I’m catching up on other people’s blogs, returning e-mails, and trying to stay awake. My head is still stuffed from the cold,and my ears are still blocked from the plane. Other than that, things are going swimmingly.
At Feministe, we’ve got "Equal Opportunity Crappy Dating Advice". Jill alerts us to one particular offering for men that’s making its way around the internet. It lists ten mistakes men are said to make that blow their chances with women, and offers advice for "getting" "really attractive" women. The ten mistakes range from the sensible to the absurd, and the advice commentary that accompanies each mistake is quite entertaining. Some 60 comments debate the whole thing, and it’s worth a read.
Reading through the list, it struck me that no one has ever come up with a "dating tips for pro-feminist men." I toyed with the idea for a moment, but then rejected it. After all, all such "tip lists" which offer ten or twenty suggestions for "scoring" with the opposite sex, or "picking up", or even "meeting" partners have one fundamental problem. By their very nature, they turn sex/dating/romance into a project. They posit a problem and offer a solution.
But I’ve come to believe we make a terrible mistake when we see dating and sexuality as problems to be solved. The dating advice that Jill quotes at Feministe — and most other such advice I’ve seen elsewhere – is based on the assumption that women are a challenge to be mastered, rather than human beings to be engaged. There’s the suggestion that when it comes to love and sex, there are a finite set of absolute truths out there about men and women that a few lucky folks have understood and of which the rest of us are ignorant. But if we pay close attention (and pay money) to these "masters", they’ll teach us their techniques and we can begin to practice them with greater success and confidence.
Yes, I do get asked for dating advice. (Few folks ask me — yet — for marriage advice.) I work with lots and lots of young people, and my life experience and field of interest suggests to them that I might be a good person to ask. Younger boys often ask for specific tips: "How can I tell a girl that I like her?" "How do I know if she’s into me, or if she just likes me as a friend?" "How do I know when it’s okay to kiss her?" There are lots of stock answers having to do with summoning up courage and the like, but I don’t dispense little bon mots of wisdom. I’m not sure I’m qualified, first of all, but more importantly, I think there are more important questions to ask.
Here’s a question I’ve often challenged my youth group kids with — but it works for older folks too: "Why should someone go out with me? What do I bring to the table?" When I first ask the kids to ask themselves that in youth group a few years ago, I got standard answers like the following:
"I don’t know." "Because I’m pretty?" (complete with question mark) "Because I’m nice." "Because once you get to know me, I’m really loving." "Because I’m tall." "Because I listen to tight music." "I don’t know." "Who would want to go out with me anyway?" "Because of my boobs." "I don’t know. Because I can make people laugh." "I don’t know." "I don’t know."
My experience with older folks is that they aren’t much better than 15 year-olds at answering that question! So many people are terribly focused on meeting new people, or finding a new relationship, or just "hooking up" with someone new — but they are reluctant to ask themselves the most basic question: "Why should someone be with me?" And if they do answer the question, they may answer it with the same "I don’t knows", or a list of trivial assets, or cutting self-deprecation. But I’m convinced that a key to healthy, loving relationships (both sexual and non-sexual) is focusing honestly, without deception or bravado of self-loathing, on what it is that we genuinely have to offer. The list has to go beyond body parts and bank accounts and sexual skills.
Most of the lists I see are essentially techniques for more effectively cultivating a mask, a false image, an "idealized other." Once we’ve "hooked" the other person, we then start to drop the mask in the hope that they’ll be sufficiently comfortable with us that they won’t run away when we show them all of our filth. But obviously, that’s both a dishonest and ultimately ineffective way of resolving the problem of human loneliness. Even in adolescence, the focus has to be on helping folks to become worthy of being dated, worthy of being slept with, worthy of being married! Though it’s trite to say so, you’re not going to be effective at getting other folks to like you — and stay around — if you aren’t clear on why it is that they should do so.
When I was first dating the woman who is now my wife, someone very close to us asked me this question: "Why should she be with you?" Of course, I made the usual silly remarks — I’m entertaining, I’m not unattractive, I have a state teachers pension — but then I did get serious. And I thought and thought and I said something like this:
"At my core I’m fundamentally committed to transforming myself, transforming my partner, and transforming the world. Because I see a good relationship as one where each person is simultaneously potter and clay — we are molding each other as we ourselves are molded, sometimes pushing and pulling and kneading, sometimes caressing, always being pushed and pulled and kneaded and caressed. Because in the end, I will never excuse anything I do by throwing up my hands and saying ‘That’s just the way I am, accept me, dammit!’ And I will never let my partner get away with that either."
That was my answer, and of course other people will have different ones. But what I needed to do was see why it was that I was worthy of being truly loved by a woman as amazing as my wife. If I thought that I had tricked her into loving me, or if I thought that she just had poor taste, I would be unable to appreciate her. In order to love someone fully in relationship, you have to do more than thank your lucky stars that despite your faults they love you back! I think it’s essential that, without immodesty or excess pride, you honestly see yourself as being worthy of being loved and become committed to working every day to make yourself still worthier.
I’m by no means a perfect husband. But I often ask myself a question these days when I’m contemplating an action or making a choice: "Is what I’m about to do consistent with the man who is worthy of being loved so much?" That is not the same as making my wife an internalized audience! I’m not turning her into a parental super-ego! Rather, it’s about recognizing that I have an obligation to myself to continue to see myself as worth a magnificent, exciting relationship — and the choices I make as to what I do and don’t do help shape that self-perception.
Heavens, I’ve wandered off topic! Maybe ten hours sleep total the last three nights and way too much cold medicine has made me loopy. But if you’re still reading, I hope my basic point is clear. If we want connection, if we want relationship, if we want eros at its magnificent best, we can’t disguise ourselves to capture it! We may not merit Christ’s agape love, but we will always attract the very level of people whom we believe we truly deserve. My old friend Jack always said it like this, and it still stands as the best dating advice I know:
"If you want something you haven’t got, you’re going to have to become someone you haven’t been. And in order to become someone you have never been, you’re going to have to do things you’ve never done."
Every day, I push myself to do things I’ve never done before, in the hopes of becoming someone I haven’t been yet, in the assurance that if I do so, I will continue to merit the love of a woman whom I know is pushing herself as hard as I am, with that same mix of faith and joy and relentless perseverance.
All I can say is…RIGHT ON, HUGO!!!!
I would have used slightly different words, but this is exactly my experience. When you put down the concept of the other person being so all firingly important, and start answering your own needs, you are able to see who you are and what you have to give. It’s been my experience that this shift of focus from Make-Them-Like-Me to Who-Am-I generally causes relationships to fall out of the clear blue sky. You’re no longer manipulating; you’re a genuine person. People generally seem to like genuine.
all such “tip lists” which offer ten or twenty suggestions for “scoring” with the opposite sex, or “picking up”, or even “meeting” partners have one fundamental problem. By their very nature, they turn sex/dating/romance into a project. They posit a problem and offer a solution.
But I’ve come to believe we make a terrible mistake when we see dating and sexuality as problems to be solved. The dating advice that Jill quotes at Feministe — and most other such advice I’ve seen elsewhere — is based on the assumption that women are a challenge to be mastered, rather than human beings to be engaged.
This is as succinct an explanation as any for why my own romantic relationships have been so few and far between. For several years in college I considered myself asexual, and I think in a large part that was simply because I wasn’t enough of an independent thinker to realize relationships didn’t have to work according to the ludicrously antagonistic standards of our society — and, subconsciously, what I wanted out of a relationship was precisely the opposite.
That’s not to say wanting an authentic (in a semi-existentialist sense, I suppose) romantic relationship is the only reason I’ve spent long, long periods of my short life very single. I’ve struggled long and hard with being extremely introverted, and even today I’m awkward and disinterested in the small talk that’s considered socially acceptable before delving into a detailed discussion of, say, Frege’s attack on Kant’s philosophy of mathematics, or Dove’s ad campaign from this summer. Being a straight man in a somewhat male-dominated section of academia doesn’t help any, either. Still: when (almost?) all of your peers either (a) see dating as little more than the STD-free way of getting regular sex, or (b) have disconcertingly conservative fundamentalist religious beliefs (and (a) and (b) may not be exclusive), it’s hard to find a relationship you want to a Relationship.
