Couple Dancing Classic Ballroom | Celebrating Gender Difference in Courtship | Public Square Magazine | What is Traditional Courtship | Traditional Dating vs Modern Dating

More than a Door: Celebrating Gender Difference in Courtship

Is traditional courtship outdated? Modern views that erase these customs lose the gender-specific rituals that enhance heterosexual relationships. We should celebrate and preserve these gendered differences.

To my progressive friends, men and women are practically the same, the only difference worth mentioning being that men are more privileged. They mock traditional courtship rituals such as the man asking the woman out on the first date, paying for it, holding the door open for her, walking her to her door at the end of the date, and generally being the pursuer in the relationship.

Once after a breakup, I reminisced to a friend about how I missed my ex-boyfriend, remembering how I appreciated him trying to take care of me and demonstrating he would be a good protector and provider. My friend lectured me, telling me I was being sexist for my comments and that I should be a strong, independent woman who didn’t “need” a relationship. According to her, nothing about dating or relationships should reflect a difference in gender. Specifically, she said that men opening doors for women is backward, and there shouldn’t be any regard for gender in offering such gestures. Her comments seemed to reflect the attitude of many in today’s culture.

Despite modern society’s insistence, the idea that men and women aren’t inherently different and any gesture implying that they are is wrong goes against our nature. When a man walks a woman to her door after a date, he is reflecting his responsibility to protect, and the woman is likely going to appreciate it. That is the way we inherently are, and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to deny that is denying our nature. 

Our culture used to have rules to help navigate courtship.

At times it can be good to question customs, for sometimes it is beneficial to abandon or alter previous generations’ ways of doing things. But to me, getting rid of constructive customs like men holding the door open for women takes some of the flavor and meaning out of our interactions, especially in courtship. As a single woman, I am more attracted to men when they act like men, and that means acting differently than women in some ways. As articulated by Brett McKay in The Illustrated Art of Manliness, “Rules and traditions give life texture and meaning. Sameness is boring. Difference creates attraction.”

Dating rituals such as men holding the door open or walking the girl to her door make a date different than hanging out. I agree with Brett McKay; if men and women act the same way on a date as they would getting tacos with friends, then dates lose some of what makes them interesting, fun, and special.

As I thought about it, stigmatizing the celebration of gender differences in courtship privileges homosexual relationship ideals over heterosexual ones. Erasing gender differences might work if one is pursuing a same-sex relationship, but it’s straight-phobic to expect heterosexuals to have the same ideals. As a heterosexual woman, I don’t want a relationship with a guy who acts just like a woman. I want a man. And the men I know generally appreciate women who are not only intelligent and capable but who embrace their femininity. Heterosexuals aren’t interested in the opposite gender just because of physical attraction but because they are different. Celebrating these differences makes relationships, especially romantic ones, not only more meaningful but interesting.

Couple Hand-in-Hand in a Garden, Symbolizing Romantic & Gentlemanly Conduct | Celebrating Gender Difference in Courtship | What is Traditional Courtship | Public Square Magazine
A courting couple walking through a garden reflecting the simplicity of how courtship used to be.

Progressives are offended by the notion that the genders are different and that women should strive for femininity while men strive for masculinity. But this is them placing their post-gender values on heterosexual, cis-gender people. It’s like a new form of imperialism.

When I express the importance of men embracing masculinity, many of my progressive friends think I expect men to be toxic, emotionless brutes. But for the most part, traditional masculinity has offered more range for masculine expression than many modern thinkers give it credit for. In “The Necessity of Chivalry,” C. S. Lewis explains that chivalry encourages men to be brave and gentle, explaining that they need to encourage their protective instincts when necessary while also being sensitive enough to express tender feelings when appropriate. I’ve known men who enjoy choir and other stereotypically “soft” interests, but I still consider them to be masculine if they willingly embrace their responsibilities as protectors and providers. Masculine ideals have more often been like how C. S. Lewis describes Lancelot as both fighting courageously in battle and being meek in court rather than being Gaston from Beauty and the Beast.

Unfortunately, we often aren’t teaching young men how to express chivalry. Our culture used to have rules to help navigate courtship. Now young adults are entering the dating world with little idea of what “rules” to follow. This creates problems because many women want men to act like gentlemen, but many young men don’t know how. I’ve been surprised how many guys I’ve been on dates with seem oblivious to gestures such as walking me to my door afterward, but I can’t blame them because they likely weren’t taught to.

As Brett McKay expressed, “Rules and traditions give life texture and meaning.” For too long, our society has attempted to erase rules and tradition, and as a result, many young people are confused and wandering. It’s time to recommit to celebrating our differences and the rituals that make courtship different than hanging out.

About the author

Meg Marie Johnson

Meg Marie Johnson recently graduated with her master’s in English at BYU. She writes adaptations of classics for children and young adult social satire. Her interests include philosophy, foreign languages, art history, and the gospel. You can often find her in the dry regions of Washington state with her parents, seven siblings, and two sheep.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Informed Consent

Ben sits down with Leo Winegar who left the Church and then came back to discuss informed consent.

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.