-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Have we evolved:
Archive
Comments
Story
Women today are confused. What are they supposed to uphold in terms of an ideology? Are women supposed to be equal to men? Should they value balance and fight for a higher status? How much has society progressed over the decades in such terms? Most would say that a tremendous amount of ground has been gained over time. In more specific terms though, like romance, have we evolved?
The distance between men and women in our culture is ever shrinking. I admit that it would be a blind statement to assert that equality has been reached. There are many advantages that society offers to men and not to women. The two sexes are not on the same level in many different arenas of life. Women typically make less money and struggle to reach the higher levels of an organization. The business inequalities are just a glimpse of the larger landscape.
It would be just as blind however to say that no progress has been made at all.
The women in our society are fighters. The situation in which they now find themselves is a reflection of those women who stood up for their interests in years past. The structure on which the progress has been made is strong and resilient. The difficult thing is allowing the current structure of life to coincide with the past.
Why would that even be necessary? What does the past have to offer in regards to women’s status and approach to life? Well, relating to romance, the past is a treasure trove of behaviors, ideas, ambitions, dreams and desires.
Romantic expectations for male behavior are derived from the actions and interpretations of the past. The male is supposed to be a confident, strong, charismatic and competent person. The kind of person who can be engaging in a conversation and potentially be a good provider.
A good example is a romantic night between a man and a woman. The man sees the cutest girl in the room and talks to her. He even gets her number. Later that week a date is set up between the two. The guy drives to where she lives and picks her up. He then drives them to a restaurant he has chosen. They order their meals and when the bill comes, he takes care of it. They go ice-skating afterward where he pays for everything again. Once the night has run its course, he takes her back home and the date is over.
This is an extremely common night in contemporary America. It is ripe with all things romantic. All things that were expected of both parties took place. The problem is with how the situation clashes with current constructs for female behavior.
The man was in power the entire night. He had all the authority and all the responsibility. The woman was left with nothing. She made none of the decisions and provided nothing concrete. She offered her presence though, right? As though that is all that really matters.
Is this situation the same if the roles are reversed? If the woman took action and made the decisions, paid for everything and even drove the whole time? Logically there is more validity for women’s progress if she took over. Romantically though, the heart of this situation is stripped of much of its virtue. From the perspective of society, the man would be doing the woman a disservice by relegating himself to a position of taker instead of giver.
This is the heart of the issue though. A typically romantic situation requires the female to supplicate to a lower status. That contends with progress, which requires an evolved and elevated position. So, can progress and romance live together? In terms of romance, have we evolved?
Verdict: Not really . it’s more confusing now than ever.
Bob Beers
