This post originally appeared in September 2007.
While we were away, a number of emails piled up in my inbox from various folks seeking input on gender issues (usually, of course, on the “older men, younger women” theme).
On a different note, “Dave” writes:
I’m three years out of a divorce, a good guy, a dad, sweet, generous, and back into dating.
Many, most, if not all of the women I’m interested in are so busy that they have a hard time shoehorning me into their schedules. They act like I’m a good catch, but they don’t carve out time for me. In the worst case, I spend time with them as they are doing other activities.
I just deferred a meeting with an online acquaintance because the only free time in her schedule for the next three weeks was this Saturday afternoon. I did meet a woman I liked who seems to have a good balance in her life of quiet and schedule, but she is 15 years older than me (I’m 45). Do I need to get more of a sample before I draw conclusions about this?
Yes, I was with a woman before who scheduled 100% of her time so that she wouldn’t have to pay attention to me except to tell me what to do. Am I subconsciously returning to my pattern, or is it just a fact of life that women overprogram themselves? Should I resign myself to being a slot on someone’s planner because no one is left who leaves the weekend open Just To Be?
Well, yes, Dave, you do need much more of a sample before drawing sweeping conclusions. I want to give Dave the benefit of the doubt, too, and assume he’s not expecting contemporary single women to leave their calendars wide open in the hopes a suitor will call. But the notion that the pursuit of a relationship ought to be someone’s chief priority, that a date is reason alone to cancel all other non-romantic plans, is rooted in a hopelessly outdated idea about how single women are supposed to live their lives. Call it the “expectation of desperation”; I’m a bit worried that Dave might expect the women he’s dating to be desperate enough (or grateful enough for his attention) to reschedule everything for him.
I don’t think Dave is coming from a place of pure male entitlement, but I’m afraid that’s how his note reads. He writes:
They act like I’m a good catch, but they don’t carve out time for me. In the worst case, I spend time with them as they are doing other activities.
Well, in the early stages of dating, that’s not necessarily such a bad thing. (I’m assuming that Dave’s first dates don’t involve accompanying the women he’s met online on their trips to the grocery store and the dry cleaners.) Dave is 45 and a divorced father; I’m assuming he’s dating women more or less around his own age in similar circumstances. It can’t be much of a newsflash to anyone that custodial single parents are generally very busy, with very little free time. “Carving out time” for a new relationship is something that any single parent generally does carefully and cautiously for obvious reasons.
And of course, a great many women are rightly wary of men who expect their girlfriends to “drop everything” to devote themselves to maintaining a relationship. We still live in a culture that, alas, defines a woman’s worth by her romantic status. We still live in a society that teaches women that to be single (”alone”) is in some sense to have failed in one’s obligation to be mated to a man. A great many women have had the bitter experience of sacrificing their friendships and their professional or academic goals for an ultimately unsuccessful romantic relationship. Most women have had female friends who “disappeared” every time they started dating someone new, throwing all of their energy into a romance with one man. And many of these women have been badly burned, not just because these love affairs often didn’t work out, but because the whole experience of “vanishing into a relationship” is so disheartening and discombobulating.
It thus ought not to be surprising, Dave, that so many women (and men too) who have a bit of life experience are wary of “losing themselves”! They’re also wary of controlling and possessive partners, and I must admit, Dave, that those were the two words that first popped into my head as I read your note. That doesn’t mean that that caution will be permanent. As you move from the “just getting to know you” stage to the “I really want to be with you long-term” stage, probably the amount of time that you’re willing to offer to the relationship will increase. If a woman you’re dating wants to move, say, towards marriage with you, wants to be in a monogamous relationship with you, and still only wants to see you one Saturday afternoon a month, then there’s a problem.
In a world filled with men who expect women to cater to them, it’s not unreasonable for sensible women to be interested in discovering one thing about a prospective male partner: is this guy going to be able to handle the reality that I have a life separate from his? Is he going to try and smother me, or is he going to honor the fact that I can be in love with and devoted to someone and at the same time have a rich life that has nothing to do with him?
The line often attributed to Rilke is relevant here:
A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude.
It’s not rational or healthy to expect someone you’re dating to drop everything to be with you. It’s not rational or healthy to long for complete psychic fusion with someone else. One reason why the people you’re dating, Dave, are so sparing with their time is because they’re busy. That’s a good thing; it’s no fun dating someone who doesn’t have a life! But it’s also quite possible that they’re waiting to find out if you can be appreciative of the reality that they have a world that is separate, that is theirs alone, that will not be sacrificed on the altar of eros.
Or, to paraphrase the title of last year’s celebrated advice book for women, maybe she’s just not that into you. In any event, Dave, starting with one Saturday afternoon is probably a good idea for both of you.
