For whatever reason, my computer is very slow in loading the comments for all bloggers who use blogspot. This is annoying, as blogspot hosts many of my favorites, including Amanda at Mousewords. Yesterday, she put up this interesting post on men, women, feminism, and "initiating contact" in dating relationships:
…the one expectation that weighs heavily on men in the ever-fascinating courting process (is) of actually initiating contact. This is actually a somewhat new expectation, relatively speaking. In the past, introducing yourself to someone was pretty much rude across the board. In our modern life, it’s pretty much expected that you have to do this sometimes, lest no one gets laid ever, and the burden has fallen to men.
She quotes Lynn’s comment at my blog:
I have to confess, I didn’t do a lot of initiating in my single days, even though I do and did believe, as a feminist, that that role should be shared. The reason is, when I know that all the guys expect to be initiating, it’s hard for me not to assume that the reason a guy hasn’t approached me yet is that he just isn’t interested in me anyway, and so why bother?
I’ve posted before about my own comfort level with mixing traditional chivalry with egalitarian gender politics. (Holding mutually contradictory ideas comes easily to me, much to the annoyance of those who are fond of a foolish consistency.) For the record, when I was single, I was not particularly shy about approaching women. Making the "first move" made sense to me, but that may have more to do with my personality than my gender. I am perfectly aware that many of my brothers are intensely frustrated by the "rules" that place all of the burden for initiating contact on their shoulders. For a shy man, the expectation that he must "make the first move" must seem genuinely unfair and, at times, overwhelming.
Amanda, with characteristic candor, writes:
I’m in a steady relationship now that has the sort of inertia anyone with a good grip on reality delights in, but I know that if I were single, I’d probably fall back into my old habits. Again, it just makes sense. If you like a guy and he’s ignoring you, odds are he doesn’t like you so why waste your time? I see how it plays out and it frustrates me, but I don’t see a good way out of it. You can’t teach guys to be more reticent–that’s not fair to them. But teaching girls to be forward has only limited use, and efforts in that direction will be dashed on the first guy that strings them along and they take solace in books with obnoxiously long titles about how guys are just not going to be into a sort like you, and everything goes to shit.
Where Amanda and I differ is that I’m not sure we need to find a "way out of it." For me, feminist principles in a marriage or other romantic relationship revolve around issues of mutual respect and mutual burden-sharing. In an egalitarian relationship, each person’s goals and dreams and efforts matter equally — and each partner makes equal (if not identical) sacrifices for the success of these goals. But that has little to do with the way in which a couple meets.
In a world where women are far more likely to be raped and harassed than men are, teaching women to be more forward is to expose them to considerable risk. While forward men risk rejection (which hurts), forward women risk far more. Most women have abundant experience with having their friendly, non-sexual overtures misinterpreted. For some men, even a simple smile from a woman can mean sexual interest. We have to do much more to make public space safe for women before we can expect greater willingness to make the first move!
But I think it’s also true that both men and women can derive real satisfaction from traditional roles. Perhaps it’s because these roles are familiar, but perhaps it’s also because they speak to our deep and real desires. Though making the first move is scary, sometimes it feels good to take a genuine risk. Overcoming fear is difficult (perhaps all the more so for my more introverted brothers), but it is empowering and exciting to do so. Making the first move does, I think, make some guys feel more like men.
And, at the risk of getting flamed, I think most women very much want to be wanted. Of course, we all want to be desirable — but whether rooted in biology or culture, women’s longing to be longed for is powerful stuff indeed. Though feminist theory emphasizes the importance of women’s agency, of making women into the subjects of desire, I think it’s important not to forget that every once in a while, being an object of someone else’s longing can feel pretty damn good. Countless women I know feel a certain "feminist guilt" at taking genuine pleasure in being desired and in letting a man pursue them rather than the other way around. But that guilt is, I think, both misplaced and unnecessary. Amanda writes of
…this odd pattern where men and women become more and more equal all the time in negotiating their relationships, discussing their sexual needs, the whole bit. And yet getting the ball rolling is still pretty much left up to men.
It’s only odd if you assume that how a relationship begins must set the tone for everything that follows. To me, given the different levels of risk for men and women, and given our own innate (so I argue) delight in certain traditional gender roles, it actually makes all the sense in the world.
UPDATE: I’m going to leave what I wrote above unchanged, but as I re-read it, I do recognize that despite all my years of men’s work, I have an unfortunate tendency to be a bit flip in dismissing the real anguish that my less assertive brothers may experience around dating issues. I ought to be more sympathetic and less glib when I write things like "men risk rejection, nothing more." Rejection is enough. It hurts and it stinks, and to make light of it for anyone isn’t fair.
Sometimes, according to my critics in the comments, it seems I’m insufficiently "masculine" to really empathize with other men. On the other hand, I wonder if I’m too comfortable with traditional male roles to really connect with the pain of those guys who aren’t. I’m working on it, and I have some things to pray about and reflect upon today.
I think the short term practical benefits and assumptions (it’s easy to assume that if the guy is interested he’ll act, women get to feel desired, slight but non-trivial risk of inviting dangerous male responses) do not outweigh the long term philosophical benefits. To me it seems that “starting the relationship” is the most powerful and important part of any relationship, and controlling whether that happens is huge. Not only does it reinforce women being the object of desire, it also encourages submission in women in general (especially among those whose majority of their experience with the opposite sex is in trying to start the dating process at all), and it’s an inequality that can have any number of unintentional consequences.
This is especially messed up once you factor in some of society does not act that way. There are some guys that are just outright too shy to ever act, there are some cultures (especially the younger you go) where it’s perfectly expected for either gender to make the first move, etc. Once you have some slight uncertainty about whether the male follows “men always initiate”, the impetus for women to try initiating sometime, goes way up.
Tony, I agree with much of what you say — but dismissing the risk of dangerous male responses as “slight” compared to long-term philosophical consequences troubles me.
OTOH, you’re right on when you suggest that among the very young (high schoolers), there does seem to be anecdotal evidence that girls are becoming more assertive — and this may turn out to be a very good thing indeed.
