As an incoming freshman at Binghamton University, it should come as no surprise that I was eagerly anticipating the exciting “extracurricular” adventures that I hoped (prayed) would arise from the abundance of females and lack of rules that the traditional college setting has to offer. When I finally embarked on my college journey, I found myself contemplating how I would execute my endeavors. In this contemplation, a fundamental question occurred to me: Are women in this generation looking for a man who treats them like a lady, or a man who treats them like an equal?
Before I go on, I should start by saying that I do not believe that women have equal rights and opportunities as men, even though they should. It is safe to say that women are now closer than they have ever been to gaining those opportunities and leveling the playing field. That said, if women do achieve equal rights and all stereotypes are eradicated, a man should be no more expected to pay for dinner than a woman should be expected to make a sandwich. But, when men are still expected to treat women like ladies, the playing field becomes once again inherently unequal.
My main point is this: If women make the same amount of money as men for doing the same work, if job accessibility is objective for both genders and if companies hire only the most qualified individuals regardless of sex, then men should not be required to pay for meals and push in chairs.
As a man, I personally do not have any problem with a woman who advocates equal rights for her gender. Nor do I have a problem with a woman who believes it is a man’s responsibility to be chivalrous. The only woman I have a problem with is the one who believes she is entitled to both. Women who carry this entitlement should audition for the Starburst commercial because they are walking contradictions who only invalidate their own cause. In this utopia, which I understand is not yet the reality, a man should under no circumstances be obligated to pay for a woman’s dinner if they make the same amount of money for the same work. Undoubtedly, the worst part is that I do not know if a woman expects me to hold the door for her or to acknowledge her equivalent capability to men and let her open it herself.
I am sure many women have realized the hard truth that, all too often, “chivalrous” men have an entirely different agenda besides being gentlemanly. Let’s face it: The smooth talking, polite, debonair man wants to open up something other than the door. As a result, chivalry in this generation has created two kinds of men: the suave womanizer and the impolite asshole who refuses to succumb to chivalry because he believes in a woman’s proficiency and does not wish to con her out of her dress. Conversely, it is important to make the distinction between a man pushing in a woman’s chair with the ulterior motive of pushing something in something else, and the man who treats a women nicely not because of her anatomy but because she is a fellow human being.
There is certainly nothing wrong with doing nice things for women, just as there is nothing wrong with doing nice things for all people. Yet, nice actions should be done solely on the basis of being a caring person regardless of gender, or because you genuinely care about someone in particular. When women finally and deservingly achieve equal rights, it will be stupid and rude for men to treat them as inferiors by acting or suggesting that they are not capable of taking complete care of themselves. Therefore, when equal rights are firmly established, the only reason to treat a woman as if she cannot hold her own would be because you want her to take hold of a certain “part” of you.