Yes, this is two blogs in a day, a record for me. Not to worry, they're related a bit. What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some of my readers, but here it goes: I have difficulty with the concept of chivalry. I had to check to make sure I hadn't previously written on this topic, but seeing as I haven't, I'm good to go.
Let me start by saying that I've come a long way since high school, where I fought with my boyfriend for trying to carry my school books. If chivalrous behavior can be grouped in the category of doing nice things for others, that's something I can accept and even appreciate. If, on the other hand, it's seen as an obligation or as compensation for my inability to open my own door, that's another story. By the way, if you want to open my door, you have to get to it first, right Kpark? :P
Yet, even in my newfound acceptance of said behaviors, I have difficulty learning how to react to them. Take, for instance, the question of who gets the check at the restaurant. Well, old-fashioned chivalry would say the guy always does. As a poor grad student myself, some part of me wants to accept this whenever presented with the opportunity. However, the rest of me feels very uncomfortable with the idea of riding a relationship on someone else's dime (not to mention that it makes me feel good to treat people I care about now and then). If both male and female contribute equally emotionally to a relationship, why should there be an uneven distribution financially?
I guess what I'm asking is this: in dating, who should pick up the check? Does this change based on the finances of those involved? And if there is an uneven distribution, what levels the playing field?