Assault: I think women being forward raises the probability of harassment either a very small or even negative amount. Men who are violators certainly do not lack boldness (just the opposite, they have far too much), and are possibly all already initiating contact (perhaps even being disproportionately represented among “men who initiate”, making the situation riskier). What’s more, making this system more egalitarian empowers women in to not having to respond to the approaches of each man so much (since they can approach on their own), and perhaps lessens their risk. At the very least this factor pales when you’re controlling for other things (such as the setting, or good judgement of people, etc), and risks giving into the “well the women encouraged it” defense of assault. Most of all though, I think whether or not to initiate isn’t as big a decision or risk as “being on the dating scene at all”, and like driving a car, is something with a low probability of a catastrophic possibility that people accept.
Counter-cultures: I particularly think that among various counter-cultures (geek, goths, etc) that accept normally outcast people (such as shy boys or outspoken girls), the mode of anyone can make the first move is much more accepted. This is just anecdotal and generalizations though, but it’s the perspective I come from and why I reflexively think egalitarianism in this realm is very possible.
Why wouldn’t men also want to feel longed-after?
As one of those introverted ones, let me challenge you a bit more.
(I recognize I run the risk of sounding like one of those exasperated (and exasperating) “Oh, I just don’t know what to do in the baffling post-feminist social landscape!” whiners, which is often a social form of the learned incompetence you’ve discussed before. Maybe that describes me in this scenario. Anyway….)
“Men risk rejection, nothing more.” This depends a great deal on the context of initiation. If it’s a stranger, someone you’ve just met, etc, this is more or less true. But many of us, men and women, just don’t talk to people we don’t know. We would only attempt to initiate with people with whom we’ve had an introduction or two–through mutual membership in an association of some sort or though friends and friends of friends. We’d approach them because in our initial conversations, we’ve found them interesting and potentially interested. In other words, at the early stages of a budding potential friendship.
Rejection isn’t my primary concern in this case. My primary concern is in my initiation effort, if she’s not interested, she’ll get the idea that I was just being nice and friendly and so on because I had this ulterior motive for getting to know her, when it’s really not true. In reality, a simple, straightforward rejection is just fine–no confusion, I know exactly where I stand, we can go back to become friends, or not, as the case may be. But in my experience, sometimes the unwanted initiation can throw the whole thing off course and make things uncomfortable. I’m sure I’m probably generalizing far too freely from a limited set of circumstances, but that’s what we all tend to do in this realm, isn’t it?
As to the risk for women, I think you’re exactly right that it’s a serious concern, but much more so the more of an unknown quantity the initiatee is. In the circumstances I describe, meeting people through somewhat stable and trusted social networks, I would think that risk would be minimized.
A few comments, hopefully not piling on:
Overcoming fear is difficult (perhaps all the more so for my more introverted brothers), but it is empowering and exciting to do so.
This is emphatically *not* the case for me. What is empowering is taking what I perceive to be a risk, and having that validated. In the case of flirting, if I walk away feeling desired, that’s empowering. If I walk away feeling rejected, it’s not - I don’t feel accomplishment at overcoming my fear, I just feel like the fear was justified and I shouldn’t have put myself through the discomfort.
Making the first move does, I think, make some guys feel more like men.
I find this an uncompelling justification, and somewhat problematic. Lots of things make some guys feel more like men, and often they do it in such a way that those who are unable or unwilling to take part are made to feel less masculine.
And, at the risk of getting flamed, I think most women very much want to be wanted.
Of course they do. Everyone, man or woman, does. Again, I don’t see that as a justification for not trying to correct problems with the status quo. It should also be pointed out that this “want to be wanted” has a darker side - the women who aren’t receiving this attention from men (the ones who also tend to be ignored in discussions like these) are made to feel unwanted and worthless.
DJW, I hear you — and I think you speak to the best way to resolve the problem, which is helping folks of all ages to become members of cohesive, accepting, stable communities which would provide safe opportunities to meet others. I’m all for that.
I’m not against women asking men out! I’m just not prepared to see the traditional reticence of women to do so (even many feminist women) as a problem that needs to be fixed…
And mythago, of course men want to be desired. But I’m not clear how these roles rob men of that experience.
Sorry it’s taking so long to load. I’m having a horrible time trying to put any new posts up, because Blogger is dragging so bad today. I’m fixing to throw a rock through my computer screen.
Anyway, nice reply. Men so rarely get to experience being openly wanted that it can often have a startling effect on them when a woman is forward. Sometimes it’s downright cute to see it. But if women crave it more, it’s because it’s an identity issue for us. An unwanted woman in our society is still considered less than a full woman, and that weighs rather heavily on us.
Why wouldn’t men also want to feel longed-after?
Thank you! Thank you! Mythago.
And thank you too Hugo for your late qualifications. One of the things that used to really get me angry was outgoing people telling me that initiating contact was easy. For them it is. I’ve spent years with nary a date because of my shyness & insecurities. Don’t want to whine, things are going pretty good for me now, but I did not derive any satisfaction from this traditional gender role.
There were many times I wished the woman would have gotten things going in a forthright way. I’m ususally fine once I get started. I often wondered or assumed she wasn’t attracted to me since she did not.
No flaming here, but I always find “traditional roles can be fulfilling” arguments a bit disturbing, particularly when they flirt with biological essentialism (the “they speak to our deep and real desires” bit). I don’t think mythago’s question was fully addressed– why would men find it less appealing than women to be pursued? For that matter, why wouldn’t women experience the same sense of accomplishment and empowerment in overcoming their nerves and initiating successful interactions with men? The idea that men and women approach relationships so differently and want such different things out of them that different roles are necessary is really troubling to me.
In any case, I won’t deny that some people may find traditional roles appealing; however, I don’t think that fact invalidates the need to examine those roles and the sexism that may contribute to them. At the risk of doing the kind of arrogant agency-denying that I have serious problems with in many feminist arguments, the fact that people enjoy something doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s healthy for them or that they’re doing it for the right reasons. There’s a difference between, for example, “I’m a woman and I don’t make the first move in relationships because I’m shy and it makes me uncomfortable” and “I’m a woman and I don’t make the first move in relationships because women shouldn’t do that.” The former I don’t have a problem with, the latter I definitely do, no matter how “happy” or “fulfilled” someone who lives by that philosophy may be.
As far as the “it makes guys feel more like men” justification goes, I find it surprising that you’re using an argument like that, seeing as many of the aspects of traditional masculinity that you often criticize serve the same purpose in some men’s lives. (Misogynistic treatment of women probably makes a fair amount of men feel more validated in their masculinity, but I doubt you’d use that as an argument in favor of it.) Shouldn’t we be questioning why “feeling like a man” is so important, and why some actions contribute to this feeling and others do not, instead of simply accepting it at face value?
