thisland

How far have we come, to be here, in 2005? Do men and women truly have equality?

Let's ask Romantic Mary, a divorcee looking for love on the internet. She's smart, she's sassy and she's single. And she knows what she wants - a man.

Her site boasts many features - I highly recommend browsing it. She also has publised an essay entitled "On Being A Princess - My Search for Chivalry Today".

Romantic Mary clarifies, up front, that the relationship she seeks "is not strictly egalitarian in the usual sense of the word". Um, okay. That's a bit of a double negative.

the usual sense:
e·gal·i·tar·i·an adj.
Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

This is not strictly egalitarian, according to Mary:

For instance, I'm asserting my need to be a princess (with final decision-making power) in any relationship I'd have. I'm clear and up front about this need from the beginning. The gentleman who dates me would be clear and up front about his desire to get to know me on my terms.

... and those rights that being in a not strictly egalitarian relationship provides:

Just as getting married means for most people giving up the right to choose to have sex with someone else, dating me means giving up the right to choose to act against my wishes unless you opt to stop dating me. But within my wishes you'd still have a lot of freedom to make choices about many things.

Here's another sense of the word egalitarian

Antonyms:
authoritarian, autocratic, despotic, dictatorial, intolerant, totalitarian

In her essay, Mary paints a pretty picture of gender roles in history:

One reason that tales of knights slaying dragons for princesses are positive ones for us is that the knights seemed so eager and willing to do what the ladies needed. Whether she was a princess with a problem or a damsel in distress, a gentleman would rush to her rescue just because she was a woman. Many of us may recall a story in which a line of suitors came, one by one, before a marriageable princess. Each gentleman hoped to win her hand and was willing to prove his worthiness in whatever way was called for. No challenge was too silly or too dangerous. A man expected to be tested.

Oh dear, how I wish for those times! When a man was a man and a woman was...a piece of property that couldn't vote and wore a very uncomfortable whale bone corset. Yeah!!! Suck it in, bitch.

Mary has a serious case of female phantasm or as I call it, wanting your cake and eating it too. You see this all the time in chick lit - sassy independent woman esnares independent, charming, handsome rich man who's emotionally unavailable into marriage. Mr. Darby. Mr. Big. And so on.

And don't get me wrong, men have their sicko fantasies too. The hooker with the heart of gold, anyone? Sometimes these fantasies intersect. Like in "Pretty Woman", one of the highest grossing romantic comedies of all time.

I know it's not nice to take pot shots at a sad woman who is clearly funneling her madness into an outlet and rationalizing to herself that she won't end up with 15 cats. But, seriously, you know what ruined your idea of chivalry, Mary? Love did.

In Stephanie Coontz's book "Marriage, a History" she delineates how marriage has changed (taken from a Newsweek interview):

Coontz traces the evolution of marriage from Paleolithic times. Throughout human history, people married to arrange child rearing, pass on property and organize life. Until relatively recently, most of these alliances were not legally sanctioned but rather informal arrangements accepted by society at large. The choice of partner was rarely left to the couple; parents and other respected community elders made the match.

In the Western world, that model held until about 200 years ago, Coontz says, when the idea of marrying for love emerged. Those who bemoan the current state of marriage should blame the Enlightenment emphasis on self-fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness. It took a while for the love revolution to have its full impact.

Some other barriers had to be knocked down first: inequality between men's and women's roles, little social mobility, unreliable birth control and harsh penalties for illegitimacy.

These are strange, confusing times indeed. Queens are getting hitched! Woman are having premarital sex like men do to! Hell, you can even pick your gender!

Total fucking chaos of free will. With so many choices out there, must we really revert to sylvan versions of romance?

It's not easy to navigate it all the time, Mary. I know. Trust me, I know. How do you let a man be man and remain a woman and still have so many choices? It's unchartered territory. I know a few that are doing it. But most still operate on the old code in a new world. Doesn't seem to be working if you ask me.

But you either suck it up and operate with the opposite sex on truly egalitarian terms or hold your breath until Prince Charming comes along to whisk you away into oblivion.

RELATED:

• Chivalry isn't all it's cracked up to be

...research showing that men who supported chivalry also generally believed that women are not as competent and powerful as men and that their place is in the home.

Image of Jessica Simpson's twin via cityrag. Romantic Mary courtesy of metafilter.