Here’s a question I’ve often challenged my youth group kids with — but it works for older folks too: “Why should someone go out with me? What do I bring to the table?”
This is a FANTASTIC question, and as I am (hopefully, fingers crossed!) on the verge of starting a new romance with a truly wonderful woman, this is something I’m definitely going to be thinking about over the next few days.
I don’t say this often (mostly because I lurk too much), but excellent post, Hugo.
Apologies for double-posting, but one more thing has suddenly occured to me. I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion. I realize many (most?) of them come to the MRA movement after divorces, which are far too often made unnecessarily nasty by the way our divorce system works (both ex-spouses need to hire lawyers, who often get paid by the size of what “their size” “wins”, and this isn’t expected to be extraordinarily petty and bitter?), but it feels like there’s a genuine chicken-egg question here about their misogyny: Did they have crappy relationships because they regarded women as an inexplicable Other and prize to be hunted down, fought over, and conquered? Or do they now treat women as an inexplicable Other, of no regard except as prizes to be hunted down, fought over, conquered, and disposed merely because a nasty breakup left them bitter?
Thanks for the kind words, all three of you; Noumena, I’m excited for your new relationship, and intrigued by the question you ask. Some MRAs might say,or have been saying, that they have examined themselves, and found American women to be generally unworthy of all that these MRAs bring to the table.
A really wonderful post Hugo. Self introspection is always a good way to take stock of your own life and improve yourself and your relationships. But this caught my eye:
“At my core I’m fundamentally committed to transforming myself, transforming my partner, and transforming the world. Because I see a good relationship as one where each person is simultaneously potter and clay — we are molding each other as we ourselves are molded, sometimes pushing and pulling and kneading, sometimes caressing, always being pushed and pulled and kneaded and caressed.
I think, that after many years of marriage my wife and I have done this for each other in so many ways. And we have both benefited from it. Our marriage is stronger because we reinforce each other and make each other stronger. I am truly blessed for that.
But many times in my life I’ve met women who are attracted not to the man in their lives, but what they want their man to be. For instance, they might be attracted to that “bad boy” image, but are also firmly convinced that they can change and mold that person into someone more responsible. The problem is, it seldom works out that way. These woman often spend years of their lives trying to “pull and kneed” these men into becoming more responsible or otherwise becoming something they are not. They make both their partners and themselves miserable. These relationships often end in dismal failure.
I’m not saying that men and women can’t change. But often the fairy tale story of turning your frog into a prince (or princess) is just that, a fairy tale. Trying to change your partner has to be based on realistic expectations.
Indeed, Uzzah. And there’s no point in trying to change those who don’t want to change. My wife and I are, for better or for worse, “growth junkies” — we like living that way, and are suited for it. Some folks may have less ambitious plans for their own life narrative, and there’s no point in trying to inspire the uninspirable.
I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion.
Some MRAs might say,or have been saying, that they have examined themselves, and found American women to be generally unworthy of all that these MRAs bring to the table.
I might say the same thing about Feminists (and pro-feminists) and their statements on relationships with men, but like you two, I’d be making a broad statement about people with no basis in reality except for a very limited (and bitter) subset of the group.
Come on Hugo, I’d expect better from you.. Lay off the Dayquil.
“Lay off the Dayquil.”
Yeah, it’s getting to be time for the Nyquil liqui-caps!
As far as not having an answer to that “what do you bring to the table” question, I can say from experience that if you hate yourself, the rest of the world can smell it about a mile and a half away and you can bally well forget about relationships of any sort pretty much because nobody will touch you with a ten-foot pole. It’s kind of funny in an ironic way, really, when you think about it.
Problem is, it’s an extremely hard habit to break once learned, as far as bad habits go. One of the hardest, I think, probably somewhere between nailbiting and heroine.
“Apologies for double-posting, but one more thing has suddenly occured to me. I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion.”
Speaking for myself alone, I have never been in one. I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m sometimes loath to do so, for at least two reasons:
1. Since so many here are convinced (usually wrongly) that “MRA” = “misogynist,” the next illogical step is to assume (also wrongly) that my life o’ loneliness has caused me to adopt an anti-female stance, when in fact I don’t HAVE and anti-female (or anti-feminist) stance in the least.
2. I’m also usually afraid to say “I’ve never dated people” if I don’t think I have time to explain the whole situation, because in these “hookup culture” times we’re living in, I’m afraid that people will think that I’ve decided to avoid relationships in favor of one-night stands and random hookups, when that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. I’ve never been interested in sex/making out even WITHIN a romantic relationship, so I’m even less interested in doing so OUT of one.
As a casual, impartial observer of the world you dating earthlings live in, I DO indeed see a lot of antagonism out there. Lots of “games” played and duplicity. I certainly hope it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work. But I guess because nothing’s ever worked or happened for me I’m not the best one to ask. What do you think?
bg
Hugo, I’m tired after a long several days, or maybe I’d post about “tips” and about personal growth in marriage leading to marital and familial growth.
I hope you feel better soon.
Great post, Hugo! Those sorts of lists have always bothered me because they treat dating as a game rather than as interactions between people; they imply that all people of the same gender think in one way and that people should follow a set of rules rather than just being themselves and judging individual situations on their merits.
“As a casual, impartial observer of the world you dating earthlings live in, I DO indeed see a lot of antagonism out there. Lots of “games” played and duplicity. I certainly hope it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work. But I guess because nothing’s ever worked or happened for me I’m not the best one to ask. What do you think?”
It definately doesn’t have to be that way (antagonistic, game-playing, generally dysfunctional). Honesty, directness and a general sense of goodwill towards others seem to be the cure for most dating-related woes, but the problem seems to be that many people aren’t confident enough in themselves to be really honest. Laying oneself out there and being completely genuine puts one at risk of rejection, of being judged. I think all the dating advice nonsense, from “The Rules” to the loathsome neuro-linguistic programming, appeal to people because of a basic insecurity. When people aren’t sure that they’re worthy of being loved as they are, they pretend to be someone else. It never works in the end, but still people keep at it, like hamsters running on a wheel. Depressing to contemplate, and even more depressing to watch people in your own life doing it. I have a couple of good friends who stumble from one doomed relationship to another, never actually looking at what they really want and need from a partner or what they themsleves have to give. I really wish that I could convince them that if they would just drop the charade potential partners would in fact see them for the lovable people they actually are.
bmmg, based entirely on that comment, you sound a lot like me ~4 years ago (see my first comment). If, like me, you’re relatively young and feigning (possibly even to yourself) disinterest in romance just because of the vapid wasteland you see around you, let me reassure you that there ARE people both decent and attractive out there, and you’ll run into them more and more as you get older (picking the right venues to meet new people helps, too).
At the same time, don’t think I’m presuming to second-guess your proclaimed indifference to sex — I do realize genuine asexuals exist, and I can imagine how hard it would be to live as an ‘out’ asexual. If that is your situation, I’m sympathetic (in a non-condescending way), but I’m afraid I don’t have much of anything substantial to say.
bmmg, for what it’s worth, you’ve never come off as misogynistic to me. :) I never read your single status in that way.
hugo, I think this is a great post, and thoughts about authenticity and dating have been kicking around in my head lately since I read that Maureen Dowd column about her and her friends’ romantic woes. Seemed to me that all her anecdotes involved that inauthenticity and adversarialness in dating that people here have been talking about. So I think you make apt points about knowing yourself, and being willing to work and transform yourself and your partner within a relationship.