I also don’t think it’s appropriate to dismiss the possibility that the way a relationship begins can set the tone for its later development and progress– they can’t be separated as easily as you might think. It’s not random that relationship norms have developed so that men are the ones encouraged and often expected to make the first move– it comes from the idea that men should be “leaders” and women should be “followers,” and that attitude certainly can carry over once the relationship is established. That’s not to say that every individual relationship initiated by the man is going to turn out this way, but the overall trend is troubling.
I can’t say I’ve ever approached a man, I guess I’m just kind of shy about it. I try, and I think I’ve made lots of progress, but it’s difficult. I’m just not used to it, I feel very uncomfortable with it.__The most important thing I can do as a woman is to let them know I’m receptive and try to overcome my shyness.
“We have to do much more to make public space safe for women before we can expect greater willingness to make the first move!”
I think that statement is so very true - and a huge reason why so many women are uneasy about making any sort of move. Often, it is miscontrued as disinterest if we appear standoffish or distracted, but in reality, we were merely overanalyzing the situation and trying to read into the intentions and motivations of the person we are with.
But maybe that’s just me… I’m getting better, but I always assume it’s better safe than sorry… and I would much rather have someone who is patient with my reservations than lead them to believe I am someone that I am not.
I miss your comments Hugo! I know you’ve been busy, but don’t forget about me… stop by and say hi when you have a chance :)
Take care! I hope you’re well.
Well, what’s interesting about Amanda, and Lynn, and so many other strong women is that despite the fact that they are uncomfortable with initating, things have turned out well for them - they are in egalitarian relationships that thrive on feminist principles. That’s an anecdotal argument, but it seems to be a not-uncommon story.
Traditional sex roles are unhealthy when they don’t permit us to be fully human. But when, despite the fact that we have alternatives, we “like” living out our romantic lives in traditional ways, I don’t think that’s a major problem.
I am often critical of traditional masculinity, but there is much about it that I find admirable — and perhaps the most admirable quality of all is the emphasis on taking initiative and responsibility. Women, of course, can do the same if they so choose — but a feminism that makes them feel guilty for not doing so is not a feminism that I think is useful.
Women have enough guilt, I think, without being told that they are letting down the sisterhood by not being more aggressive in pursuing sexual and romantic relationships.
But when, despite the fact that we have alternatives, we “like” living out our romantic lives in traditional ways, I don’t think that’s a major problem.
I do think it is a major problem when we do not consider why we “like” those traditional roles, or when we ascribe our “like” to some deep and essential nature, or when we do not question whether we have fully examined the alternatives.
And yes, I feel that women are letting down the sisterhood when they don’t consider how their own behavior conflicts with their feminist ideals.
Are you suggesting, Mythago, that the Amandas have not examined the alternatives? I think they have, and despite some ambivalence, have made choices that work for them without harming other women in a meaningful way.
I’m not an essentialist. But I’m not someone who is convinced that all gender roles are mere social constructs, either! Nature and nurture work together to create what it is that we are comfortable with. And I don’t think that a knowing, “eyes wide open” enjoyment of role-playing ought to result in a trip to the Feminist Woodshed.
If only I had control over the Feminist Woodshed. I’d have to have switched arms by now. ;)
Knowing there are alternatives, and seriously considering them in light of one’s own principles, is different than saying “Hey, there are alternatives, but happily the ones I chose conveniently overlap my comfort level and the traditional roles in which I’ve been raised.”
I’m troubled by the idea that shyness in initiating relationships, and shyness in other areas of life, are so easily separable. We all have different comfort levels with taking the initiative in romantic vs. professional vs. other contexts, but I think we use more or less the same skills to overcome our discomfort in all cases. I definitely see a connection between the idea that women make less because they don’t ask for raises, or bargain during interviews, etc., and that we are not forced to learn the anti-shy fu for dating. I’m not sure how the causality works though - maybe some who’ve learned to take the initiative could weigh in?
I would also be hesitant to tell a romantically shy woman that she’s hurting the sisterhood - but I wouldn’t be afraid to say that she’s hurting herself. But maybe that’s just ’cause I’m so smitten with my shy man :D
It’s important to take into consideration a woman’s personality and background before we make judgements regarding this issue. Some women are really comfortable in initiating with men. Others are just plain uncomfortable and might be afraid of turning the man off if they are too aggressive. __ Timing is everything, and patience is absolutely essential.
I don’t think it is surprising that a smart, outgoing and funny person found a good mate. I’d be surprised if Amanda and others were dating jerks. It’s not like good guys are that rare, though probably sometimes hard to find.
Being inhibited can be a vicious cycle of regret, depression, and insecurity that to get out of takes time and effort and sometimes therapy too. Being socially awkward in this way, you get very little positive re-enforcement and a whole lot of feeling like an unattractive dork. Your friends may tell you differently, but they’re biased. These social rules are not very healthy for men like me.
– and perhaps the most admirable quality of all is the emphasis on taking initiative and responsibility.
Yes, those two can be admirable qualities. (They also don’t necessarily go together.) It can be good for women to have them too. I think making them masculine characteristics contributes to the guilt of men who are not initiators and that is not useful either. Am I less of a man because I’m reluctant to make the first move? Have your attempts to initiate ever contributed to a woman feeling less secure in public?
I’m not sure, Ron, if those last two questions are rhetorical or directed towards me. Assuming the latter, my answer to the first is “heavens, no.” As for the second question, I don’t want to give the impression that in my single years I was some sort of hyper-aggressive Don Juan. I’d like to think I was “subtly assertive” in my single days. Or maybe my memory flatters me.
Rhetorical. I’m not concerned about any past mistakes. I meant to point out that making initiative a specifically masculine trait contributes to making public spheres less comfortable for women.
I am a woman and I absolutely loved asking men out when I was single, even though it was nerve wracking. I loved it and I highly recommend it to other women. (Apologies if I sound like a broken record since I have posted comments on this before here and elsewhere.)
