 "Photo: Art Illustration by Cecily Small")
As social scientists, we are inherently interested in dating, marriage and family. We are also interested in how social constructs of gender have typically informed these discussions, particularly in Christian settings. Therefore, we were curious about the content of the Pepperdine Dating Initiative, which has dominated the Seaver Convocation series the past two weeks.
Our curiosity, however, turned to serious concern when one of our students handed us a 3-inch by 4-inch card that included “3 Simple Rules” for dating.
On this card we learn that the goal of the Pepperdine Dating Initiative is to “help students form healthy dating relationships” and to create an environment where “guys are comfortable asking and girls are comfortable accepting or declining respectfully.” After the first date, “the guy does not have to call back and the girl should have low expectations.” After the second date, when a discussion about the next step is warranted, “the guy should initiate the discussion.”
We did not attend the convocation event where this card was distributed and discussed and cannot, therefore, speak to the context in which the card was distributed. We can, however, respond to the content of the card, which we believe communicates a number of troubling messages.
Do we intend to communicate, for example, that in order for a relationship to be healthy, only males should initiate dates? Is the appropriate message to send to the young women on our campus that females, and not males, should keep low expectations after that first date? Most troubling, do we really want to tell the young women on our campus that males, but not females, should initiate discussions about future dates? The suggestion that these are the hard and fast “rules” of dating— that the female should be passive and dependent on the male to both call and to initiate further discussion about the relationship— is indeed troubling.
We fully understand that many males in the Pepperdine community will want to make the phone calls, pay for the date and initiate discussions about future dates. No doubt, there are also many females who will gladly accept this traditional model.
We feel no compelling need to dissuade either males or females who feel this way. We do take issue, however, with the prescriptive nature of the card. We would argue that there are many other acceptable approaches to dating and, in fact, there is much about this traditional model that is decidedly unhealthy.
The power differences implied by these messages reflect a patriarchal structure that does not always serve relationships well. Patterns in dating relationships often extend into future marital relationships. Would it be considered healthy for a wife to wait for her husband to initiate discussion on all important matters involving their relationship? And if we take these power differentials to their extreme, we must surely recognize the potential for domestic abuse, whereby the male plays the dominant role while the female is passive and subservient in matters financial, emotional and physical. Such relationships are highly dysfunctional and destructive, both to the adults involved in them as well as the children who witness them.
Having spent several hours last week with two of the people primarily responsible for creating the “3 Simple Rules” card (both of whom happen to be good friends of ours), we understand that it was not their intent to prescribe, or even defend, patriarchal relationships. Their intent was merely to improve dating relationships on our campus.
Nonetheless, we are troubled that they, as well several others in the Pepperdine community who contributed to the Pepperdine Dating Initiative, apparently missed the clear patriarchal implications of the “3 Simple Rules.” In all honesty, we are more than troubled. We are discouraged. We are discouraged that more leaders within our community have not raised questions about the patriarchal message and the potential repercussions for student development.
Once upon a time we had a first date, and then a second. And eventually we got married and were blessed with two children— both a son and a daughter. Our relationship never followed the directives described in the “3 Simple Rules” card, and our marriage looks nothing like the developing relationship described on the card.
Our marriage is based on an egalitarian model, whereby each of us plays an equal role in the relationship, assuming an equal distribution of power. This is the relationship we have tried to model to our own children and to our students. When we read the directives on the “3 Simple Rules,” however, we fear that the Pepperdine community is endorsing patriarchy, and we are not comfortable with that endorsement.
8 comments Log in to Comment
Life is always going to be a roller coaster, but it doesn’t have to be a wooden one – those things are painful!
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now