Niggardly feminism

Before anybody gets the wrong idea, niggardly, as defined by the free dictionary (my favorite dictionary), means 1. stingy and 2. meager. In this case, I'm talking about the tightfisted type.

Second, fear not the feminism. It's not only an unavoidable, ubiquitous social presence, it's more maligned and mischaracterized than it deserves to be. Shed your stereotypes and caricatures and take me on for size: an unabashed modern feminist - with a penis.

Instead of delivering a feminist manifesto, which would be asinine on account of this being a blog, not a book, I will examine one case which I think is relevant: dating etiquette and paying for meals and drinks.

Nobody would deny that it has long been socially normal for the man to play the aggressive role in the courtship process, and for the woman to play the complimentary passive role. In line with these general and relative roles, the man has long been the one to 'treat' the woman, especially to dinner or drinks. That is, the man is the predominant payer. This fits in to an old matrix of social norms based on a certain gendered social, professional, and familial roles. Although this matrix has been eroding and changing, its effects are still palpable.

One more point: the feminist analysis and prescription for change, like all other social prescriptions (e.g., civil rights, human rights), is explicitly idealistic. While such prescriptions can and should be grounded in positive observation of current conditions, they are guided by normative judgments and a vision of an ideal or improved social order. Feminisms seek a more optimal world by changing manifestations of gender roles. To believe in an idealistic feminism, one must believe that there are gender roles (everybody believes this) and concede that they are sub-optimally (unjustly) organized on inadequate or fallacious grounds (this is controversial).

So, to get to the case in question: Who takes out whom? Who pays for dinner? Who pays for drinks? Why? What are the implications of this?

The first question is prickly. Women can be quite as audacious as men. And indeed there my be little to no gender divergence on this question given the state of things, at least, in the northeast United States, people and relationships being as physically (sexually) motivated, as informal, and as promiscuous as they are. But I will dare to suggest that most women would prefer to be asked out while most men would prefer, or at least feel a social pressure, to ask out. I'll leave it at that.

The second two questions or, "Who pays?", have three possible answers: (1) chicks, (2) dudes, (3) they pay equally. Although some statistics would be nice at this point, I think we can safely assume that the answer is (2). This is not controversial. The controversial question is: should things be different?

Some people would say, "Who cares?" Even an avowed feminist friend of mine took this tack, with the time-honored "pick your battles" rationalization. Other people talk about biological determinants of historically entrenched gender roles - real and inherent physiological and purported psychological differences between men and women. I believe there is a kernel of truth to this argument, but that it is dangerously versatile. I've heard it deployed by progressive feminists and reactionary misogynists alike. In the case of dating etiquette, it has no traction. Another group of people talk about their personal experience and feelings, and whether or not they like or dislike playing into these roles. This is opaque ground. Often such slippery language obscures or replaces the exploration of more selfish, candid motivation.

Personally, I think the dude buyer paradigm is a quaint and anachronistic throwback. I think it's unjustified given the independence, education, and potential of modern women. It's an impediment to "progress," to a rationally organized social-romantic interaction, to - GASP! - greater equality.

This is where idealism enters. It's not that 'absolute equality' is a goal, or even plausible (parse this post for my view on the 'absolute' or 'pure'), it's just that we can do better. And I think that better, in this case, means acting according to reason - i.e., equivalent payment or proportional payment - instead of following the well-trod, gendered, and unexamined path of traditional patriarchy.

However, it would be unfair of me if I criticized other people's opinions - the alleged opaque ones - without examining myself under the microscope. Am I merely trying to get out of having to pay for stuff? Am I just a stingy cop-out short-cutting loafer schmuck? What is this niggardly feminism?

I reject that label. I swear I'm not ungenerous or tightfisted - even if I am a student of economics, with optimization and opportunity cost constantly on the brain; even if I am personally poor; even if my parents pay my bills (Thanks Mom and Dad!). No, I just think that there's something screwy when one gender with only marginally more economic success - inconsequential in certain (limited) circumstances - is the predominant payer. Women play into this when they actively tempt or passively accept drinks from moneyed men at bars, absent any interest or intention to further the relationship. This is not beating the system, it's floozies exploiting patsies.

Ain't nothing in this life that's free.

My major point is this: there's nothing wrong with treating your significant other or some sexy stranger to a drink, dinner, movie, or whatever. There is something wrong when it's a one-way street.