If anything taking the initiative helped make me feel more desired and desirable. I learned that there were some men who found me attractive who just hadn’t worked up the nerve to approach me first or assumed that they didn’t have a chance. As for the ones who weren’t interested in me, I learned quickly that they weren’t interested and moved on. I never wasted time agonizing over whether a man was going to call me or trying to make him notice me. And what a great feeling it was to have control over my dating life, to make someone else feel flattered and wanted, and to experience the exhileration of having someone great say, “Yeah, I’d love to go to the concert on Friday.”
Some men were perhaps frightened off by my “forwardness” and avoided me, but I never had any assume that my taking the initiative meant I would definitely sleep with them.
“…the one expectation that weighs heavily on men in the ever-fascinating courting process (is) of actually initiating contact. This is actually a somewhat new expectation, relatively speaking. In the past, introducing yourself to someone was pretty much rude across the board. In our modern life, it’s pretty much expected that you have to do this sometimes, lest no one gets laid ever, and the burden has fallen to men.”
[sigh] When exactly did dating become about sex?
“And, at the risk of getting flamed, I think most women very much want to be wanted. Of course, we all want to be desirable — but whether rooted in biology or culture, women’s longing to be longed for is powerful stuff indeed.”
So is my similar longing, and I ain’t a woman. I really wish I knew why people think that “feeling wanted” and “being made to feel special” are exclusively female objectives.
>
I completely agree. Some folks are shy; some are not. But I can only imagine the number of people who missed out on true happiness because the guy was shy and the gal was brought up to believe that she’s never to ask anyone out, or that “guys are never shy”.
“I am a woman and I absolutely loved asking men out when I was single, even though it was nerve wracking…And what a great feeling it was … to make someone else feel flattered and wanted…”
Bless your soul.
“Some men were perhaps frightened off by my “forwardness” and avoided me, but I never had any assume that my taking the initiative meant I would definitely sleep with them. ”
That’s great. I get so depressed when I turn on the tv and some vapid dating show like BLIND DATE is on. They meet, have drinks, and then they’re swapping spit in a hot tub somewhere. THEN they think about whether they like each other or not. So, here I am, imagining having a steady girlfriend to share diffident cheek-kisses with, and these people are snogging after knowing each other an hour.
One young woman essentially ridiculed the guy she got set up with because he doesn’t have sex unless he’s in a committed relationship. Gosh, wonder what she’d think of me…
I don’t think anyone’s really said that all women have to be assertive in order to be good feminists, or that less assertive women should feel guilty about it. The “feminist guilt” stuff comes more from internal conflict and the attempt to reconcile theory with reality than it does from any external source, at least in my experience. For instance, I sometimes wince when my SO and I go out and he pays for everything, even though rationally I know that it has a lot more to do with the fact that he’s working and I’m still in college than with any gender roles. That doesn’t mean feminists should be chastised for making me feel bad, it means that I’m still negotiating the role that feminism plays in my life and to what situations it is and isn’t applicable (and I suspect for me and most others who identify with the movement, this will be a lifelong process). I think the same concept applies to women who feel that twinge of guilt whenever they don’t insist on taking the lead in a relationship.
Anyway, Ron has a point– why should assertiveness and decisiveness and responsibility be labeled “masculine” traits? If it’s to avoid making women feel as if they’re obligated to exemplify these traits and feel guilty if they do not, that’s understandable, but I’d argue that men shouldn’t be made to feel that way either. I’m not sure why pressuring men into extroversion is somehow noble and admirable while doing the same to women is an unfair burden– why the double standard?
Some people really like to take charge and be assertive and make the first move, others would rather keep to themselves and wait to be approached (of course, these are extremes and I suspect most people fall somewhere in the middle or switch back and forth depending on the situation). I don’t really want to get in an argument about whether or not/to what degree these preferences are gender-linked, because that’s not really important; more to the point, it’s fairly obvious that there are “assertive” women and “passive” men (even if they’re only exceptions to the rule), and they should not be made to feel abnormal or wrong for doing what comes naturally to them in the social realm. Using the language of innate biological differences has this marginalizing effect, as does championing certain traits as “masculine” or affirming to masculinity when they’re certainly not exemplified by all men. Any definition of “masculinity” or “femininity” that excludes certain men or women is a problematic one; it creates hierarchies and perpetuates stereotypical roles.
“Traditional sex roles are unhealthy when they don’t permit us to be fully human. But when, despite the fact that we have alternatives, we “like” living out our romantic lives in traditional ways, I don’t think that’s a major problem.”
I’m not sure I get this. A data point is not an average. Even if the average woman enjoys traditional roles, even if the average man enjoys traditional roles, what about the men and women who stray from the average? What about their liberation? And how many (as Mythago asked) stick to the average because they have not yet discovered that they do not like it? My idea of liberation is more active than a passive, uncritical acceptance of everyone’s stated preference.
I find myself mostly agreeing with Keri and Ron.
Ron said:
Being inhibited can be a vicious cycle of regret, depression, and insecurity that to get out of takes time and effort and sometimes therapy too. Being socially awkward in this way, you get very little positive re-enforcement and a whole lot of feeling like an unattractive dork. Your friends may tell you differently, but they’re biased. These social rules are not very healthy for men like me.
The current system marginalizes male introverts, especially ones that are more emotional and susceptible to anxiety (because they have more trouble initiating, and are more hurt by rejection). This is not only a disadvantage to those men, but also to women who are interested in guys with that type of temperament. Perhaps the “Sensitive New Age Guy” archetype attempts to describe a male who is more introverted and emotional than the norm. Unfortunately, because males with that temperament don’t fit into the current conception of masculinity, those men may develop in a way that causes them to lack interpersonal skills and self-esteem, so women reject them.
As an introvert myself who has learned to live with my introversion, I would like to try to explain why it is such a big deal. It’s not just a matter of being a bit less gregarious than other people. Introversion (and also have a low anxiety threshold which I won’t get into) profoundly affects your formative development.
Because male introverts are usually quiet, serious, and less interested in rough-and-tumble play, they violate the stereotype for what little boys are supposed to be like. They often become a quick target for bullying and teasing by their more aggressive male peers, especially if they are physically smaller or not good-looking (and their often-serious nature cannot comprehend teasing). Hence, these males are less likely to develop confidence and social skills. Without those, they stay unable to get into any peer networks (or they join the “nerdy” group and get stereotyped). Hence, their interpersonal skills have arrested development and their self-esteem suffers. It is a vicious cycle.