Why’re you assuming this? Although Dave isn’t specific about what he means, I’m hard-pressed to figure out what else he might mean; something is that vein is the most natural reading of Dave’s letter. If I told a woman who I’d just started dating that the only way we could spend time together next month was if she accompanied me while I was bottling beer, she’d give me naught but a map to a short pier, and we’d slap her on the back for it.
Maybe she’s just not that into him. In which case they’d both be best off if he just dropped the subject. Maybe she is looking for someone who’ll take grochery shopping once a month and be glad of it, and Dave ought to take the hint and try and find someone who’s looking for the same thing he is. Since he’s already met one woman (of two!) who fits that description, they’re likely to be plenty. Assigning their characteristics to their age, based on such a small sample is obviously untenable, but otherwise it all adds up. Not everyone is looking for the same thing from a relationship, and that’s probably one of the biggest compatibility issues there is. In which case they’d both be best off if he just dropped the subject.
Now, I’ve no doubt there’re men who expect women to drop everything and cater to their schedule. I’m not sure how they manage to date, especially if they display that behaviour from the get-go. But I don’t see any reason to ascribe that to Dave. There’s no reason to slag him as a lead-in to the point you want to discuss.
“Yes, I was with a woman before who scheduled 100% of her time so that she wouldn’t have to pay attention to me except to tell me what to do.”
The above statement stood out to me!
Most people are busy, but it sounds from the statement above that these women are not interested in him and they are not being direct with him about their lack of interest. Likewise it appears that he isn’t picking up on their lack of interest and inability to be direct. Why would he want to be with or spend time with such poor communicators and a woman who couldn’t be bothered with spending time with him unless it was to tell him what to do.
Likewise this statement was/is a red flag.
“Am I subconsciously returning to my pattern.”
He’s demonstrating some awareness in this comment. The question is why would he want to meet women who are so clearly disinterested in him and who sound like they are emotionally unavailable to him as well. And if this is a pattern, some honest self-introspection is clearly in order.
What is it about emotionally unavailable women that he finds so appealing and who do these women remind him of?
It’s perfectly fine to be a good guy and generous while cultivating self-awareness, good communication skills, assertiveness and boundaries.
Is he a good catch because he’s paying for their groceries and allowing them to tell him what to do? You can manage to be “sweet”, while at the same time not acting like someone’s doormat.
And what does this mean, “I spend time with them as they are doing other activities.”
Such as what? Doing activities where you avoid appropriate and meaningful communication which would help you to get to know them and vice versa.
Dave, lose the control freaks (people who want to tell you what to do) and find someone who will return interest in you!
I would second the last two commenters, and add that I generally find it a safe assumption that people are going to be putting their “best foot forward” with a potential dating or romantic interest if they are truly interested, and will save the runs to the dry cleaners and other revelations of dirty laundry until some sort of comfort zone is established. In other words, there ought to be an “expectation of desperation” of everyone who is “on the market”, as it were. The parallel with a prospective job candidate suggests itself: if they can’t be troubled to at least feign enthusiasm and interest in the interview, it’s certain that they won’t be showing those things if hired. Someone who can’t be bothered to devote a reasonable amount of time to being sociable at the outset is most likely either (a) not genuinely interested in dating but feels that they must appear to be; (b) not genuinely interested in dating you but would prefer that you not need it spelled out; (c) really does have a life that unbalanced and unmanageable that you would be getting swept right into the middle of; or (d) too obtuse to realize that people necessarily draw the greatest number of precautionary inferences based on the least amount of information at the outset of any ongoing social exchange.
Hugo what on earth is wrong with, for lack of a slightly less entitled word, to expect that if a woman who is out there dating that she might make to time to see someone again if a date goes well? Unless she’s very clear from the get go that she’s not looking for serious involvement at this time and is quite consumed with other things. Depending on what you’re looking for, if you’re going to go out and date then it seemes reasonable that one might make time to follow through with a first date that went well. I think your repsonse is partly from your own tendency to be uberbusy(your choice BTW). You can have a life and stil have some time to spare if that’s how you roll.
While the expectation of desperation is a very real (and unfortunate) phenomenon, I don’t think it applies in this case.
People are busy, certainly, especially people with kids, but if you are really into someone, you will find a date (however far in the future) to spend real time with her or him and, as Tom says, “put your best foot forward.”
I suspect this guy is just having trouble finding women who really dig him (which is okay… he probably will find one eventually, and hopefully he’ll dig her too).
Yeah, I have to agree with everyone else. From my perspective, I don’t require 100% of someone’s time…but if I am possibly going to eventually be a part of their lives, they have to make time for it.
If someone wants to spend time with me, then yes, they should pencil me in occasionally. And I try to accept that they don’t want to spend time with me if they don’t make any effort to see me!