Also, some commentors over on the feministe thread gave some excellent advice along the lines of “to thine own self be true”. But these seem, on face, to be diametrically opposed pieces of advice. How do you negotiate that? How do you work out when you’re being true to yourself vs. when you’re stagnating? How do you work out when you’re changing in a positive way vs. being inauthentic? I think it’s a difficult but possible negotiation… I’m also not sure that I’m any good at it yet.
I certainly hope it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work.
It can be that way. But it takes a decent amount of courage and self-esteem on both sides to make it work. Have you ever wanted to tell someone something, but been afraid/worried about the outcome, and never told them? It happens in romantic relationships too. Even long-term, long-lasting ones. To be able to overcome that shame/guilt/whatever barrier is difficult, but it can be done. Of course, I dabble in communities where, if communcation doesn’t happen, very, very, very bad things can happen, whether physical, psychological, or emotional. So, I have an impetus to make sure I, and my partner, don’t play those sort of games. (On the bright side, it’s slowly weaning me away from my passive-aggressive tendencies.) And I much prefer having an honest-to-gosh partnership, rather than a clash of wills. I think I would be very unhappy were I to be on the oppositie side of the fence from my partner.
On a different topic, bmg, if you really do feel yourself separate and uninterested in the sexual world, may I suggect asexuality.org? I was treated to a lecture on asexuality by a member, and it seems like a decent place for those who really don’t feel a biological urge to couple with someone else. Though, if I’ve misjudged you, I do apologize.
I was definitely, in my single days, one of those who would have said “I don’t know” in response to the question “Why should someone go out with me.” In my case, it wasn’t so much that I had no self-confidence, in any general sense. I’d have no trouble answering the question, “Why would someone want to be my friend” or the question “Why would someone want to hire me,” or any question that asked what I brought to the table, as long as the table we were talking about didn’t involve any sort of romance.
It also wasn’t antagonism to the opposite sex, as such; I was fine with men as friends, and had no trouble believing that men would want to be friends with me (and in any case, I’m bisexual and not antagonistic to women, either). It was more that romance, itself, just seemed like a Lynn-hostile area, where I couldn’t expect that what I brought to the table would be of any particular use. Or where, if people did want to go out with me, they wouldn’t want the same thing I wanted.
What helped was focusing less on getting someone to go out with me than on being sure that, if I ever did get involved with someone, I’d be in the sort of relationship I actually wanted. If articles with career advice were written the way articles with dating advice were written, we’d hear only about “dress for success” and tips for acing job interviews, and nothing about how you figure out what kind of job you want, how you then study or train yourself for that job, how you keep expanding your skills on the job, etc.
You pose the question: “Why should someone go out with me?”
but perhaps, the question ought to be ‘Why should I want to go out with someone?’
and maybe even, “where does my self worth lie?”
I am a twenty-five year old woman, and I have never been in a serious relationship. And, it’s not for lack of self respect or self love. I have at least one half dozen friends from high school who are of like mind. And we all lead uncompromisingly full and beautiful lives. We’re not ugly, we’re not desparate, and we’re not unhappy. Does this mean we get the respect we deserve? No, because we are expected to be led by conventional romantic ideals. And at the top of this list of ideals, is the pursuit of that ‘perfect’ emotional/ physical connection with some charming object of lust. screw that.
We have goals in our lives, that require our time, consideration, and complete attention. Why does this cause such a problem for people? Why does this make people think we are desparate or lonely or repressed? I am going to lead a long life, and if I want to spend my youth in the pursuit of that perfect moment where my life has meaning because I have found a reason and a way to fight for my dignity and the dignity of others, so that the world is just a little bit better. Then why do I need to worry about finding some prick to hold my hand.
There are many ways to make your heart grow, and I believe that all paths are equal in deciding the quality of our lives, so long as the passion is equal as well.
“bmmg, based entirely on that comment, you sound a lot like me ~4 years ago (see my first comment). If, like me, you’re relatively young and feigning (possibly even to yourself) disinterest in romance just because of the vapid wasteland you see around you, let me reassure you that there ARE people both decent and attractive out there, and you’ll run into them more and more as you get older (picking the right venues to meet new people helps, too).”
My age is 32. I don’t have a disinterest in romance, only one in sex. My life is a short string of unrequited crushes and basic cluelessness: the times in which someone actually paid attention to me (which usually doesn’t happen), I, having nothing else to go on, would ask myself questions like, “So, I don’t know…does this mean we’re boyfriend and girlfriend?” Which, I know, is ridiculous to ask, since each time there would be no actual dates, but just time spent sitting in the football bleachers in band during football games, but I really had no experience or anyone to help me along. Anyway, before too long I’d be disabused of the myth that we were an item, and it only caused further disillusionment. So when I say I’ve never dated, it’s not a sign of a conscious choice, but rather the way things turned out for me in life. And yet people tell me that I give out decent, sensible advice for THEIR situations…thanks for your kindness.
“bmmg, for what it’s worth, you’ve never come off as misogynistic to me.”
Thank you.
“On a different topic, bmg, if you really do feel yourself separate and uninterested in the sexual world, may I suggect asexuality.org?”
Thank you. Someone in a chat room reference that site (or a related one) once. It’s good because, as the website says, many match sites falsely assume that those uninterested in sex must also be uninterested in romance, which isn’t the case.
bg
I think I’ll delurk just long enough to make one post.
sophia wrote:
You pose the question: “Why should someone go out with me?”
but perhaps, the question ought to be ‘Why should I want to go out with someone?’ and maybe even, “where does my self worth lie?”
This is a critical question, and I couldn’t agree more. I find myself in similar shoes to bmmg39, but not quite. I’ve been single all of my life, and now, at age 27, I find my friends pairing off and getting married, while I’ve never had a girlfriend or any other form of significant other. For that matter, I haven’t been on a date in about two years, either.
I spent a lot of time wondering what was so wrong with me, and just wishing I could find that special someone. It didn’t occur to me until quite recently that one of the problems is that I really only wanted a SO just so I could have one, and that’s a pretty poor reason. I wasn’t really prepared to change my ways, and I’m quite well adapted to prolonged singlehood. I have always been an outsider among outsiders. Avoidant Personality Disorder will do that to you. I’ve been keenly aware of my outsider status since I was a child, and deeply resentful of it. When I see everyone I know pairing off, and am constantly told via the media that healthy people will find companionship, I began to deperately desire someone else. I just wanted to fit in for a change, to not be so different. I wanted to prove to myself that I was as good and anyone else, that I was socically acceptable and that I mattered. But that’s not a good reason to become involved with someone, even if I could. Finding someone just so you can make a trophy of them degrades both parties.
I lead a cloistered lifestyle in which I rarely leave my apartment, my social engagements consist largely of binge drinking with my friends in the same bar, and my social circle rarely expands. The thing is, I’m pretty content with that. I like solitude, most of the time. I like being able to dictate my own terms, and do what I want, when I want. Would I make allowances for another person? I guess, maybe, perhaps. But I’m stubborn and set in my ways. Hopefully, I’ll be in law school by this time next year (LSAT in two weeks, wish me luck), and maybe the change in setting, combined with being in an environment where I will know no-one, will push me to change for the better.
What the heck, I’ll make one more:
bmmg39 wrote:
I don’t have a disinterest in romance, only one in sex. My life is a short string of unrequited crushes and basic cluelessness: the times in which someone actually paid attention to me (which usually doesn’t happen), I, having nothing else to go on, would ask myself questions like, “So, I don’t know…does this mean we’re boyfriend and girlfriend?”
I can relate to that, especially the history of unrequited love. I’ve had a lot of crushes, but my insecurities and shyness makes it impossible to approach women, even those I know quite well. I tend to freeze up. Rather embarrasing, actually.