By the time of puberty, the type of male introvert I describe is already cursed with insecurity and a lack of interpersonal skills. Hence, talking to girls will be very hard for him. After a while of trouble approaching girls, and trouble coming up with things to say even after approaching, these males will start to associate anxiety with talking to girls, or even with the idea of talking to girls (which makes things worse). Furthermore, the anxiety makes them seem “weird” to girls because they are obviously not comfortable with themselves.
Even if these guys somehow learn to talk with girls and make friends with them, and somehow muster up the courage to make advances, it is highly likely that they will get rejected and seen as “just friends.” This is because they (a) don’t fit the the masculine stereotype because of their temperaments, and the personality, behaviors, and interests that have grown around that temperament, and (b) lack the interpersonal skills necessary to attract those girls. This rejection will knock down the self-esteem and confidence of such a male even more, and possibly lead to depression.
Our society doesn’t lift a finger to help these males. They may ask friends for help, and be told to “just be yourself” or wait for “the one.” Unfortunately, they are incapable of being themselves because of their anxiety and lack of interpersonal skills. Waiting for “the one” is also counterproductive, because they probably wouldn’t be able to talk to her if they met her. Or these guys are encouraged by parents or authority figures by being responsible and not distracting themselves from their studies by pursuing women.
Of course, not all male introverts fall into this downward spiral, and some of them manage to break it. Yet they are much more susceptible to the kind of problems I describe, and have probably experienced at least some of them at some point. Hence, when you are an introvert, initiating things with women is a lot more complicated than simply getting past your temperament.
An interesting name for this phenomenon is “love-shyness,” a term coined by Dr. Brian Gilmartin. A brief discussion of his research is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_shyness. Here is a link which contains sections of Gilmartin’s book.
I was definitely love-shy, and his account rings scarily true to me. I have gotten over the worst of it, but it took me a lot of work. I spent about a year and a half reading everything I could on confidence and social skills for hours every day, while practicing talking to girls until I got comfortable with it. I had to change things like my mannerisms (because they had been infected by my anxiety and insecurity), and learn to project my voice, and a bunch of other things that I’m not even going to get into now.
Yes, this experience has helped me develop a lot of confidence and self-agency, and let me have my first relationship, but I would have preferred to be able to achieve all that without having years of suffering preceed them. Sure, what didn’t kill me made me stronger blah blah blah, but why must I be so frickin’ strong all the time to be a valid male? When can I start being a human with emotions, innocence, and vulnerabilities rather than some kind of machine?
Be warned: Knee-Jerk Reaction Ahead
Hugo, you said: In a world where women are far more likely to be raped and harassed than men are, teaching women to be more forward is to expose them to considerable risk. While forward men risk rejection (which hurts), forward women risk far more. Most women have abundant experience with having their friendly, non-sexual overtures misinterpreted.
Oh, this gets my goat. Are you wrong? No, not in fact. The attitude is sexist, however, and I am surprised that you still wish to be the protective male and shield women from risk.
Am I advocating that women seek out danger? No. But there is the chance that women can discern for themselves who the dangerous people are. And, as you know, rape statistics indicate that most people who commit rape are known by the victim. The chances that women are going to blindly pick out the sexual predator at the local sports bar is slim to none.
Could it happen?
Yes.
You are more likely to have a woman die driving on the highway. Care to allow men to drive as well? We would not want to put the woman at risk.
Okay, sorry for the rant. I hardly know you, but it did get my goat. You are clearly a thoughtful person, so I am going to reread the post to make certain that I did not miss something important.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never said I didn’t have a strong, paternalistic, protective streak. I break from liberal feminism in many ways — and one key way in which I do is that I see autonomy vastly overrated and safety underrated. Perhaps it’s the consequence of years working with high school kids… but Anglobaptist, I won’t apologize for my stance, even though I am well aware that I leave myself vulnerable to the charge of being patronizing.
Not so much “patronising” Hugo, as hypocritical, one-sided and unfair. But thanks for providing yet more evidence that feminism was never about “equality” and always about giving women an easy ride through life at the expense of men.
I don’t remember *ever* getting the feeling that a woman felt wanted or special when I tried to ask her out — not even the few who accepted. It has never felt to me like asking someone out was a good thing to do; it always felt like it was something perverse and selfish on my part to do so.
I have always felt, from the time I hit puberty, that I should be the one to do the “choosing” as opposed to waiting around to be “chosen.” As a result, I have gotten what I wanted. Dance partners, flings, long-term relationships… On my terms, as well. The good thing about feeling comfortable with taking the initiative is that you are also comfortable opting out if things aren’t feelin’ right. I believe that a woman who has the confidence to walk up to a guy and say, “Hey, come on and dance with me,” is a woman who if approached in an unsavory manner, can also say, “Step back, buddy,” in a completely no nonsense, non-victim manner.
My husband is a shy guy, and I can guarantee you that if I hadn’t initiated contact, then we wouldn’t be together today. After all, my hometown boy had known I was in his city for four years and hadn’t contacted me! He, for one, is glad to be with a confident woman who is not afraid to make the first move.
The Australian Eunuch
http://www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/01_jan04mag/jamesh_07.htm
Hugo: Anglobaptist, I won’t apologize for my stance, even though I am well aware that I leave myself vulnerable to the charge of being patronizing.
Good. I was not asking for one. Like I said, I was giving a knee-jerk reaction to one sentence on your blog. Hey, man, this is your blog. Say what you want to. I am agree with you 90% of the time. You just pushed a button here with me. That is all.
Thomas: Not so much “patronising” Hugo, as hypocritical, one-sided and unfair. But thanks for providing yet more evidence that feminism was never about “equality” and always about giving women an easy ride through life at the expense of men. Thomas, I agree with you to a point. The stance I suggested is how I have been taught feminism…and by women at that! My Mom would have cuffed me upside the head for saying what Hugo said. And she would have had to beat a few of my friends (female friends) to the punch. Feminism is about equality.
Now what Hugo and I may demonstrate is that there are a couple of different ways of understanding equality. I make very little of the anatomical differences. Hugo puts more in that basket. I say we are all at risk. Hugo delinieates specific risks and nuances particular responses.
We got problems with both stances. Hugo gets labled “Patronizing” and I am told that I ignore physiology and scripture (I am a Baptist pastor.). ‘Tis always more complicated than that.
Hugo, if I mispoke your position, I apologize.
