Dating advice vs. gender equality

Post Reply New Topic

There is. It's called having a conversation. You can also go to places where women are nerds.

[/quote]

Yeah, this is exactly what I mean. What they've said doesn't make immediate sense to you, so you've dismissed it as wrong/stupid. In fact they have an excellent point you haven't taken the time to understand. By "understand" I don't mean that you should sit there with your arms folded across your chest, judge and jury, while they try to persuade you, because f**k that in a nutshell. By understand I mean you start with the presumption that there's a well-intentioned reason they're saying these things, and you actually seek to understand, by asking questions without interrogating, listening without attack mode on, etc.

Failing to do that will drive nice and interesting women away from you. Because no smart lady wants to date a guy who decides he knows more about women's lives and realities than women do, and is dismissive of the things they say.

Different baits, different fish... can't hook them all with one. Best to take dating advice with a grain of salt, use what works for you, and discard what doesn't, anyway. Everyone fancies themselves an expert.

There's always the option to improve some things that you think make connecting to others harder, but at the end of that day you're going to be spending a lot of time around whatever woman you wind up dating. If it's all a big act, then your relationship is an act, too.

I do feel that the "yes all women" movement is changing the dating game whereby the world no longer abides to stereotypical chivalry. Who the hell knows what to do anymore? I feel like the gender lines are a lot more blurred, which I guess is a beginning sign of equality. I say beginning because we are far from there.

That being said I wish I could time travel and date in the early/mid 1900's where I feel like I understand their values more than today.

I'm quite disappointed in what I've seen so far in the dating world. To be clear, I am not a woman, and I make no claim to see any more than a small tip of the iceberg of "sexist earth". This is rather depressing, given how crappy the world perceives and treats women. However, it's been my experience that we've come to a place where there are enough heterosexual, feminism-mindful guys (in no way am I claiming that there are a lot; only enough) available who are willing to practice chivalrous acts in order to gain a competitive edge in the dating game. When a heterosexual woman is presented with the choice between a great guy who expects equal emotional/social/financial contributions (not 'the same', but equal, however that may be defined in a particular interaction) and a great guy who is willing to go "above and beyond" by paying for dates, opening doors, does the 'asking out', etc, it's been my experience that said heterosexual woman invariably goes for the latter, usually under the rationale that it was 'unnecessary, but appreciated', or they have a personal 'preference/attraction to x (usually 'sign of confidence' or 'stability') trait', or they deny such preferential treatment, or blush and admit to it but not care enough to change it. Is it a problem? The guy is not in any way being disrespectful or insulting or oppressive to the gal, and the gal has every freedom to choose as she wills, but I argue that it's still a sexist system. Personally, I feel very uncomfortable when I am expected to fulfill my gender-given obligations, and though women have claimed that they do not have any expectations for me to do so, I am at a disadvantage if I do not (since there is someone out there who is probably just as good a match as me, but is willing to play 'their part'). The OP brought up some attributes that (heterosexual) feminist friends of mine have claimed are unnecessary or unimportant to them, yet when you observe the guys that they date, for whatever reason, the guys they see fit a couple of those bullet points.

I generally avoid complaining about this 'in real life', as the responses this sort of argument elicits are that "I'm too sensitive, insecure; I need to grow up, stop making such a big deal out of nothing...(or, insert 'some other masculine trait') I find this line of reasoning to be similar in kind to rationale held by many when faced with a feminist argument against an unjust system ("you're just overreacting", "it's not that big of a deal", "that's just the way it is, it's not good or bad"...). Yet, in the end, I am the matchlessed one, which I'm okay with, as I'd rather be alone than with someone who buys into vestigial acts of sexist systems that make me feel very uncomfortable when performing.

I am sure there are exceptions, as everything comes in great variety, and my current place of residence diminishes my chances of running into such a person. But as of yet, I still have not met said person (this includes several women who majored in "gender/women's studies"). The only women that I know of who did not follow such a path was asexual. We were best friends for a very long time, but as a sexual person, I did not feel it wise to mix our relationship with dating.

PS: I hope no one takes offense from my comments, and if there is disagreement, I would love to hear it. These reflect my personal experiences with dating and is not meant as a swooping claim about all heterosexual women. If this is not the case for you or in your experience, then I envy you, though personally, I just think this is a case where theory and practice aren't as tightly bound as some would like to think it is.

Specs: You're in a bad spot. Part of why you're in a bad spot is that you're 23, and the women you're trying to date aren't grown up yet. All this feminism business is largely theory to them, they haven't been out in the world getting banged around much yet and seeing what it's really about.

