One question you have to ask yourself as a feminist is, do feminism and romance work together? One of the more hardcore beliefs of feminism is that you don't need a man. So where does that stand when you think of the more traditional forms of romance, such as men opening a car door for you or paying for dinner?

As a feminist, does this mean I should rebuff these efforts? I can open my own door, I can pay for my own dinner, and I sure as hell can pay for my own drinks.

So, as a feminist, should I deny the male efforts of chivalry? Does a man doing these things for me make me a 'lil lady, or in any way 'weaker' than him?

I say no.

I think chivalry holds a different place than 'Man Thinking He Can Do Anything For His 'Lil Lady'. Just because a man opens a door for me, or pays for my dinner doesn't mean that he in any way thinks he's above me or better than me. I've met some feminists who feel the opposite, who despise the thought of a man doing something for them, because in some way, it makes them weaker. I don't think that's the case at all. Maybe if you're dating a man who feels that way, but what about the men who do these things for you because they love you? Maybe we women need to stop thinking so deeply about every gesture and accept it for what it is, a gesture of love.

Professor Foxy from feministing says it best:

Just like in an earlier column about feminists who enjoy being submissive in bed, we need to remember that a core of feminism is choice, if you choose to date a romantic, and love being romanced, that works. On a bigger level, if being romanced makes you feel loved and cared for that is important for all of us. It is equally important that we do the same for our partners and if it makes your boyfriend feel good and involved in the relationship by being romantic there is no reason to negate that.

Labels: i am woman hear me rawr