Thomas is conveniently ignoring that Hugo does not speak for all feminists, nor do all feminists agree with Hugo on this point.
The irony is that it’s not ‘traditional’ women who are going to do the asking-out; it’s feminists who have gotten over their traditional conditioning. So if guys like AngloBaptist and Thomas expect to lay back and let women do the approaching, they’re kinda stuck with feminists.
Actually, physical safety didn’t have a lot to do with why I didn’t initiate (or didn’t usually initiate - it’s not that I never asked a man out, but that I hardly ever did). Sure, there are lots of situations where I wouldn’t feel physically safe approaching a man, but those are the same situations where I wouldn’t feel physically safe letting a man approach me, so he’s out of luck even if he wants to do the initiating.
It’s more that I, personally, started out as a very shy introvert, and have managed, with years of effort, to transform myself into a somewhat introverted person who isn’t paralyzed by shyness. And, you know, if I don’t get up the nerve for the job interview or the salary negotiation, no one else is going to do the work for me. So, when it comes to overcoming shyness, those kinds of situations have a higher priority for me.
So, I do really sympathize with all of you shy guys who are regretting the choices of women like me, and I’m glad there are women like Keri and mythago out there, to approach at least some of you. May there someday be more such women. A start would be if all the dating advice books and columns would quit telling women not to take the initiative. You’d still have lots of women like me, failing to let our feminism overcome our inertia, but at least the women who want to initiate wouldn’t be talked out of it.
“It’s more that I, personally, started out as a very shy introvert, and have managed, with years of effort, to transform myself into a somewhat introverted person who isn’t paralyzed by shyness.”
Again, Lynn, that just means you’re shy. That’s different from a woman who’s outgoing but refuses to ask out a man because she figures it’s “his job.”
I am happily married to a feminist. I approached her initially. Gave her my phone number. She called me back. I proposed a first date.
When I proposed to her, I was only beating her to the punch. She had already picked out my engagement ring! Heh. I am quite happy with my wife.
What is this word “stuck?” Did I appear to be complaining about feminism? That was certainly not my intention. I was merely trying to explain that there are many types of feminists out there and a variety of understandings of the word “equality.” I was just stating the obvious.
Certainly. But equality means sharing burdens and not opting out because of gender.
To Hugo, “OTOH, you’re right on when you suggest that among the very young (high schoolers), there does seem to be anecdotal evidence that girls are becoming more assertive — and this may turn out to be a very good thing indeed.”
No it is *NOT* a good thing. All this means is that high school girls are more likely to have sex with high school boys. It also means that they are more likely to commit violent crimes while in school or out of school. Case in point, at my local high school, a White girl is sitting in the stands watching a basketball game. These six Black girls are climbing over her to get higher up in the bleachers. She asks them nicely to stop, but they decide to yell in her face. Fast forward to the next day where these six girls all wait for this girl, attack her as a gamg, smash her face with a cell phone and break her nose. Assertive girls are violent girls.
Mythago - Men want to be respected for their contributions to society, i.e. their work and what they create with their hands. Women would much rather want to be longed for and admired. Consider the male fantasy movies like Rocky - where a man works his way up from the bottom and wins it all (with the woman playing a secondary role). Then consider the female fantasy movies like “The Princess Diaries” where a woman - through no effort of her own, mind you - is discovered to have been an abandoned princess, and just needs a little fine tuning to attain a regal life. Notice again that the man in these movies is the central proof of her success, rather than a background accesssory.
To Hugo, “which is helping folks of all ages to become members of cohesive, accepting, stable communities which would provide safe opportunities to meet others” A great idea!! But one that will *NEVER* happen so long as more and more people have more and more choice to go their own way. Community and rampant personal freedom are mutually exclusive entities.
To Keri - “That’s not to say that every individual relationship initiated by the man is going to turn out this way, but the overall trend is troubling.” No, what’s troubling is how anyone with a brain can point to any country which has a heavy feminist influence and can note the abundance of divorce and child abuse in said cultures, and then say “Well traditional gender roles are crap, because we say they’re crap.”
To corianne - “Often, it is miscontrued as disinterest if we appear standoffish or distracted, but in reality, we were merely overanalyzing the situation and trying to read into the intentions and motivations of the person we are with.” If I may translate - because modern American culture doesn’t teach women *HOW* to flirt with men in an easy-going manner, you have to use your brain to compensate for lack of social training. So of course it doesn’t turn out as well.
Did you know there are classes in Mexico (and there used to be such classes in America in the 30s and 40s) where women are *TAUGHT* such things as how to walk, how to smile, how to laugh, how to sit at a table…and many more things - all with the expressed purpose of making them more attractive to men and allowing them to use that attractiveness to assess the men who respond to it?
Imagine that, a culture willing to say “Man this dating this is extremely tough for anyone to figure out on their own, so let’s train our children so they have a chance to get it right.”
To Hugo - “perhaps the most admirable quality of all [masculinity]is the emphasis on taking initiative and responsibility.” Agreed, which is why traditional courtship rules require the *woman* initiate by smiling, flirting, and laughing - while the man takes responsibility for going over there to initiate a conversation (or not). There was an amazing amount of logic in traditional rules, but certain people (*cough* feminists *cough*) find those rules too stifling and insisted they could do better. A rising divorce rate and the dead look in the eyes of unmarried 35+ year old modern women suggests otherwise.
To cmc - I’m glad you were able to make the assertiveness in the dating game work for you. Take comfort in the fact that your success puts you in the ratio of one to maybe two thousand women who were able to do so. Most women I know either won’t try, or try in such an awkward and difficult manner it’s something like watching a baby stick its face in to a fan…
To Ron O - ” Am I less of a man because I’m reluctant to make the first move?” No, you’re expecting a more sane and rational system where the women makes the first move by smiling, flirting, and laughing - making it clear that she likes you - and then you get to decide whether to go over there or not. You want to be in control of the situation, because you are a man. But you don’t want to go over to a complete stranger to initiate contact - because such behavior *IS* rude, and you’re not uncivilized.
To Ron O, again - “Have your attempts to initiate ever contributed to a woman feeling less secure in public?” Yes, when I have approached a woman who knew in her own mind that she wasn’t interested…yes yes and YES again!! But if women aren’t trained to show when they are interested, it’s impossible to tell when they’re not.
