Based on “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date As Equals,” by Ellen Lamont in The Atlantic, February 14, 2020.

“I know it feels counterintuitive…..I’m a feminist,” the first woman said.  “But I like to have a guy be chivalrous.”

Heterosexual women with progressive-liberal political leanings often say they want an equal partnership with men. “But dating is a different story entirely,” according to feminist sociologist Ellen Lamont of Appalachian State University and author of  The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date. Lamont’s research found that such women expected men to ask for, plan, and pay for dates.  They also expected men to initiate sex, confirm the exclusivity of a relationship and propose marriage.  “After setting all those precedents, these women then wanted a marriage in which they shared the financial responsibilities, housework, and child care relatively equally,” wrote Lamont in an article for The Atlantic.  Very few of Lamont’s female subjects saw these dating practices as a threat to their feminist credentials or their desire for egalitarian marriages.  Lamont says they are wrong on both counts.

Glaring Disconnect – Progressive Beliefs vs. Lived Experience

Lamont noticed a glaring disconnect between straight women’s views on marriage and thoughts on dating.  Lamont found that once these women were married, it was difficult to “right the ship.”  The same gender stereotypes that they adopted while dating played out in their long-term partnerships.

Interviewing “Woke” Millennials

Lamont interviewed heterosexual and LGBTQ people in the San Francisco Bay area – highly educated, professional-track young adults.  Everyone she interviewed was quite vocal in their support of gender equality and readily accepted the label “feminist.”

Three-quarters of millennials in America support gender equality at work and home and agree that the ideal marriage is equitable.  Consequently, Lamont expected her female interviewees to epitomize feminist liberation.  Yet, when they thought of equality among men and women, they focused more on professional opportunities than on interpersonal dynamics.

Gender Equality Gains at Work – Not at Home

Lamont had long been interested in how gender influences behavior in romantic relationships. She was well aware that research showed more significant gains in gender equality at work than at home.   Americans with a college education now get married in their early 30s on average.  Young adults put their love life on hold while they invest in their education and establish a career.  Lamont’s female subjects expected their partner to support their ambitious professional goals.  The men said they desired and respected these independent, high-achieving women and saw them as more compatible partners as a result.

“It’s a Deal Breaker If He Doesn’t Pay”

“Can I be a self-sufficient, empowered woman and still enjoy it when a guy picks up the check?” appeared as a question in a recent Vogue opinion column.  Apparently, the answer is “yes.”  Many of the women Lamont spoke to enacted strict dating rules.  “It’s a deal-breaker if a man doesn’t pay for a date,” one 29-year-old woman said.  A 31-year-old woman said, “if a man doesn’t pay, “they just probably don’t like you very much.”  The women assumed that many of the men were looking for nothing more than a hook-up, so some of these dating rituals were tests to see whether the man was truly interested in a commitment.  A third woman, also 31, told Lamont, “I feel like men need to feel like they are in control, and if you ask them out, you end up looking desperate, and it’s a turnoff to them.”

Risk of Not Paying: Reduced Mate Value

Female commentators in the relationship advice genre for men have suggested that men pay for first dates (at least) as a default position, lest the man is viewed as:

• Cheap (unnecessarily frugal and no fun)
• Ungenerous of character (does not readily give to others – a serious red flag)
• Poor (on a tight budget – definitely a limitation as a potential mate)
• Not interested in the woman (a possible false negative)

It is no wonder that men err on the side of paying even if they hope for equity in a long-term relationship.  First, they have to “win the day” and protect their first impression – and their perceived mate value.

“I Like a Guy to be Chivalrous”

On dates, the women talked to Lamont about acting demure and allowing men to do more of the talking.  Women, they said, were more attractive to men when they appeared unattainable, so women preferred for the men to follow up after a date.  None of the women considered proposing marriage; that was the man’s job.  “I know it feels counterintuitive…..I’m a feminist,” the first woman said.  “But I like to have a guy be chivalrous.”

Men Want These Rituals?

Not all of the heterosexual women Lamont interviewed felt strongly about these dating rules.  “Yet even the few women who fell into this category,” says Lamont, “tended to go along with traditional dating rituals anyway, arguing that the men they dated wanted these rituals, and the women just didn’t care enough to challenge the status quo.”  Yet, some men admitted to Lamont that they had run into “conflicts” with strong-willed women.

Men Sometimes Resisted

The heterosexual men Lamont interviewed claimed that a woman’s assertiveness took the pressure off them.  While some liked paying for dates, feeling that the gesture was a nice way to show they cared, others were resistant.  One man told Lamont that he splits the cost of a date fifty-fifty.  “Just because I carry the penis does not mean that I need to buy your food for you.  You’re educated or want to be educated; you want to be independent  – take your stance.”

Undoing Gender Roles in Marriage Was Difficult

Lamont found that when men and women endorsed these traditional gender roles early in their relationship, undoing those views in marriage was difficult. The married men she interviewed often left caregiving and housework to the women and considered themselves primarily breadwinners and decision-makers.  Time-use surveys in the U.S. show that women still do about twice as much unpaid labor in the home as men.  One woman said of her husband, “he’ll take our son on bike rides with him.  But in the middle of the night, I’m the one getting up.”

Set Up Expectations from the Outset

The majority of LGBTQ people Lamont interviewed wanted no part of the dating scripts they saw as connected to gender inequality.   “We have explicitly said we’re not normal or traditional so that we can write the script ourselves.”  Most noteworthy, the LGBTQ interviewees set up the expectations of equality from the outset of dating, not after it. This approach shifted their understanding of what was possible for intimate relationships, and they, for the most part, had more equal long-term relationships as a result.

