, you yourself wanted this, right?

Wrong coat

And what about other manifestations of gallantry? They, too, feminists, it turns out, approve? But here everything is a little more complicated. On the one hand, any manifestation of caring on the part of a man, such as the paid bill described above, is another small confirmation that a man is, in principle, ready to invest in relationships, capable of caring and empathy, not to mention spiritual generosity. And this, of course, is good and pleasant — we are all people and love it when they do something good for us.

In addition, all these intersexual games are, in fact, a social ritual that we have become accustomed to since childhood. It was shown to us in films and described in books under the guise of «great love and passion.» It tickles the nerves pleasantly, it is part of flirting and courtship, the slow convergence of two strangers. And not the most unpleasant part, I must say.

But here, however, there are two pitfalls, from which, in fact, the legend that “feminists forbid coats” came from. The first stone — all these cute gestures of politeness are essentially relics from the time when a woman was considered a weak and stupid creature, almost a child who needs to be patronized and should not be taken seriously. And until now, in some gallant gestures, it is read: «I’m in charge here, I’ll take care of you from the master’s shoulder, my unreasonable doll.»

The second pitfall is that men often expect some kind of “payment” in response to their gestures of attention, often completely unequal. Most women are familiar with this situation — he took you to coffee, opened the car door in front of you, awkwardly threw a coat over his shoulders and for some reason persistently believes that by these actions he has already «paid» for consent to sex. That you have no right to refuse, you have already “accepted” all this, how can you? Unfortunately, such situations are not always harmless and can lead to very unpleasant consequences.

That is why the avoidance of gallantry is not a whim of rabid women, but a completely rational way of interacting with a far from equal reality. It’s easier to open the door yourself and pay for coffee than to explain to a stranger for two hours that you don’t want and won’t sleep with him, and at the same time feel like a mercantile bitch. It’s easier to put on your outer clothes and push your chair back yourself than to feel with your skin that you are being treated like an unreasonable little girl.

However, many of us feminists continue to play gender games with pleasure (and some caution) — partly enjoying them, partly considering them to be a completely legitimate way of existing in a reality that is very far from the post-patriarchal ideal.

I can guarantee that at this place someone will choke with indignation and exclaim: “Well, feminists want to fight only those parts of the patriarchy that are disadvantageous to them ?!” And this, perhaps, will be the most accurate definition of feminism.