Chivalry, though inherently misogynistic, is not the biggest obstacle for those hoping to achieve gender equality. The true problem, as illustrated by Matt Bloom’s crude treatment of chivalry in his column, is a hyper-sexualization and objectification of women.
The first paragraph frames Bloom’s argument in a highly sexualized manner. Bloom describes a traditional college setting as an abundance of females with the potential for exciting hook-ups. Women are judged through the eye of the interested male, not as persons with their own agency. Women are portrayed as objects and potential conquests. This sexualized description is not accompanied by a rallying cry to stop objectification of women in the media, sexual violence toward women or abusive relationships. The author instead argues that a male’s refusal to pay for dinner will fix the situation and end the persistent negative stereotypes against women.
This argument is based on a warped vision of equality. Gender equality is more than equal job opportunities. Equality means eliminating the sense of gender separation that exudes throughout the entire piece. Bloom argues that there is nothing wrong with doing nice things for women, or for “all people.” Women are 50 percent of the population and should not be placed in a separate category. He claims that “as a man” he has no problem with women who seek to gain equality, or women who expect chivalrous treatment. This statement also reveals that he does not think men should care about the gender bias propagated by chivalry itself and would be content with women accepting their role as a weaker sex.
Furthermore, this discussion totally ignores the LGBT community and the implications of chivalrous practice on these relationships. The view Bloom presents in this piece appears to align with the heteronormative ideal, which holds that relationships between men and women are the only relationships worth discussing. This is unfortunate because queer relationships can provide a model for relationships unlimited by typical gender biases. Bloom’s blanket descriptions of “men” and “women” and their attitudes toward relationships is incomplete and does not take into account gender and sexual diversities.
Bloom claims that chivalry has created two types of men: those seeking to get laid through chivalrous behavior and those who simply don’t care to humor women with such archaic notions. This is an oversimplification and sells men short. This second type of man still shares the same objective Bloom reveals in his first paragraph: to get a woman into bed. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire toward women, but to reduce all men to the stereotype of only thinking with their penises reflects a patriarchal world view. This is the same logic that places blame on rape victims for dressing immodestly and tempting men. Men are not monkeys, they can demonstrate self-control. It is no coincidence that Bloom’s column places the blame on women, rather than examines chivalry as a societal problem in which men play a major role. If Bloom’s subconscious sexism is reflective of the average college male’s perspective, it will be a long road to true gender equality.
Matt Bloom’s original column, “Women can’t have it both ways: it’s either special treatment or equality in all regards,” is here.