Even if I can get past that, I have a sort of “sexual autism”, in which I just can’t read the signs women give me, even if they’re plainly obvious, and even then I can’t figure out what I am expected to do. I can recall in college that there was one woman who was everything I could have ever wanted. She was very intelligent, knew me well as a friend already (some say this is a no no, but I can’t imagine just asking women out cold, I like to know them as friends first), and was really attractive to boot. We even shared the same sort of upstate NY Anglo-Dutch background, which always gave us something to talk about. She started coming by my dorm often, became even more friendly, and made it a point to hand-deliver invitations to her society’s functions. I stayed friends, and later she found someone else. I never got the hint. It wasn’t until months later that it dawned on my that she was pursuing me. I hope she didn’t feel like I was rejecting her. She’s married now, I hope she’s doing well.
Even when women did ask me out, I had a hard time figuring out what I should do. I always seemed to bungle things during dates, and I could never figure out the gray areas that exist between “friend” and “significant other.” I for some reason thought that if you go out with someone several times, that’s it, you’re an item. I can see now how bizarre my behavior must have been. No wonder none of these attempts went anywhere.
I can’t relate to the asexual angle entirely. I still desire sex, and find many, heck, most women sexually attractive in one way or another. My deepest desires are not sexual in nature, though. I rarely have sexual dreams anymore, for instance. I have dreams where I am with someone, we understand and trust each other completely and are in love. Waking up from those always hurt. Like you, I have a deep interest in romance before or apart from sex, but based on my past experiences I think I have to do a better job of distinguishing one from the other.
Hugo: I hope this post wasn’t too long. Regarding your question of why someone would want to go out with me, I think I have a lot to offer. I’m reasonably intelligent, a pretty good conversationalist once I get comfortable with someone, ambitious to the point of wanting a more out of life but not greedy. I’ve long believed in trying to make myself a better person, even if I have often failed in that regard, but I have still managed to accomplish things I thought were impossible. I have changed myself for the better through the years.
But I think there is a deeper question of, “Am I right for anyone else?” When I really think about it, the answer is generally, “no.” I’m very different than most men, and for someone to get close to me would take a tremendous amount of effort on their part to get past my insecurities and barriers. It’s really not fair to expect that someone should be capable of doing that, and I know I am unlikely to completely change, at least to the point where I am on the market as a viable partner. Sometimes, you just have to know your limitations. If it happens on day, great. If not, oh well. There are other things to life, and hopefully I can still find meaning in something else. Hopefully, it will be in some form of Constitutional law.
Great question. For many years I couldn’t answer that satisfactorily. The way I coped was years of celibacy. I had myself convince that I didn’t have much to offer. Friends would cheer me up and say I was good-looking, kind, etc. To which I’d think “Big deal, those are superficial qualities anyway.”
aetakeo described my experince as well above: “…this shift of focus from Make-Them-Like-Me to Who-Am-I generally causes relationships to fall out of the clear blue sky.” Once I was honest about the Who am I, rather than defining myslef as undesirable as a coping mechanism, that’s what happened to me.
One way I was able to defuse some of my dating insecurities was being up-front and matter of fact about them with potential mates. Without dwelling on them, I brought them up early so they wouldn’t become bigger issues later. With my wife this sharing (and defusing) insecurities made me better understand the difficulites she has faced. It’s amazing how we came down very different paths to a similar place.
Just a quick comment on the “sexual autism” thing. What jumps out at me from that statement is that you seem to think whatever is “wrong” with you is “terribly” wrong with you and what I’ve found is that most people feel awkward around the opposite sex, and most men have a hard time picking up clues from women. You aren’t even nearly the only one. For me that makes the - sorry for the analogy - playing field, more equal. Every guy out there has a hard time knowing when a woman likes him - unless he’s a jerk and assumes that every woman likes him - so you aren’t at any particular disadvantage. And women are chicken to come right out and say it - so she missed a chance too, you know?
The problem I have had as a woman is some of the same the commenters have said. I think I’m a pretty attractive, smart, generous, level-headed person in general. I think I have a lot to offer, but I haven’t ever been sure that what I have to offer is what anyone else really wants. AND, in the dating situation, my experience is that when women are themselves they start taking a potential dating situation a lot more seriously then men do - or maybe we just don’t filter as quickly - but we get pissed if a guy says he’s going to call when he doesn’t. We are pissed and that is “being ourselves” but that kind of behavior tends to be a turn-off for guys. SO…that’s why we start reading books like “He’s just not that into you” and as repulsive as they are “The Rules.” I hate “The Rules.” Hate the idea that I have to pretend to be something and play little games in order to have a man in my life - and yet - it seems that the girls who follow the rules actually do have men in their lives. So, another quote to make you wince, “Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?”
Okay, yes, are you gonna be happy with a guy you had to find with a list of rules? Well, I don’t know! If I knew I wouldn’t be reading the damn book.
Heather, I don’t think “get[ting] pissed if a guy says he’s going to call when he doesn’t” is a behavior that’s either universal to or limited to women. If it happens more often to women than men, that’s probably because of those silly cultural roles stating that men should be the ones to call and women should be the ones sitting by the phone. If he isn’t calling, why waste time “getting pissed” about it when you can just pick up the phone and see what’s going on yourself? (I understand it may be easier said than done, but a lot of women seem to just automatically dismiss the possibility, or never even think of it at all.)
These stereotypes are just the sort of thing that keep annoying dating memes like The Rules going– the idea that women are naturally inclined to act clingy and needy and desperate in a new/potential relationship, so we need to place artificial limits on how much time we spend with dates, how often we see them, how much we tell them, etc. And really, it’s a pile of crap. It’s all about being “mysterious” and “intriguing,” which more or less translates to feigning complete apathy toward men you’re interested in, lying to them to make it seem like your social life is much fuller than it is, and never daring to let any personality peek through your mask so men can project their ideal fantasies onto you uninterrupted. I can’t think of a scenario less likely to result in happy, healthy, fulfilling relationships, at least for people who have standards beyond just finding a boyfriend/husband at all costs.
All these lists are about social skills. Some people just never developed them, though they can be brilliant in so many other ways. And that can lead to a lot of lonely nights.
Its really a balancing act, all in all. In a way you do need to be yourself and not lose your individuality and become a hollow shell of a personality, yet at the same time, if you want a social life, you need to develop social skills, which does mean some degree of conformity with society. The question that I guess everybody has to decide for themself is where do they draw the line or lines.
Hugo - your advice is the perfect response to the fools (like Randomliberal/Robert on the Feministe post) who say “be yourself”. My response has been, once I figured out just how bad that particular advice was, “being yourself isn’t working. Become someone else.” By making someone ask themselves “why should someone date me”, you’re making them realize whether “being themself” is an appropriate strategy. If you’re not dating the sort of person you want to be dating, then it probably isn’t.
Most of those 10 rules are actually very good advice, though not always terribly well-presented, and horribly easy for people to misunderstand. Number 10 is too obviously a sales pitch, but it’s also such an obvious idea that every guy who is dissatisfied with his dating life does it. Di Angelo is just trying to say “ask me for help”.
All these lists are about social skills. Some people just never developed them, though they can be brilliant in so many other ways. And that can lead to a lot of lonely nights.
Well, yes and no. Some people are really bad at a whole lot of social skills, and some are socially skilled in nearly every situation. But most of us are in between. We may be great at listening to friends’ problems, but lousy at selling. Or good at small talk, but bad at picking up on certain cues that people aren’t right for us. Or some other combination of good and bad. It’s generally best to be as specific as you can be about what it is you really don’t know how to do well. And what, perhaps, you’re actually not so bad at.
I spent years, as a child, thinking I was utterly awful at sports. Then, when I got older and thought a little more, I redefined my problem. I was, a) a year younger and less coordinated than the people I was playing sports with (I skipped a grade), and b) really bad at throwing balls. Which isn’t at all the same thing as being bad at everything physical. Overgeneralizing about what social skills you lack can work the same way.
