It started with a brand new Tiffany’s bracelet, hanging
precariously on her slim wrist.
It started with a brand new Tiffany’s bracelet, hanging precariously on her slim wrist.
It was the third piece of pricey Tiffany’s her boyfriend had bought her in the past few months, and as I stood next to her bejeweled neck and wrists, I modestly informed her I had a couple Tiffany’s baubles of my own.
“Who bought them for you?” she asked.
“I bought them for myself,” I said.
The look she and her boyfriend shot me was one of condolence and pity, with a pinch of revulsion to taste.
“How sad for you,” he said, “that you don’t have a man to buy your jewelry for you.”
Now it was my turn to wear a mask of abhorrence and disgust.
After informing them that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing that I could provide for myself, I got to thinking about a book I recently read that dealt with similar issues.
This book, about Biblical courtship, was given to me by an individual who thought it would behoove me to broaden my horizons when it comes to dating and relationships.
I am a strong believer in equality in relationships – so much so that “dependent” is a dirty word I try to never let slip past my lips or into my consciousness.
This book, however, champions just that: A subservient woman being given by her father to a man who has asked to marry her. And then, as if living under the thumb of her father wasn’t enough, she is then expected to consent to the supreme authority of her husband for the rest of her life.
Needless to say, it’s not exactly on the same page with my way of thinking.
But because I enjoy learning about new things, especially things that I think are offensive and archaic because it gives me new reasons to rant and rave, I read this book with great interest.
Granted, every few pages I had to throw it down on the ground while I harangued my co-workers with fervent opinions on the uncouth madness I had just read.
Let me give you an example: The author, a pastor in Idaho, states that men were created to initiate and lead and women were created to respond.
He says that women hate having to initiate. But what really gets their panties in a bunch is when no one initiates anything, and then they are tempted to step into leadership positions, causing them extreme unhappiness.
I read this blather in a state of shock – unbelieving that people still believe this nonsense. Who says women can’t be leaders? Pastor Potato and his asinine assemblage of Idaho spuds?
Reading through the rest of the book, which advocated modesty and prudishness in women and an unwavering sense of chivalry and gentlemanlike behavior in men, I decided that while I don’t necessarily agree with it, I do agree with some of the basic messages it attempts to send.
While totally over the top for most people in modern society, the bottom line is that when it comes to dating and marriage, we need to take some more responsibility for our actions.
However, the problem with taking the ideologies of the past and trying to apply them to the present is that they don’t work anymore. Times change, and along with them behaviors and ways of thinking.
A man taking care of a woman is fine, as long as she can take care of him back in the same capacity.
Submission in any relationship only leads to abuse of power on one end and a lessening of will and self-worth on the other – no matter how much a person tries to combat it, it’s basic human nature that the pendulum will swing in those directions.
The fact is, men acting like gentlemen and women like ladies is not a bad thing in any way, shape or form. But it’s also OK for women to make the first move or for men to stay at home and raise the kids.
Or if you’re a single girl like me, to every once in awhile treat yourself to a little Tiffany’s.
