top of page

Love, equality, freedom, feminism

For feminists, romanticism in media or culture is a dope for dupe, a mean of brainwashing women into subservience, while for other freedom fighter and gender equality advocate equality means live a peaceful and equilibrated relationship.

Heterosexual romantic relationships have historically been all about men courting and “keeping” women. And it’s a powerful tradition. Whether it’s asking someone out, picking up the bill, or being the main breadwinner in the family, many of the ideas we have about romance are still based on men being initiators and directors and women being receivers and caretakers.

Some women understand the encoded right into the male DNA, which is a deep desire to hunt, gather, and provide for her needs. When a gentleman offers to buy a lady dinner, that is his way of hunting and gathering for her. If she rejects this gift when it is offered, she is rejecting him, and taking away the opportunity for him to fulfill the role he was born for. Also part of the male DNA is the primal instinct to protect his lady friend, not to disrespect her or make her feel weak.

In the same line of duty chivalry, well known among peoples around the world as far away as the Ekangs of the Equatorial Africa where it is called Andoman, is an old-fashioned, courteous show of respect from a man to a woman. When delivered in a genuine way, these little acts of kindness are a romantic gesture to show a lady that she matters. Even a strong, independent woman, appreciates being cared for in this way. Meanwhile many don’t understand the difference between chivalry and chauvinism. Chauvinists believe that men are superior to women. They assume that females are unintelligent, superficial, needy, selfish, and incapable. Chauvinism is a form of misogyny that has absolutely nothing to do with chivalry, but only equal to misandry the hatred of radical feminists towards everything that relate to manhood…

The society is changing. Women are increasingly entering the “male domains” of high-powered jobs and sexual freedom, and many women can feel belittled by these acts of kindness of men, without being outwardly against men and their manhood.

The most popular conception of feminism tend to malign feminists as man-haters or lesbians, (unfortunately it’s that current that has been the most voiced) therefor it’s easy to see why many people view gender equality as incompatible with romance and a hindrance to romantic relationships.

Many women with feminist leanings have even questioned the existence of love and its danger on women’s freedom. The radical feminist critique has fundamentally questioned the association of love with freedom. Feminists have argued that, particularly for women, ‘falling in love’ is more likely to lead to a damaging self-denial. A landmark in the feminist analysis came in 1949 with the publication of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. De Beauvoir argued that romantic love is ideological, since it helps to reproduce and maintain gendered forms of consciousness which underpin patriarchal societies. The radical feminist analysis of love had many strands including an incipient critique of privatization and individualism. It was argued that once women’s energies become focused on the exclusive project of ‘our relationship’, they lose sight of their wider political and social situation.

Traditionally, women’s main route to status and influence involved attracting high-status romantic partners. But while the movement for gender equality has changed things, cultural scripts about romance have curtailed women’s social roles and still continue to do so.

Meanwhile, Researchers have also noticed that heterosexual scripts of romance are becoming more egalitarian over time. Spurred by the movement for equality, women are increasingly adopting active roles in initiating romance and are displaying more dominant sexual behaviours.

From these evolutions of society, more and more, some women defining themselves as strong which means independent and stepped in self-sufficiency, do not choose to love men because they need them as a tool support. They chose to love a man they see as her equal. They adore the way they allow them to be themselves. in response men are honored to know that they have been accepted even chosen. Acknowledging, the old saying that states that you can only seduce a woman who want to be seduced.

Paradoxically many men have been advocate of egalitarianism on relationships and one of the many reason they cite is that, the endorsement of traditional cultural scripts of romance places a heavy burden on men, and equate sometimes to give way to all type of ill treatments against women (a housewife has to kill herself with housework without the help of her husband.) In a society where women are getting better opportunities, it’s should be normal for them to pick up the bill as well and work with their partner to build a relationship where they share duties and obligations.

Progressists esteem that having to “perform” according to traditional scripts limits expressions of individuality and behaviors – ultimately making it harder for two people to develop true intimacy, that may lead to a more stable relationships because it promotes more positive communication patterns. The notion of equality facilitates a sharing of responsibility to resolve conflicts as opposed to placing that burden on one partner because of its gender, and may lead to more expressive communication styles which benefit the relationship.

In conclusion it’s important to note that, gender equality in rights and duties does not meant similarity of genders, because consideration regarding, physiology, individual abilities and preferences must be acknowledged. Is the feminist idea of stripping men of their way of showing love the right thing to do? Is it time to tell men to stop opening car doors, buying flowers, protecting their families because women are now independent and can protect themselves? the truth is women cannot really protect themselves without the concourse of the rest of the society that make rules and regulations and change the society to replace patriarchate with matriarchate with the same ills will do no good. Furthermore despite all the theories there is a theory that prove that even the most feminist in the modern history when they were not lesbian have always had love affairs with partner of the opposite sex Simone de Beauvoir was involved in a passionate relationship with Jean Paul Sartre). If human relations can be codified love cannot be ruled.

Headline - A la une
In This Edition
bottom of page