Another issue is expectations. My expectation, when I was young, was that if I were really a normally attractive woman, most of the men I was attracted to would reciprocate, once they knew I was attracted. The mere fact that more than half of them didn’t meant I was an unusually unattractive woman (even though a significant minority of the men actually did reciprocate).
This is an interesting discussion, but I’ve only had time to skim through it. We’ve been getting things ready for Thanksgiving sales this weekend.
I do want to point out that the comments to “be yourself” *and* the comments about social skills are pretty much on par, from my experience. That doesn’t mean that you don’t improve yourself if there’s something that’s getting between you and relationships (ANY relationships - friends, family, etc). We all must continually work to improve ourselves, IMO.
Before Chewy and I met, we’d each been working on ourselves. When we met, we were both new to the Austin area and were both single, custodial parents. We met online, emailed and talked on the phone for 9 days, met in person (with a 9yo and a 11yo “chaperone”), and dated with our “chaperones” in tow for 3 weeks before we ever went on a solo date.
We each were only looking for someone who understood that single, custodial parents need to get out once in a while for some adult time, that adult time meant planning ahead and hiring a babysitter, and that “spur of the moment” meant “kids in tow.” We each wanted a friend to go to the movies and dinner with once in a while. That was all, no strings attached. We were each too busy raising our kids to have more than that. Or so we thought.
Over 6 years later, I’m still amazed at how everything clicked together for us. When I was looking for a romantic relationship, everything was all wrong. When I was only looking for a friend, suddenly the man who fit the description over which I’d prayed (yes, you read that right) was in my life. And we each nearly ran the other direction, it was so unnerving.
One thing I can of which I can assure you - the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it,” is so very true. I actually had a *written* list of what I wanted in a relationship. After a failed marriage and a couple of failed dating relationships, I knew what I *didn’t* need/want in a relationship.
And wouldn’t you know, Chewy is exactly to a T the man who fits that list of characteristics - right down to eye color, hair color, and height. And there’s nothing more infuriating than remembering that when I’m angry as the dickens at him. ;-)
So, bmmg et al, don’t look for an SO. Do what *you* are meant to do, live your life as you’re meant to live it, and let things happen as they are supposed to. If there’s someone in the works for you, that person will arrive, sooner or later, when you least expect it - when you’re looking the other way and aren’t thinking about it.
Bmmg39 —
I think it’s a lot harder to be a man in your situation than it would be to be a woman — because you are in the role of having to “read” the signals, since women, for cultural reasons, are generally less outgoing or explicit when they are interested in someone romantically. I definitely advocate changing that cultural expectation but meanwhile it’s tough for people like you (and for all the women moping by the phone hoping the object of their affection will call them!)
Although I don’t know you at all, I sense based only on your comments on this site and others that you would be a warm and considerate romantic partner with a lot to offer. As for the asexuality aspect, are there any groups (perhaps asexuality.org) that links up like minded people who are interested in romance but not sex — I’ll bet there are . . . Meanwhile, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for you.
Morning coffee, I’ve skipped reading all the comments so forgive me if I’m stating something that has already been said…
I totally agree with and identify with the drive for personal growth and the need for partners to share in this quality. I’ve only a slightly differing take on some of what you say Hugo. For one, I believe that a great deal is learned from the endeavor of knowing yourself as worthy - to begin with. I view that the beginning, and it has everything to do with the genuine confidence levels that contribute to or defy ritualistic ‘dating games’…. Which I personally abhor… In my view, the worthiness of oneself to be loved is fundamental and should be assumed - if one finds themselves struggling with this assumption it is a signal that there is some personal work to do.
I also believe that the drive for further growth need lay with ones hunger to be a person whom cares for and respects themself. I view these distinctions as requirements that result in authenticity, empathy, kindness, mental and emotional health. This personal awareness, ‘admiration’, and respect contributes to our dynamic with others.. including with whom and how it is we experience intimate relationships.
But I’ve come to believe we make a terrible mistake when we see dating and sexuality as problems to be solved.
So right. Though it’s a logical outgrowth of the idea that the opposite sex is at best an exotic beast, and at worst an enemy, to be trick, challenged and mastered.
“Be yourself” only means “don’t change or improve at all” to fools. “Be yourself” is a sloppy way of saying “don’t pretend to be the person you think would be attractive to somebody else.”
Did they have crappy relationships because they regarded women as an inexplicable Other and prize to be hunted down, fought over, and conquered? Or do they now treat women as an inexplicable Other, of no regard except as prizes to be hunted down, fought over, conquered, and disposed merely because a nasty breakup left them bitter?
I’ve worked with a lot of MRA guys, and one common thread is that when they were younger, they treated women decently and women, in response, treated them in a less than decent fashion. Women who lied about being battered and raped or about paternity.
A lot of men got fed up with the abuse and that is why we have MRAs.
A lot of men got fed up with the abuse and that is why we have MRAs
You’re saying we have MRAs because some badly-treated men decided to blame Women, the entire female half of humanity, for the actions of some? I would be pretty mad about that stereotyping, were I an MRA.
Mythago, Joseph did not say that MRAs “decided to blame Women, the entire female half of humanity.” That’s your projection. If you define MRAs as persons who blame all women for the faults of a few, then I can understand your reactivity and some of the things you write at times. Your projection is no more accurate than a similar projection that some make re feminists: that they blame all men for the faults of a few. I know that you can make the leap to understanding this, but in case you do not wish to bother, I will explain. These men were awakened by their experiences to recognize the disadvantages under which they and other men were laboring in our society simply because of their gender, and they were moved to join a movement to address such injustices. Cleaning up these things will also be to the advantage of women (in the long run), so there is no need for the vitriolic responses of feminists. MRAs are only a threat if you have gender privilege to protect. (This sounds eerily familiar!)
Your projection is no more accurate than a similar projection that some make re feminists
stanton, if you were reading what I had written, instead of pretending to misunderstand because it’s more fun that way, you’d see that I was criticizing Joseph’s claim that MRAs’ views are a reaction to past abuse by women.
These men were awakened by their experiences to recognize the disadvantages under which they and other men were laboring in our society simply because of their gender, and they were moved to join a movement to address such injustices.
The problem (most) feminists have with MRAs is not that they wish to correct injustices against men. It’s that there is a wing of the MRA movement that believes women’s equality is an injustice against men, that sexism against women does not exist (or doesn’t exist in any important fashion), and so on.
Glitch: “She was very intelligent, knew me well as a friend already (some say this is a no no, but I can’t imagine just asking women out cold, I like to know them as friends first)…”
See, this is related to why I not only have never had a girlfriend but also simply have never dated people, period. When I was in high school, I remember other couples gravitating together on their own, on band trips and the like. Therefore, I’ve always pretty much assumed that this is how it’s to be: that the falling in love/crush part comes FIRST, and THEN you go out on a date. There should be at least a little bit of romantic feeling first, meaning “seeing other people” concurrently and going on “blind dates” are beyond my comprehension.
Heather: I hate “The Rules” about as much as you do. Yeah, that’s what we need: MORE people being dishonest and saying one thing when they mean another simply because a book told them to. Nothing short of frightening.
Happy: “I think it’s a lot harder to be a man in your situation than it would be to be a woman — because you are in the role of having to “read” the signals, since women, for cultural reasons, are generally less outgoing or explicit when they are interested in someone romantically. I definitely advocate changing that cultural expectation but meanwhile it’s tough for people like you (and for all the women moping by the phone hoping the object of their affection will call them!)”
Exactly, exactly, exactly. It drives me bonkers when a girl or woman says, “How do I get him to ask me out?” Like…if that’s the way you feel, then ASK HIM OUT, GENIUS! I shudder to think of all the people out there who missed out on something special, simply because the male was shy and the female slightly less shy but “couldn’t” ask him out because the “rules” say she’s not supposed to. (And, if the “rules” were true, how would there be any lesbian couples, if each person waited for the other to make the first move?)