“I’m three years out of a divorce, a good guy, a dad, sweet, generous, and back into dating.”
Meh. Generally I’ve found that people (both genders, it crosses that line) who start out a discussion of their failures at dating with “I’m sweet/good/generous/caring/kind/etc.” are almost always Nice Guys ™. (So what is the female-oriented phrase for a woman who is drowning in her own feelings of entitlement, resentment and desperation..?)
It’s pretty obvious that the women he’s tried to date have made it crystal-clear that they’re not really interested but he is making it just as obvious that he can’t really bear that to be the case–I admit, if I were using their methods of avoiding him assiduously in a way that didn’t require me to endure him making a rejection scene, I would be amazed at the degree of willful blindness being exhibited by him. It would be much better if they dropped the conflict avoidance and/or innate kindness that makes them imply to him that he’s a “good catch,” clearly.
I just read this again. Where do you infer that Dave is expecting the woman to ‘drop everything’?
I’m going to go with Hugo on this one, because I so appreciated the recognition that dating does not require being joined at the hip, and that being joined at the hip can actually be harmful to a relationship.
Now, I think that Dave didn’t give us enough for us to know what’s going on - these women could be blocking him entirely, or they could be available a couple times a week but that’s not enough for Dave - so I agree with everyone that, if the women are truly taking Dave grocery shopping once a month, there is a problem. But I also think it’s possible that Hugo is right - that Dave is asking for/expecting more than these women want to give, but that that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not interested, or that they’re cold-hearted over-scheduled women who are shutting themselves out of relationship potential. It could just mean that they believe 1-2 low-key dates (including some “other activities,” assuming those aren’t grocery shopping) a week in the early stages is the appropriate pace for a new or potential relationship, rather than completely and immediately meshing their life with someone they just met. Our society has an expectation of the latter. The hook-up style of dating has created an expectation that if you go on one date, that’s a serious indicator of relationship (since it’s not just hooking up) rather than a chance to get to know someone. I know a lot of people, men and women, who would say that only wanting to see someone 1-2 times a week at the beginning stages of a relationship is overly busy and displaying a lack of interest. Without a timeline given, Dave could be one of those, and I do think that expecting a woman to mesh her life with yours immediately is unreasonable - and demanding more than 1-2 dates a week for the first month or so is leaning toward enmeshment. Certainly that would paint a different picture of Dave’s issue than the assumption that these women are rejecting Dave, or that these women are so uptight and “busy” that they’re subconsciously making themselves unavailable for (and undesirable to) men. (Am I the only one who is bothered by the anti-feminist implications of the latter - that if a woman has her own life, she’s not desirable as a date?)
“Am I subconsciously returning to my pattern, or is it just a fact of life that women overprogram themselves? Should I resign myself to being a slot on someone’s planner because no one is left who leaves the weekend open Just To Be?”
Just Being every weekend is really boring. One of the things about ‘being busy’ is that’s you’re usually busy *with* something. “I can’t see you this week because I am washing my hair” and “I can’t see you this week because it is Show Week and all my evenings are taken up” are worlds apart. If you’re used to being single, you fill your life with other things. That’s not ‘overprogramming’ - that’s avoiding tedious weekends of waiting by the inbox in the hopes of a date.
It’s a fact of life that people are unwilling to change long-term plans for someone they’ve just met - or by the sounds of it, have spoken to a few times on the internet. This is not some bug specific to ‘women’. This is a feature of people - they do what they have said they will do if they can.
(Also, what’s wrong with being a slot on someone’s planner? Surely that means you can count on them not to schedule other things in your slot? After two years of dating, my young gentleman and I are firm fixtures in each other’s schedules, because we are busy people and scheduling is how we manage to see each other more than once a week.)
Dave just needs to get out more.
Anni–
“Certainly that would paint a different picture of Dave’s issue than the assumption that these women are rejecting Dave, or that these women are so uptight and “busy” that they’re subconsciously making themselves unavailable for (and undesirable to) men. (Am I the only one who is bothered by the anti-feminist implications of the latter - that if a woman has her own life, she’s not desirable as a date?)”
My sense is that they are rejecting Dave and they are just not being direct (for whatever reason) making it clear to him that they have no romantic interest in him. Acting like someone is a “good catch”, but not making time to spend with them would be confusing behavior for some people. I try not to judge whether he should be picking up on behaviors or not. Who knows who he has to talk too about these issues and whether their responses creates even more of a problem.
If he thinks it’s a pattern then that is important information for him to be aware of and something he needs to address.
Also both men and women can demonstrate issues of emotional unavailability. Having interests and a full life doesn’t make one emotionally unavailable. Avoiding people, not making time for them, sending mixed messages demonstrates poor communication and conflict avoidance issues.