Plus, if you scan up earlier to corianne’s remark, “Sometimes it might look like we’re uninterested, but we really are - yet we can’t express that interest because we’re too busy analyzing the situation.” So now a woman is interested when she looks uninterested - doesn’t sound too sane to me, does it?
To bmmg39 - “When exactly did dating become about sex?” Right around the time when pre-marital sex became the expected result of dating, or when women decided to be sexually liberated, or when marriage became viewed as old-fashioned and undesirable. Take your pick which of the three is the most important, but those are the reasons.
To AngloBaptist - “But there is the chance that women can discern for themselves who the dangerous people are. And, as you know, rape statistics indicate that most people who commit rape are known by the victim. The chances that women are going to blindly pick out the sexual predator at the local sports bar is slim to none.” Okay, so if the assailant is known to the woman, then that means the woman let him in to her life at some point, right? So basically she mad a (bad) choice, but you’re saying they can make good choices? I….um….really don’t see why you’d use that statistic to prove your point when it seems to run contrary to it.
To FoolishOwl - “It has never felt to me like asking someone out was a good thing to do; it always felt like it was something perverse and selfish on my part to do so.” That just might be the saddest thing I’ve ever heard a man say. What is with this attitude?
To Thomas - “But thanks for providing yet more evidence that feminism was never about “equality” and always about giving women an easy ride through life at the expense of men.” EVERY society has been basically about giving women free rides at the expense of men. Even the patriarchy was no picnic for men, since only a few had any political power while the rest became fathers, soldiers, police officers, farmers, and factory workers. Though important, none of these roles is exactly glamourous and without toil nor worry. And the most laughable part about any feminist argument has always been about male privilege throughout history. In typical female emoto-speak, they point to the less than one-percent of all men who had a decent life and called them privileged for being *MALES* - not for being wealthy. EVERY society will be formed on the basis of what women want, because any male who doesn’t please the females becomes extinct - EVERY SINGLE TIME. The only difference between feminism and older times is the degree to which government uses its coercive power to tax ALL men at once to the benefit of ALL females at once.
To Michelle - “The good thing about feeling comfortable with taking the initiative is that you are also comfortable opting out if things aren’t feelin’ right.” I agree with you whole-heartedly, but there was a time way back when - when the majority of women were *trained* to become this way, rather than left to figure this out on their own. Consider yourself a prodigy, a one in two thousand kind of woman.
To Mythago - “The irony is that it’s not ‘traditional’ women who are going to do the asking-out; it’s feminists who have gotten over their traditional conditioning.” Right, and they’re also the ones divorcing men in record numbers, sleeping with underaged students in the classroom, beating up their female rivals, and using alimony and child support payments to support self-indlugent lifestyles. Girl power!
“…girls are becoming more assertive — and this may turn out to be a very good thing indeed.”
“No it is *NOT* a good thing. All this means is that high school girls are more likely to have sex with high school boys.”
No, it doesn’t.
“It also means that they are more likely to commit violent crimes while in school or out of school.”
No, it doesn’t.
“Case in point, at my local high school, a White girl is sitting in the stands watching a basketball game. These six Black girls are climbing over her to get higher up in the bleachers. She asks them nicely to stop, but they decide to yell in her face. Fast forward to the next day where these six girls all wait for this girl, attack her as a gamg, smash her face with a cell phone and break her nose. Assertive girls are violent girls.”
No, the two have nothing to do with each other. If a boy is assertive and asks a girl out, does that mean he’s violent? Of course not, and it’s no different for a girl who asks a boy out.
“Did you know there are classes in Mexico (and there used to be such classes in America in the 30s and 40s) where women are *TAUGHT* such things as how to walk, how to smile, how to laugh, how to sit at a table…and many more things - all with the expressed purpose of making them more attractive to men and allowing them to use that attractiveness to assess the men who respond to it?”
Why not just teach both boys and girls and men and women that anyone can ask anyone out? A lot of lonely men and boys would be very appreciative if someone were to make them feel wanted.
“Agreed, which is why traditional courtship rules require the *woman* initiate by smiling, flirting, and laughing - while the man takes responsibility for going over there to initiate a conversation (or not).”
So how about the woman initiates the conversation or, God forbid, maybe asks the bloke if he’d like to have a cup of coffee with her somewhere? Would the universe collapse upon itself?
“There was an amazing amount of logic in traditional rules, but certain people (*cough* feminists *cough*) find those rules too stifling and insisted they could do better.”
I’m a men’s rights activist and I agree with them that the “traditional” rules of gender-specific courting are crap.
“To bmmg39 - “When exactly did dating become about sex?” Right around the time when pre-marital sex became the expected result of dating, or when women decided to be sexually liberated, or when marriage became viewed as old-fashioned and undesirable. Take your pick which of the three is the most important, but those are the reasons.”
It takes two to tango, and the old “women are innocent virgins, men are horndogs who must sow their oats” stereotype winds up disadvantaging both genders.
MetaMetaX said:
To FoolishOwl - “It has never felt to me like asking someone out was a good thing to do; it always felt like it was something perverse and selfish on my part to do so.” That just might be the saddest thing I’ve ever heard a man say. What is with this attitude?
I read FoolishOwl’s comment as a lamentation of the fact that men often aren’t appreciated for playing the role of initiator. I have had the same impression: it often seemed that people thought that men were somehow putting a burden on women by asking them out. It seems that in dating, the man is often seen as a supplicant to the woman. This chivalrous idea is enshrined in norms like men being expected to pay for dates or buy flowers and presents for women (and women are supposed to like being treated in this way).
The idea seems to be that if a girl excepts a date with a guy, she is doing him such a big favor that he should repay her in some way by treating her like a princess. The fact that some women might find this behavior smothering and clingy is ignored, because all women are frail porcelain statues that want to be pampered and protected, right?
bmmg39: thanks for saving me the trouble of rebutting some of MetaMetaX’s strange assertions (pardon the pun).
bmmg said:
So how about the woman initiates the conversation or, God forbid, maybe asks the bloke if he’d like to have a cup of coffee with her somewhere? Would the universe collapse upon itself?
Unfortunately, yes. Given their current conditioning, I don’t think most women are ready to split the burden of initiating. Under the current norms, there is little incentive for them to do so. For women to be expected to initiate as much as men, a lot of gender norms will have to change first. Hence, MetaMetaX’s suggestion that women should be trained to facilitate men in making the initiatives may actually be a practical solution in the short run. This way, women are not expected to be completely passive, but they are also not held to the (currently) unrealistic standard of making as much of the initiatives as men.