I’m equally frightened (not just frustrated but frightened) by the advice that, even if a female appreciates a male’s attention, she should still rebuff them so as to make him pursue her even more. If I were rebuffed after asking someone out, I’d figure that she just isn’t into me, and would sadly go home. But the “rules” say that a guy should keep coming back again and again (which some would consider stalking), and that the female, maybe on the fifth or sixth time, should finally “accept” him. How nauseous.
My gratitude to Cait and HF and all others who’ve offered their advice and/or kind comments to me.
Finally, getting back to the main question that prompted this, if you ask MRAs the question of “Are you an activist because of something that happened in your personal life?” you’d probably have a lot answering in the affirmative, just as you would if you asked a group of feminists the exact same question. But that doesn’t necessarily negate an MRA’s (or a feminist’s) credentials or reasons for becoming an MRA (or a feminist).
boy genteel
bmmg39:
See, this is related to why I not only have never had a girlfriend but also simply have never dated people, period. When I was in high school, I remember other couples gravitating together on their own, on band trips and the like. Therefore, I’ve always pretty much assumed that this is how it’s to be: that the falling in love/crush part comes FIRST, and THEN you go out on a date. There should be at least a little bit of romantic feeling first, meaning “seeing other people” concurrently and going on “blind dates” are beyond my comprehension.
I hear ya. Oh God, do I hear ya. The only women I’ve ever asked out were those that made a pretty obvious gesture of phycial attraction or interest towards me, and that I knew at least as an acquaintence, and even then I’m not a good date. Tounge tied, anxiety attacks, trying to hard to keep things going, not trying enough, etc. They say dating is a skill but the more I see, the more I think it’s a talent.
This is part of the reason why I’ve pretty much decided to stop trying for now, I just don’t get how this is supposed to work, and the more I find out how the process is expected to proceed, the less I like it. Why would I go out with someone I have no real affection for? It’s the way it’s supposed to work for 95% of the population, but I just can’t get behind the idea. It sounds so…I dunno…just bizarre and uncomfortable. I want to go out on a date to have a good time with someone I already like and have romantic feelings for. I don’t want to go out for a job interview to become some stranger’s SO. But that’s how my friends do it. They go out with someone, often spend the night after one or two dates, and later decide they don’t really like that person in the first place. If you didn’t like them, why did you sleep with them? I’d rather sleep with someone I at least like, if not love.
I guess my ideal would be falling in love with a friend, and moving on from there. But all the literature says that this is a bad idea, and all my female friends are either spoken for, not interested in me “that way,” or live in other states and have known me for so long that I’m “like a brother to them.” Urg, how I hate that term. I already have siblings, thankyouverymuch, but I guess I’m honored to be their friend.
Out of curiousity, how old are you boy genteel? I ask because I am working on “Plan B” at the moment. Plan B is to go to law school, become a professional, stay in shape and , thanks to my genetics, keep my hair and boyish looks that cause people to peg me for 5-10 years younger than I am. I’m hoping the going will be easier when I’m in my early thirties, everyone involved is a little more realistic and mature, I have more time and disposable income to work with and hopefully the women are more willing to break with norms and take some of the initiative. I’ve talked to other guys in our situation, and this seems to be a pretty common strategy. Maybe you should consider the same. Best wishes to you.
And, if the “rules” were true, how would there be any lesbian couples
“Lesbian sheep!”
And what Caitriona said. There *are* women out there who do not use the Super Telepathy Technique to express their interest in you.
Question:
I respect (what is written here about) the MRA, I’ve had many conversations with male friends about the need for a men’s movement.. But.. Well.. Why are so many of your members that comment on this blog so anti-feminism? I’m really shocked by this… I suppose that, if this is apart of the MRA mindset, it’s not the movement I was hoping for… I had in mind (as do the fellows I’ve had repeated conversations about this with) a progressive movement… One that also recognizes the negative implications the patriarchy and current class system has had on men, and one that supports and encourages men to discover / uncover / resolve gender role playing issues, etc., etc…
I’m honestly asking… It seems that (at least some) of your members are really hot-hot-hot and steaming prejudiced against feminists or feminist theory in general… Lots of super weirdly interpreted statements surrounding (I’m guessing) feminisms fault for men’s sufferings… I don’t get it? Probably because I view the “problems at fault” to have the pretty much the same source for both men and women…
mythago, ricia, et al., the reason you just don’t “get” the men’s movement is because you’re looking at it through a feminist lens. You (feminists) claim that feminism is about equality when it clearly is not when judged by actions and outcomes (which speak louder than words). You have a problem with MRAs who belive that (quoting myth) “equality is an injustice against men, that sexism against women does not exist (or doesn’t exist in any important fashion), and so on.”
Regarding the former, I’ve never met an MRA who does not view equal rights as the #1 goal of the MRA movement; in fact, all MRAs I’ve encountered agree that equal rights and responsibilities are the #1 goal. However, what many of us MRAs have real problems with is the feminist demand for equality of outcomes, regardless of whether or not the woman has earned her “equality” with the men she choses to compare herself to. Regarding the claim that some MRAs don’t recognize “discrimination” against women, all I can do is emphasize that some of the best minds in the feminist movement have been challenged to list ways that women are discriminated in our society, and the best (and only) example that has been given to date is that some girls and women are insecure about their body image, apparently due to men’s influence (how this is men’s fault has never been adequately explained). So in many our our minds, if the worst that modern women in the West have to offer up as “discrimination against women” is a concern about is being fat, then so-called “discrimination against women” is indeed trivial and pretty much a non-issue. I’m one of those MRAs who hold this viewpoint, am not ashamed about it, nor make no apologies for it because indeed, discrimination against women is pretty much non-existant in the West.
ricia, many of us MRAs are anti-feminism because feminism is not about equal rights and responsibilities, it’s about special privilege for women, which is sexist and chauvanist. Further, David Byron and others have made an exellent case that feminism is in fact a hate movement, on a par with the worst anti-Semitic and other hate movements, and IMO the case is very strong. And so because I (and other MRAs) believe that being opposed to sexism, bigotry and chauvanism is a noble thing, that is why I am (and others are) anti-feminist. Because frankly, much - if not most - of modern feminism is sexism, bigotry and (female) chauvanism, and there should be no place for such hate movements in civilized society.
Thanks for the explanation. Though there is a huge lump ‘o stuff in there that has much more to do with opinion than facts, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am no novice to the feminist movement nor to it’s theories, and I can state quite confidently that it isn’t a “hate movement”. I’m not going to get into “proving” or disputing details in your comments though, as I’m trying to avoid getting too wrapped up in blogs at the moment (busy, busy). I am a feminist, and I’m not bigoted or sexist, in fact I’d say I have a pretty flexible and relatively high awareness level. Again, I see no need to “prove” this either. Besides, it would seem that such an approach and effort would be a) unnecessary b) fruitless.
When a man, say such as yourself, tells me he was treated unfairly.. I give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out - maybe even ask questions - before drawing any personal conclusions about the legitimacy of his claim. If a woman tells you she has suffered due to existing gender roles, you could choose to do the same. It is absurd to think that it IS possible for a man to suffer injustices due to a woman and yet state it IS NOT possible they opposite occurs. Discrimination exists. In many forms, in varying degrees, whether obvious or subtle - it exists. One cannot dismiss it, it is a reality.
At any rate, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the MRA is not a men’s movement org / committee / group - but an anti-feminist movement org. That is something else altogether… And explains while also clearing up my confusion over the nature of various comments.
To be against something, rather than for something…. Seems rather counterconstructive…
I’m 32.
And, Ricia, I don’t consider myself anti-feminist, because I recognize it as a very broad term (as are many terms). I’m anti-sexism, no matter which way it points.
bg
I respect (what is written here about) the MRA, I’ve had many conversations with male friends about the need for a men’s movement.. But.. Well.. Why are so many of your members that comment on this blog so anti-feminism? I’m really shocked by this… I suppose that, if this is apart of the MRA mindset, it’s not the movement I was hoping for… I had in mind (as do the fellows I’ve had repeated conversations about this with) a progressive movement… One that also recognizes the negative implications the patriarchy and current class system has had on men, and one that supports and encourages men to discover / uncover / resolve gender role playing issues, etc., etc…
I don’t consider myself an MRA, but I’ll take a stab at answering your questions.
