This week I published a piece titled “Yes, I’m a feminist. No, I won’t split the bill,” and it invited a hell of a lot of love, hate, and discourse in my comments section.
Pat on the back for me because I somehow got incels, right-wing men, and a fair few feminists to agree on one thing:
“YOU WANT A MAN TO PAY, YOU’RE NOT A REAL FEMINIST!”
The speed with which some people reach for condemnation the second a woman articulates a preference is fascinating.
The article was tongue-in-cheek cultural commentary surrounding my personal early-dating preferences, not a policy paper on what makes someone a feminist.
Since my feminist credentials are apparently up for review over a dinner bill, we may as well do this properly. So sit the fuck down. Class is in session.
Welcome to a little lesson I’d like to call:
Chivalry, Femininity, and the Feminist Purity Test
Lesson One: Feminism 101
Some people have turned going 50/50 on a dinner bill into a litmus test for feminism. And, for a second, I was questioning if I’d have to train myself to get the ick when a man pays for dinner just to stay ideologically pure.
But that is not how feminism is defined.
Feminism concerns structural equality. Legal standing. Rights. Protection. Opportunity. Not who picks up a cocktail tab.
Ritual is not structure. Symbol is not system. Gesture is not governance.
Now, a radical feminist might argue that interpersonal dynamics are political. I’m arguing that interpersonal dynamics can also be personal. Both are feminists, though.
Equality of rights does not require sameness in everything we do. Liberation expanded the menu. It did not assign a correct order.
I will happily derail a dinner party when the conversation turns to abortion rights, healthcare, rape, misogyny, or gender violence. Yet my feminism was called into question because I was shamelessly honest about a personal dating preference which has no bearing on my commitment to women’s safety, autonomy or equality under the law.
We can hold multiple conversations at once. We can debate the cultural symbolism of who pays on dates but pretending the revolution lives or dies over who offers to pay for a meal is unserious.
The fate of the patriarchy really doesn’t hinge on me going 50/50 on a dinner bill.
The real discomfort isn’t about economics. It’s about femininity. It’s about asymmetry. It’s about whether a woman can openly enjoy softness, chivalry, or traditional gestures without being accused of betraying the cause.
Is This the Death of the Soft Girl?
I pay my own bills. I am financially independent. But I like chivalry on dates. I’m not equating that to a lifelong provider, nor does it draft me into unpaid domestic labour.
Saying “I like when a man buys me dinner” out loud had some people calling me a gender essentialist.
Others just called me an entitled slut. That was somehow less upsetting.
Gender essentialism is the belief that men and women have innate, fixed traits that determine their social roles. Being attracted to generosity and initiative, even when those qualities show up in traditionally masculine-coded ways, is attraction. Not ideology.
For me, someone picking up the bill is less about cost and more about a symbolic gesture of chivalry.
But chivalry isn’t exclusive to men.
Here’s what I didn’t include the first time: I spent most of my twenties dating women. And I was drawn to the exact same energy. Leadership. Generosity. Decisiveness. Chivalry.
It’s clear that whether I was dating men or women, I was drawn to those more traditionally “masculine” traits. And although they aren’t exclusive to men, they are traits that have historically been coded as masculine.
I’d consider myself a bold, ambitious, independent woman. I embody those same “masculine” traits that I’m attracted to. But within romantic dynamics, I tend to lean into my femininity.
The real question is why femininity makes people uncomfortable.
When a woman builds a career and claws her way into boardrooms, we call her empowered. When a woman is soft, leans into domesticity or has visibly feminine traits, her autonomy is suddenly suspect. Her politics are interrogated. Her intelligence is questioned. She is branded with a scarlet letter and called regressive.
As if I can’t hold a board meeting at 9am and be kissed on the forehead and called “princess” at 9pm. Please.
For some women, a more traditional division of labour is their chosen dynamic. If that arrangement is entered into freely, why are we so quick to shame them for it?
Domestic labour is not passive. It is logistical, emotional and physically demanding. Caregiving is work. Organising a home is work. Raising children is work. The fact that it is unpaid does not make it unproductive.
It starts to look less like feminism and more like another purity test for women to fail.
Try me. I love tests.
Historically, femininity was tied to dependency. Economic asymmetry once trapped women, so of course some feminists are wary of anything that resembles that past.
Women were trapped in those roles. That was the injustice.
Culture shapes preference. History shapes context. We don’t exist in a vacuum.
Still, a consciously chosen asymmetry within legal equality does not automatically reproduce oppression. Sometimes it simply reflects taste.
We can question the roots of our preferences without denying women the autonomy to act on them. Feminism fought for that freedom.
How can we claim to be on the side of women while constantly scrutinising the very autonomy we say we fight for?
I feel like many strong, accomplished women still tiptoe around discussing their personal relationship preferences.
I wonder how many women we call feminist icons have quietly enjoyed being taken to dinner.
Not only are we shamed by men… but some other women seem ravenous to pile on too if we don’t fit their exact mould of what they believe women should be.
SHAME. SHAME. SHAME. Be quieter. No, she should be louder. Not that loud. And only about this. Not about what you really want. Especially if it’s too ‘girly’. But still be sexy. Not that sexy though, whore. Be aggressive. But palatable. Always palatable.
It’s exhausting.
I’m beginning to wonder how much feminist discourse is about expanding rights and how much of it is being weaponised as another way to blame, shame, and scrutinise women.
Can women still embrace femininity openly without having their politics questioned?
And if there is a line between expression and regression, who gets to draw it?
Is chivalry now a gateway drug to oppression, or am I allowed to enjoy my chair being pulled out without staging a protest?
Because autonomy means nothing if it only protects choices we personally approve of.
So, to conclude:
I couldn’t give a single fuck whether you want to split the bill, let him pay or handle it all yourself. It has nothing to do with your political integrity.
Let the man buy you dinner if he wants to, darling. I swear it doesn’t suddenly revoke your commitment to women’s rights.
What really interests me is how aggressively we police women’s romantic and life preferences while structural inequalities remain intact.
Because while we debate dinner etiquette in London and Los Angeles, women elsewhere are still fighting for the right to speak, study, and move freely. We can hold both conversations. But let’s not confuse symbolic performance with structural change.
If you believe splitting the bill is the frontline of feminist resistance, I genuinely wish you well.
See you next time in the confessional.
Blithe x
P.S. I’m currently working on a short film I’ve written about domestic violence and abuse. If you’d like to learn more about the film, contribute, or get involved in the production, please email blithesaxon13@gmail.com.
Given the subject matter, I am intentionally prioritising women and LGBTQ+ creatives across the production team, as well as female and values-aligned investors.
If you’re a man who would like to support the project financially, you are very welcome to do so. Your contribution funds the film. It does not entitle you to my body, time, access, or unsolicited creative direction. It does, however, earn you my sincere gratitude and a well-produced piece of cinema.
I am also seeking partnerships with women’s rights and gender-violence charities. If you have recommendations or introductions, I would love to hear from you.
B x
The Diary of a Lover Girl is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thank you for reading! If you like what you see here, consider becoming a paid subscriber. I post weekly diary entries— Some free, some locked away.
If you have commitment issues (I get it, I know the type), you can always buy me a coffee, matcha, or contribute to my ever-growing therapy bill below.
No pressure. I’m just happy you’re here.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.