A man holds the door open for you, a woman—do you thank him, or question why he did so in the first place? Chivalry is a controversial topic in contemporary society where women regularly complain that “chivalry is dead” while men wonder why women expect them to uphold traditional norms while claiming to be feminists. Originally a code of knightly conduct from medieval Europe, Chivalry is derived from the ideal cavalryman who was not only expected to uphold military prowess and self-discipline but also the value of service towards others. Over time the term evolved into an overarching term for gentlemanly behavior: opening doors, pulling out chairs, offering jackets, paying for dates, and more. On the one hand, some reject chivalry outright, stating that it’s an obstacle to be overcome due to its implication that women need to be coddled. On the other hand, others, notably “empowering” women’s advice influencers, view chivalry as nonnegotiable. 

Empowerment content for young women on social media often, ironically, fixates around men. A man ought to hold his lady’s bag, give her his jacket, and even swap shoes if her heels are hurting her—or else he’s not a worthy suitor. Additionally, if he’s old enough to earn his own income, then of course, paying for the date and buying nice gifts lodges itself into the list. All of these courtesies are seen as “bare minimum” requirements that elicit dismissive “as he should”s instead of grateful “thank you”s. The troubling aspect of this content lies not in encouraging high-expectations, but rather in a lack of appreciation and reciprocation. Expecting the best treatment from someone who is supposed to be your partner, especially if that person is meant to be your life-long companion, is a good thing. However, a lack of appreciation turns having high expectations into just viewing men as service providers. Additionally, many of the same influencers who claim that chivalry is a requirement also state that women shouldn’t be giving their boyfriends “husband treatment.” 

“Husband treatment,” in this context, refers to ordinary acts of service such as cooking your boyfriend a meal or helping him with his chores. The justification for this is that women are the “prize,” and that prizes must be pursued and won. By this logic, girlfriends are exempt from putting effort into their relationships; their presences alone contribute enough. This may seem very girl-power-esque at first glance, but it is merely misogyny repackaged in shiner wrapping paper and silkier ribbons. Instead of empowering women, it perpetuates the misogynistic perception of them as status symbols instead of actual people. Furthermore, not only does this mindset subtly degrade women into trophies to be obtained, it also reduces men to wallets and chauffeurs—a common and rising form of misandry. Acting untouchable and superior to men doesn’t make you ‘cool’ or ‘feminist.’ It just makes you seem like the female equivalent of Alpha Male influencers.

Another common argument as to why chivalry—specifically, men paying for the date—should be required rests on the claim that women spend more money on preparing for them. Indeed, this is an undeniable imbalance. Makeup, hair, dresses, perfume, heels, and so on—there’s a greater social pressure for women to make themselves appear ‘presentable’ for dates. However, getting ready for a date with expensive products is still a personal choice that doesn’t automatically prompt reimbursement. Most men don’t care and can’t tell an 8 dollar lipstick and a 40 dollar one apart—nor a 60 dollar dress from a 400 dollar one. If he can, your concern shouldn’t be how much you’re spending getting ready, but how much time he’s spent with other women. In the end, the purpose of a date is to enjoy each other’s presence. One person isn’t doing the other a ‘favor’ or ‘service’ by showing up because it’s a shared experience, not a paid role. To repackage companionship as something that needs compensation misunderstands the point of dating and romantic relationships altogether. 

Others justify chivalry as a requirement through gendered societal issues such as the pink tax. Research by CSMonitor, a popular news source; Unbiased, a financial advice company; and Gitnux, a finance news publication show that the pink tax is a real and substantial issue. Evidence from these sources reveal that women, on average, pay an extra 7-13% more than men for similar items, which adds up to an annual average of almost 1400 more US dollars. For instance, an infamous example of the pink tax is razors—women’s razors can cost up to 30% more than men’s razors despite being of similar, if not lower quality. Therefore, according to chivalry-demanders, men are expected to pay the bill on dates and buy women expensive gifts to make up for these structural inequalities. Although it is true that these inequalities are unjust, conflating them with dating etiquette misplaces blame. Unfair pricing by corporations and government tax policies are rooted in corporate greed, and the everyday man isn’t the one producing these disparities. So, while it may be gracious of men to recognize this issue and offer to pay, nobody is responsible for compensating corporate greed through a dinner bill. 

Strip the debate over chivalry of catchy social media rhetoric and the solution becomes quite simple: the principle of consistency. If one believes in norms such as chivalry, then one should be willing to accept the reciprocal expectations that must be upheld on their side. Simply, if you think a man should be required to get the check and lend you his jacket, then you should be fine with making him sandwiches. Conversely, if you don’t like to be restrained by gendered norms, then you shouldn’t expect the acts of service that come with them—don’t invoke them only when they’re convenient for you.