Why are so many of your members that comment on this blog so anti-feminism?
There are extremeists on both sides, and some issues push more buttons than others with different people. I’ve never been divorced or had to pay child support, or lost custody of any children, so those issues don’t have the same visceral impact on me that they do on some of the other posters. So some of the guys here hate feminists, some are willing to negotiate, some don’t care one way or the other and really just like to rile things up. But anyway you’re no more going to change the extremeists minds than I’m going to change Andrea Dworkin’s mind (Her being dead certainly doesn’t help.) But you should at least recognize that there are extremeists in the feminist movement and some of them have made statements that have done the oppositions job for them. In that they’ve made even the more moderate non-feminists wary.
In my case, some feminists goals I support, some I’m against, some I laugh at, some I loathe, and some I’m not even sure what exactly the hell do they want. Heck even looking at all the disagreements (some of them quite heated) within the feminist movement itself about various issues, marriage, porn, abortion, etc.; Were you really expecting men to just say, “You go girl.” to everything feminists want to do?
I suppose that, if this is apart of the MRA mindset, it’s not the movement I was hoping for…
I’ve often held the opinion that the world would be a much better place if everybody thought and acted like I did…but so far I’ve been cruelly disappointed. Once I figure out how to get people to want what you want them to want instead of what they want to want, I’ll let you know.
I had in mind (as do the fellows I’ve had repeated conversations about this with) a progressive movement…
Well heck, go found it then. You might go down in history as one of the all time greats. If you’re waiting for somebody else to found the movement you’ve envisioned you might be waiting a long time and you won’t get any credit for thinking of it.
One that also recognizes the negative implications the patriarchy and current class system has had on men, and one that supports and encourages men to discover / uncover / resolve gender role playing issues, etc., etc…
Well you have to take into consideration that
alot of people think this is BS pure and unadulterated. 1st not everybody blames everything on patriarchy. In fact considering how many people in the US belong to patriarchal religions, some of them out and out love at least one patriarchy. 2nd some people look at the class system then look at history or even other contemporary societies and say, well I would like more money but I guess things could be worse, maybe communism is not the answer. 3rd “one that supports and encourages men to discover / uncover / resolve gender role playing issues, etc., etc…” I can’t speak for everybody, but I personally don’t really give a rat’s butt about any of that. If that’s what you want to do, knock yourself out, but you’re going to have to face grim reality and realize that’s not everybody’s idea of something fun or necessary or useful.
Mr. Bad, I don’t think that feminism is contingent upon showing that western women currently face discrimination. As a privileged white American woman, I don’t feel that I have suffered for my gender (other than some gender stereotyping when I was a kid and encountering the occasional sexist assumption)– although I do believe that cultural expectations and attitudes haven’t quite caught up to the legal and political equality women now (for the most part) have in the U.S. But I take a global and historical perspective. The fact is that truly appalling gender discrimination has been the norm throughout most of history and remains the norm throughout vast swathes of the world. Furthermore, there are those in this country (I’m thinking primarily of the radical religious right, which is very organized by the way) who would certainly try to strip women of many of our hard won freedoms. So, my feminism is about not resting on my laurels and assuming that gee, women don’t have anything to worry about anymore– the fact is that sexist assumptions that attempt to box both sexes into certain roles run very deep.
Sorry for contributing to thread drift, but I couldn’t resist.
ricia, the MRM is not so much anti-feminist as it is pro-civil rights; anti-feminism enters into it the same way that anti-Ku Klux Klan entered into the African American civil rights movement. For AAs, the KKK was directly opposed to the goal of civil rights for African Americans, and similarly, feminists in general are actively opposed to the civil rights of men, e.g., the right for men to be treated equally under the law, etc.
THF (hi!), one could look at men around the world and find that in the times and places where women were treated horribly the same conditions were in place for ordinary men. Similarly, in situations where some (very few) men were in power, enjoying the lap of luxury, there were/are similarly privileged women. What feminists like to portray as gender discrimination is for the most part gender-neutral discrimination based on class. For example, the CEOs of Fortune 500 hundred companies. Most men are not CEOs of F-500 companies, just like most women are not the wives of multi-millionaires, who get to enjoy the wealth of their husbands while they hang out in the Hamptons sipping tea, playing tennis, etc. When feminists highlight the woman who scrubs the CEO’s floor at nights, I think about her garbage-collector husband/child-support provider who has a second job sweeping floors and maybe a third job washing dishes just to make ends meet. Feminists almost never recognize the husband/father and instead concentrate - no, obssess - on the woman.
If you want to talk about the plight of women in, e.g., the Third World, then I will insist that we look at how ordinary men are treated as well. That’s what being an MRA is about. It’s really that simple.
Mr. Bad, if you really think that, I don’t think this is the forum for you. To refer to feminism as a hate movement and to lump it in with white supremacy and anti-semitism is disingenuous and insulting.
Furthermore, there are those in this country (I’m thinking primarily of the radical religious right, which is very organized by the way) who would certainly try to strip women of many of our hard won freedoms.
But the fact of the matter is that the religious right is supported by women. It’s been my experience that the most fanatic church goers are women, just as the most fanatic anti-abortion activists are also women. The most fanatic supporter of “traditional family values” on air is Dr. Laura who is, after all, a woman. She supports such patriarchical concepts as marriage and monogamy.
Why don’t women simply walk out of the churches? The religious right would not last two days without its female support.
Why don’t women form their own goddess religions? After all, we do have religious freedom in the USA (another dead white male concept, by the way).
These are real questions and I would like to see someone answer them.
The fact is that truly appalling gender discrimination has been the norm throughout most of history and remains the norm throughout vast swathes of the world.
Here is another question which I never quite get answered: Why, given all this “oppression of women”, has there never been an armed female uprising against “patriarchy”? Even the most oppressed slaves have picked up weapons and revolted (e.g., Spartacus). Why don’t women also engage in armed struggle?
Women are, after all, 51% of the populace. They do not lack in numbers. Men, when oppressed, often pick up weapons and fight back.
For example, take the situation in Afghanistan over the last several decades. I hear constant complaints about women being oppressed there. Yet what is to stop Afghan women from picking up weapons (and there is no shortage of anything from AK-47s to Stinger missiles in Afghanistan) and demanding their rights?
But oh my, guns make loud noises or something.
If women are going to buy into pacifism, then what do they think will happen other than that they will become dominated by other, more militant groups.
Joseph: “what is to stop Afghan women from picking up weapons (and there is no shortage of anything from AK-47s to Stinger missiles in Afghanistan) and demanding their rights?”
Do you actually believe that shooting people is the best way to “demand rights”? Do you believe it would result in political power and educational opportunities, or are you advocating suicide-bombing style activism?
Joseph: “Why don’t women simply walk out of the churches? The religious right would not last two days without its female support.”
As an evangelical feminist, I have many problems with the kinds of gender roles advocated by many evangelical leaders. But I see no reason to “walk out of the church” as a reaction. Church involves, for me, a community of believers who try to encourage one another to live rightly, which may sometimes include a much more circumscribed role for men and women than I agree with. Do you reject everyone you disagree with? In my opinion, that’s hardly a way to live.
The world most of us live in is not as black and white as you seem to prefer. For most people, especially women living in despotic countries, our actions have consequences. For women in Afghanistan and similar situations, even thoughts and words could have lethal consequences, whether through “honor killings” or economic discrimination. Most people choose to work against what they see as wrongs in slightly less violent ways, hoping to persuade rather than reject people they disagree with.
Mr. Bad, I don’t think that feminism is inconsistent with the notion of questioning class oppression and other injustices as well.