To bmmg - “Why not just teach both boys and girls and men and women that anyone can ask anyone out? A lot of lonely men and boys would be very appreciative if someone were to make them feel wanted.”
So all that’s required to start *AND MAINTAIN* a good relationship is for someone to be willing to ask someone else out? Sounds somewhat short-sighted.
And even though your theory is short-sighted, it completely ignores that women are sheep in the dating game - they chase the same types of men over and over again. So “a lot of men will be appreciative” doesn’t cut it in the real world.
And for the record, state any violent crime: road rage, assault, murder, stalking, and harrassment - and the rates among women for those crimes are higher now than they’ve ever been in years. Even non-violent crimes like speeding and aggressive driving citations show an increased likelihood of females to commit these crimes. I hate using scientific evidence to back my points, but there you go.
I’m not saying that woman are being violent by asking men out, I’m saying that the loosening of cultural restrictions which used to prevent all types of female aggression (including asking men out) will increase both the likelihood of women asking men out AND aggressive female criminal behavior.
You continue, “So how about the woman initiates the conversation or, God forbid, maybe asks the bloke if he’d like to have a cup of coffee with her somewhere? Would the universe collapse upon itself?”
No, because that act in itself isn’t wrong. But the conditions to produce that act en masse will lead to unexpected negative consequences down the road - such as criminal female aggression.
You continue, “I’m a men’s rights activist and I agree with them that the “traditional” rules of gender-specific courting are crap.”
And I will treat that statement will all the respect deserving of any opinion statement. What’s that quote about opinions and assholes?? I forgot…
You continue, “It takes two to tango, and the old “women are innocent virgins, men are horndogs who must sow their oats” stereotype winds up disadvantaging both genders.”
Wow you just used an opinion to completely disprove what I said!! No wait…you just stated an opinion that totally ignored the logical embedded in my statement. Bravo!! Is it ‘Opinions are like opinions…??’ No, that’s not it.
So let me get this straight, women have more premarital sex nowadays than ever before. Women also use the workforce to both delay marriage and fund their leisure activities (one of which is sex). And we live in a culture where saving yourself for marriage is considered quaint, stupid, and outright weird. But don’t worry, dating has nothing to do with sex - because….well because you say it doesn’t!? Riiiiiiight.
To Aegis - Okay, that’s a better spin on FoolishOwl’s comment than I had deduced. I thought he was woefully ashamed of his sexual desires or something along those lines.
Not only do I agree with your second paragraph, but I’ve noticed that when a woman tries to initiate, they’re often so terrible at it, that it’s kind of scary.
Not only that, but the only women who are likely to initiate are the “strong” ones, while the only men who are likely to appreciate are the “weak” ones - and from womens’ own mouths this combination does NOT work.
“I’m not saying that woman are being violent by asking men out, I’m saying that the loosening of cultural restrictions which used to prevent all types of female aggression (including asking men out) will increase both the likelihood of women asking men out AND aggressive female criminal behavior.”
Then, it will only follow, men who ask women out are likely to engage in violent male criminal behavior. Now, does that make sense to you?
“Wow you just used an opinion to completely disprove what I said!! No wait…you just stated an opinion that totally ignored the logical embedded in my statement.”
Logic? Is that what you think you’re presenting here?
bmmg - “Then, it will only follow, men who ask women out are likely to engage in violent male criminal behavior. Now, does that make sense to you?”
Yes it makes perfect sense. If you group men in to the shy / not shy group, you’ve also probably grouped them in to an aggressive / non-aggressive dicotomy as well. You don’t think aggressive men commit the bulk of criminal acts?
And you still haven’t told me how I’m wrong for seeing sex and dating as inseparable…
“Yes it makes perfect sense. If you group men in to the shy / not shy group, you’ve also probably grouped them in to an aggressive / non-aggressive dicotomy as well. You don’t think aggressive men commit the bulk of criminal acts?”
You’re the one grouping people into dichotomies, and suggesting that if we encourage women to ask men out for coffee they’ll kill the men and throw them into the lake.
“And you still haven’t told me how I’m wrong for seeing sex and dating as inseparable…”
That wasn’t a point I was making in your direction, but not everyone who dates has sex with the person he/she is dating.
bmmg39 - “You’re the one grouping people into dichotomies, and suggesting that if we encourage women to ask men out for coffee they’ll kill the men and throw them into the lake.”
Yes I do that all the time. Dichotomies may not be the ultimate way of thinking, but they form the heart of logical thinking, and I tend to view the world through the lens of logic.
I’m even nice enough to explain how I could go from “women asking men out” to “women committing violent crimes” - but no one seems appreciative. :( If it helps, I will say that I don’t mean that *ANY* woman who asks a man out is going to commit a crime, I just mean that once you start seeing many women ask men out, you’ll also start seeing many women commit crimes. It’s a group correlation thing, not a personal attack against women.
You add, “That wasn’t a point I was making in your direction, but not everyone who dates has sex with the person he/she is dating.”
Okay, I will make you a once in a lifetime offer. I will agree to something without proof nor reason that exactly 10% of people who exist in the world disconnect sex from dating. You might be able to talk me up to 20%, but you’ll have to get me drunk first.
Do we have a deal? ;)
“Yes I do that all the time. Dichotomies may not be the ultimate way of thinking, but they form the heart of logical thinking, and I tend to view the world through the lens of logic.”
As do I, and I can tell you that false dichotomies are not elements of logic.
“You add, “That wasn’t a point I was making in your direction, but not everyone who dates has sex with the person he/she is dating.” Okay, I will make you a once in a lifetime offer. I will agree to something without proof nor reason that exactly 10% of people who exist in the world disconnect sex from dating. You might be able to talk me up to 20%, but you’ll have to get me drunk first.”
I hope it’s much HIGHER than 20%. I’d be furious if someone insinuated I was having sex just because I was dating somebody. I’d hate to have to explain that we’re engaging in “chaste dating” just because of people’s senseless assumptions. It’s something that could discourage a person from dating.
But I don’t know if it’s 20% or 10% or 55% or 2%. All I can tell you is that NOT EVERYONE sees sex as a requisite for dating, that the number used to be higher than it is now, and that this is unfortunate.