By Leah Cox
In straight relationships, men historically spend more money on their partners for V-Day. Is this a societal expectation of men, created by women? Or is this an internal pressure that men collectively place on themselves?
According to a 2024 Sender consumer survey, men spend an average of $249 on their partners for Valentine’s Day, while women spend $57. This is a pretty stark difference. A 2019 research article by Bankrate said that men expect their partners to spend $211 on them, while women only expect their partners to spend $154. Sure, these articles were published five years apart, but there seems to be a discrepancy between the amount of money men spend, versus the amount women expect them to spend. A $95 discrepancy. That may not seem like a lot of money, but that’s the difference between two Stanley Quencher H2.0 Flowstate Tumblers (40oz) and none at all.
In the Bankrate article, Dr. Smiler, who holds a Ph.D. in developmental psychology, said that “at the cultural level, we [society] talk a lot about men being valued for their wallet and the size of their paycheck.” As a result of this stigma, men tend to express their love through their wallet and purchasing power. There’s also the fact that in America, women earn 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. So, there literally is a discrepancy between income earned in male-female relationships. On top of this, women are expected to spend more money on clothing and cosmetics, so there is less room in the wallet for discretionary spending.
This discrepancy is interesting to me because I think it applies to other relationship “things.” Feminism today really pushes the equality of male-female partners in heterosexual relationships. At the same time, women feminists still have a preference for chivalry (and no, chivalry is not (completely) dead) and not being the breadwinner. To dig deeper into this phenomenon, I went to the one place where unfiltered and up-to-date commentary is almost always guaranteed: Reddit!…where else?
A subreddit called “r/changemyview” contains a longggg thread of replies about this exact phenomenon. In a now-deleted reply to the original post from eight years ago, an account says:
“You’re right in that feminism makes chivalry seem sexist and misogynistic, but it doesn’t make chivalry actually sexist and misogynistic, at least not absolutely.” Using a common scenario, the author of the reply proposes these questions: “Is a boyfriend bringing the roses to dinner and putting the meal on his bill because he feels obligated to as ‘the man,’ or because he knows it’s something that will make his gal feel like a million bucks?” And further, “Is a girlfriend that wants this, again, putting the onus on him as ‘the man,’ or simply expecting something nice that she can reciprocate in her own way?”
Although the above reply came from a self-identified bisexual male and feminist, other women feminists agreed.
For example, IIIBlackhartIII wrote, “Gender equality so [that] women aren’t inherently seen as weak and needy and damsels in distress who should stay home to cook and clean…doesn’t preclude you from being generally kind as a person.”
I agree with everything lllBlackhartIII wrote, except the last part of the sentence. Historically, the word “chivalry” is most closely associated with cisgender men in heterosexual relationships, as opposed to just any “person” Personally, I’ve never heard this word used for cisgender women in heterosexual relationships or any other identity.
I’m definitely drifting from the original topic in question, but I do think it’s worth considering how women feminists who prefer chivalry may be (in some way, shape, or form) perpetuating the same gender standards they seek to challenge. And I’m including myself in that, too. One of feminism’s persistent critiques is that it often generalizes what feminism means to all women. Not every woman wants to be the breadwinner. Some women genuinely love doing domestic work. Some women aspire to split the bill and enter the car with an already opened door. That’s the beauty of what feminism is supposed to be: less binary and more like a menu of choices, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and let’s throw in a dessert.
By embracing this kind of feminism, I believe we can actually ease the pressure off of men. This may be wishful thinking, but when we only see women as the beneficiaries of gifts, it maintains the assumption that men are obligated to give the gifts. Therefore, gift-giving on Valentine’s Day, among straight couples, is done less out of love and more out of obligation. I also think the $95 discrepancy would decrease because straight couples might better “see each other.” I’m sure she’ll be fine with one Stanley Quencher H2.0 Flowstate Tumblers (40oz). And maybe she’ll take great pleasure in giving you a brand new Stanley Quencher of your own.