Joseph, the fact that women support the religious right’s efforts to take away my access to contraception (for example) does not make it okay.
I support the freedom of these women to participate in patriarchal religions and traditionalist marriages, but I am worried about the prospect that these religious groups will try to impose their views on me. As for goddess religions, there are a number of feminist goddess worshippers.
Finally, the fact that women have not fought back in an armed uprising in places like Afghanistan does not make their treatment by the Taliban okay. It sounds like you are espousing a philosophy of “might makes right,” Joseph.
evil fizz, I hear you but disagree - in many ways, feminism has devolved into little more than a hate movement. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. But no, I will not leave just because you don’t like the fact that I have the courage to call modern feminism a hate movement. I will not back down and/or go away for that reason.
THF, the very nature of feminism in sexist - heck, if feminists were not sexist they would call themselves “humanist” or other gender-inclusive name, but they consciously choose not to. Therefore, they are clearly sexist and female chauvanist, and so I believe that yes, feminism is inconsistent with the notion of addressing and fighting class oppression. The fact is, feminists are only interested poor women, and in action and deed ignore poor men. Sure, feminists talk a good line, but we men - especially African American brothers - see right through it.
I mean, really, witnessing the typical feminist (i.e., middle- or upper middle-class white woman) ranting about ‘oppression of and discrimination against women’ is truly parody and satire.
This blog is not the forum for calling feminism a hate movement and likening it to anti-Semitism. I’m not suggesting that you leave, just saying that a certain degree of civility is in order and wildly inflammatory remarks without substantiation don’t belong here. That’s it. (And before you get on the “everyone does it” soapbox, try to consider that there’s an ongoing effort at thoughtful conversation and comments like that make it near impossible.)
Sorry if I’ve overstepped your moderating functions, Hugo. =)
Mythago - while “only a fool” might interpret the advice “be yourself” to mean “don’t change or improve at all”, the answer “be yourself” is frequently given in response to the question “what can I do so that women will be interested in dating me”. So in context, that answer does mean “don’t change at all”. Of course, most of the time men ask this question, they’re asking it of a woman who has refused to date them, which makes him a fool, and her a liar.
Therefore, I’ve always pretty much assumed that this is how it’s to be: that the falling in love/crush part comes FIRST, and THEN you go out on a date.
That was generally my preferred order. Although, my husband and I had a long, fascinating discussion on our first meeting, that made me willing to do on a date with him right away.
There should be at least a little bit of romantic feeling first, meaning “seeing other people” concurrently and going on “blind dates” are beyond my comprehension.
Well, it is possible to have a little bit, or even a whole lot, of romantic feeling for more than one person, concurrently. Not necessarily optimal, but possible.
the fact that women support the religious right’s efforts to take away my access to contraception (for example) does not make it okay.
I support the freedom of these women to participate in patriarchal religions and traditionalist marriages, but I am worried about the prospect that these religious groups will try to impose their views on me.
I’ve had some people tell me I’m among the religiously conservative and some tell me I’m among the religiously liberal. (blah!) Here’s my take on the quote I included above:
I don’t believe abortion is right (for *me*, it would be an incredible sin), and I never wanted to use contraception (although my 1st husband pushed me to do so). I believe in traditional marriages, but I don’t believe in “jump/how high?” marriages.
But here’s the catcher WRT the quote above - I don’t believe that *I* have the right to FORCE anyone else to live by the standards by which I strive to live. I can talk with people about how I live, if they wish to talk about it. I can discuss my faith and my beliefs with those who wish to discuss it. But it would be wrong for me to impose my belief system on those who do not wish to live by that same system, just as wrong as it would be for me to ever have an abortion or in any other way to kill another person.
Of course, I’ve had people tell me that if I don’t believe in legislating my beliefs against abortion, then I’m really *for* abortion. doh!
The thing is, forced or legislated morality is not TRUE morality. I cannot force others to truly incorporate my morality into their own lives by making my morality the law of the land. Those who do not believe as I do would simply break the law. For any morality to be held true, it must become a part of the individual person. That can only be done through contemplation, acceptance, and internalization. It is an individual choice. Sometimes the contemplation can be spurred by discussions and/or observations, but the internalization can never be forced by an outside entity.
So, rest assured, I will stand beside those who do not have the same convictions I do, if it comes to those who hold convictions similar to mine trying to FORCE those convictions on others. God gave us all free will. Who are we to try to change that.
I can understand that completely Caitriona! I have nothing against religious conservatism per se, but I can’t fathom people who would legislate matters that should remain between the individual and God.
Evil fizz,
Mr Bad was asked a honest question and he gave an honest answer. You don’t have to agree with it but he is entiled to his opinion.
opps typo
Thats was meant to be “entitled to his opinion”.
Mr. Big, it doesn’t take courage to nurture nor express prejudices - that’s the easiest part. It takes courage to challenge and question personal prejudices.
“if feminists were not sexist they would call themselves “humanist” or other gender-inclusive name”… capitalists defend capitalism, child services workers defend children, people of faith defend their particular faith, etc… The fact that women organised in order to defend women isn’t at all unique nor implicedly sexist. “Modern” feminism is already outdated and has transformed, evolved, and adjusted in keeping with the changing social climate. Much of your accusations are typical of blatent stereotypes left over from earlier phases of Feminism (the negative stereotypes, of course). If you have an interest in “knowing your enemy”.. look up 1st, 2nd, 3rd Wave Feminism and see what it is has been and is really about.
Just taking a few moments before starting on dinner rolls (my great-grandmother’s recipe).
Much of your accusations are typical of blatent stereotypes left over from earlier phases of Feminism (the negative stereotypes, of course)
If you watch the discussions here closely, you will still, on occasion, see people who post in a manner that verifies those negative stereotypes. Although there are those who live their lives in a far different manner, but the people with upon which those stereotypes were founded still are to be found. It has not disappeared. I think that perhaps the more moderate MRAs would be more willing to accept feminists as they see more feminists attempting to address and distance themselves from those with extremist attitudes.
“if feminists were not sexist they would call themselves “humanist” or other gender-inclusive name”… capitalists defend capitalism, child services workers defend children, people of faith defend their particular faith, etc… The fact that women organised in order to defend women isn’t at all unique nor implicedly sexist.
And of course, The fact that men organized in order to defend men isn’t at all unique nor implicitly sexist. Point of view is pretty important here…
The problem is the diversity in the men’s and women’s movements. Maybe you espouse a point of view that doesn’t attempt to benefit women at the expense of men. That’s great. But simply perusing a few feminist blogs, especially family centric blogs will show you that not all “feminists” agree with you. Some want not only the status quo, but they want increased discrimination against men, ala VAWA or other laws designed to give more advantage to women. Feminism is not the first movement built on good ideas to be subverted to obtain advantages for that group.
Those are the feminists that most MRA’s are angry about. We are not out demanding a return to “traditionalist” times where women were subjugated or discriminated against. We support equality. We want equal treatment under the law. We want a lot of things that are compatible with feminism. So what is the problem?
Uzzah , Caitriona,
I’m grateful for the nature of your responses! I’ll tell you why… In another series of comments the debate that was going on was sprinkled with high doses of anti-feminism and highly illogical presumptions and interpretations about / surrounding ‘feminist theory’ and concepts. When reading the string of comments, it was evident that most participants agreed on basic principals, but some of the MRA responses held firm to taking opposing (and rather insulting) viewpoints based soley upon their prejudice against feminists/feminism itself.
Very few women whom identify themselves with the word Feminist exhibit the qualities expressed here and in that string. Having worked within those communities in a variety of cities for many years now, I can say that things have changed tremendously since the 80’s. I can also state that most women I encountered in those communities and organisations espoused the same viewpoints as myself: Men are not the enemy, social-political, cultural, and systemic influences - are that which is the object of change.
Like all movements, and in politics, the extremists and