Outside of the Heterosexual Mating Dynamic

LGBTQ individuals espoused similar ideals about equity but were more likely to reject and resist dominant courtship scripts.  This resistance is not surprising to evolutionary psychologists.  Once outside of the male-female mating dynamic (based on sexual selection for reproduction) and the co-evolutionary “arms race” of competing male-female sexual psychologies, it is expected that such courtship rituals would have less relevance.

Sociology vs. Evolutionary Psychology

According to fellow academics who reviewed her book, Lamont uses the “sociological imagination” to interpret her data.  A focus on the relationship between individual agency and larger social structures represents the customary sociological view of the bidirectional relationship between individuals and society.

Lamont does not seem to understand or acknowledge the evolutionary power of male-female differences in mating strategy that undergirds traditional courtship scripts.  Traits that have a long evolutionary history for successful mating either supersede or interact with existing social structures.  Confidence and displays of status and competence are critical attractors for women; they are unconsciously embedded in many traditional courtship rituals.

It is Not “Counterintuitive” – It is Sexual Selection

“I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?”  ~ Zsa Zsa Gabor

Women want both power (resources) and kindness in their mates. Women have a natural attraction and sexual charge for alpha traits (which are preeminently desired) but also have a secondary need for safety and loyalty (beta traits) to ensure long-term mating success and ongoing provision and protection of children.  Male beta traits are more correlated with progressive-liberal political leanings and likely incorporate favorable views of feminist ideology; these traits mostly signal kindness, not power.

Female Competing Preferences – the Trade-off Problem

Because status and power do not easily co-exist with loyalty and kindness, women must often choose between these traits (what evolutionary psychologists call the “trade-off problem”) in an attempt to find the right combination in a chosen mate.  Men of status and power usually get the first or longest “interview” with women.  The sexual attraction to them is strongest; the hope is that the man will turn out to be loyal and authentically generous – at least for that particular woman.

Double Trouble for Men

Women’s competing mate preferences often cause double binds for men.  (See Psychological Double Binds Imposed on Men.)  The man wants to please a woman, but she may be confused from moment to moment or in a constant state of dilemma and tension about what she wants and needs.  She wants a chivalrous suitor AND an egalitarian partner.  (To be fair, those behaviors are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

Trade-off Problem in Era of Female Empowerment

“A showdown between traditionalism and egalitarianism is underway.”  ~ Ellen Lamont

The “trade-off” problem for women has become particularly acute during the modern era of female empowerment and feminist cultural framing; the “shadow self” of female biological imperatives has become more hidden yet prone to “leak out” with mixed messages to the surface of present-day male-female mate selection and romantic-sexual relating.

Lamont uncovered these mixed messages in her research. The first step in addressing a double bind, hypocrisy, or a mixed message is to see it and name it for what it is – or write a book about it, in Lamont’s case.

Dating As Equals – “I Want This and That”

Here are a few mixed messages (expression of needs) from women related to the issues of “dating as equals.”  Men often process them as menacing double-binds.   It is challenging to find a compromise or middle ground in response, although it is not impossible for an emotionally intelligent and strong man.

As Lamont discovered, these needs often lurk underneath the contemporary tension between men and women in heterosexual relationships.  They operate on a continuum but are magnified here without nuance to bring clarity to their evolutionary roots and power —  and to demonstrate the reason why they are so “undiscussable.”

Even liberated women might say:

• “I want full equality of economic power and opportunity, but I also want to mate with a man who has as much or more power than me, and preferably more power than other men.”

• “I will rail against gender power inequality while I actually want to partner and have sex with a man who is at the top of the power hierarchy.”

• “I want a man who embraces feminist positions politically while being an alpha among his peers.”

• “Please have the willingness and capacity to provide, be generous, make decisions, be chivalrous, and offer protection. I prefer that you offer to pay for most everything and never expect me to pay for you.  I do not want to embrace the role of ‘receiver of gifts’ even though it turns me on.”

• “I want to be seen as taking care of myself. Provide for me in some way but do not patronize or disempower me as you do that.”

• “Please help around the house! But your domestication may remove my sexual charge for you.”  (This possibility has been found in a study or two.)

How “Gender” Still Shapes How We Date

Lamont’s research and book look at how people with diverse gender identities and sexualities date, form relationships, and make decisions about commitments as they negotiate an uncertain romantic landscape.  She uncovers how “gender” still shapes how we date.

Lamont’s decidedly liberal subject sample makes a strong case that espoused progressive cultural values do not dramatically change the courtship behavior of heterosexuals.  Evolutionary mate selection dynamics, biological imperatives, and the nature of male and female sexuality most often supersede new cultural norms.  Women want men who show confidence, initiation, and generosity –  the capacity to use resources on their behalf.

Conclusion

Lamont says that most heterosexuals engage in courtship rituals that reinforce gender differences despite claiming a desire for egalitarian relationships with equal division of work/household labor and financial independence of both partners.  Lamont makes the case that by clinging to traditional courtships scripts, young adults unwittingly undermine the gender revolution they say they embrace.

Epilogue

 “Ultimately, what was revealed (it seemed to me), unspoken but acted upon, was that the ‘old male’ was still very much desired by women for the security they delivered.” 

~ Steven Fearing, Origins of Mating Straight Talk – Reasons and Reflections

References

Lamont, E. “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date As Equals,” The Atlantic, February 14, 2020.

Lamont, E. (2020). The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.