In about ten-15 years or so they'll conclude that ain't nothing for free, and that the guys who paid and held doors were doing so because they were buying something. And these women will understand that they essentially sold Manhattan for trinkets. Why? Because the trinkets were new and exciting, why else. And they'll understand that the guys they took up with in fact don't regard them as five-fifths people, and aren't really inclined to do so, and that it matters.

Some of those women won't care. A lot will. Some of those will stay married anyway, afraid they won't do any better. But some won't.

I'd say "date older women", but the fact is sensible older women are a little too sensible, usually, to date 23-yo men. Unless you're a serious star in the sack. I'd also say "date very nerdy women", who tend not to go for the whole alpha-whosis nonsense, because it's stupid. Beyond that, you may have to wait. If you do that, your job is not to become embittered, because if there's one thing unattractive to a mid-30s accomplished woman who's broken free of a bad marriage, it's a pissy guy who wants to extract a little blood for having had to wait so long and who's got a whole set of "why women suck" scripts.

But the other thing you might do is advertise yourself online as exactly what you are: egalitarian, not into the sexist roles, not going to treat the woman like a fucktoy or little girl, also not going to ride in on a white horse or play Prince Charming. Just say clearly who you're looking for and what you like.

You really talk about this stuff before you go out?



The issue here is why women should be held to different standards if they are equally capable of looking after themselves. If they think they have a compelling argument for why this is not as stupid as it seems, then it is for them to make their point. I would expect the same thing from a man. I am allowed to have an opinion. If I am wrong about their fear of violence then the onus is on them to explain what their "excellent point" is. Also, my view is backed up with statistics, for what it's worth.



I will change my opinion if they present a cogent argument.

@Oddlyeffective: are you saying that I *should* pay for dates?

@AngelRho: I am paying off my student debt, but it will take another four years. I don't have my own house or car. I share a flat and commute to work by train. If I waited until I was financially secure before I dated, I would be waiting a loooong time.

As for going Dutch... Nope, sorry, still not seeing what the problem is. Sure, you benefit from her company, but then, she benefits from yours. So you are in the same boat. Neither of you has a greater claim to reimbursement for your time. Why is it any different to going out with a friend?

Ah. Good choice. When told why what you're doing isn't working, by all means, dig in.

And yes, people converse before they go out. That's how you have a sense of who a person is, and whether this is someone likely to be compatible with you. If you're sending a few flirts or chatting someone up and then heading straight for "okay, date", no wonder you're not having much joy. You're not really dating seriously, you've wandered into a kind of dance party you never intended to go to, and you don't like the partners there.

But I can also tell you just from what you've written so far that your dating problems aren't to do with "women have sexist, exploitative expectations of men". They're to do with your own rigidity and demands that the world behave only in ways that make sense to you. So far, you seem to want women who behave and think in rigidly defined ways (that may or may not make any realistic sense for them), and you want a set of these women presented to you in a convenient and logical manner, and you're kinda defensive about the money thing before you get to hello. This is going to give you problems.

Women who aren't just out to fling themselves at the nearest drunken stud go out with men who like and respect women, who can listen, who don't decide for them how they ought to see the world or react to things, and who genuinely want to understand them. And if they're nice they'll do the same for you. But they aren't there to prove anything to you or to make a case. It's up to you to be open and genuinely take an interest in them, and respect their views and realities. If you can't do that they won't want to stick around very long.

When you go out with friends, are you kind of loose about maybe one friend picks up the check one night, and another night you get it, and you're not keeping a ledger but over time you both feel like it's more or less even? Or are you "separate checks" no matter what, and keeping close track of who owes what?

It's not the chivalry/sexism thing so much as it is a stinginess or control-freakiness that puts people off. If you can't be a bit generous with your friends, who can you be generous with?

Ha, typical taratenlla, she denies the reality of some social phenomena, dismissing the OP's personal experience and encounters as if they all fabrication out of imagination, and she throws it all on him, "It's all in your head!", "It's You! Your demands are too rigid".

And no, usually when we go out with friends, each pays what he/she ordered; it's not stinginess, it's what friends usually do.
When a woman expects a man to pay for her date - it's a sexist tradition, period.

The rule I've always heard is whoever gives the invite pays. If you're financially strapped, you can have a good date on little to no money. If the girl is fixated on being wined and dined, then you know right away your priorities aren't in alignment.

What I concluded from Oddlyeffective's speech is: Pay. lol




And that where it's sexist, why he shouldn't expect her to have an entry-level job, why shouldn't he assesses her as a possible mate? and why the financial assessment should be through the-man-paying-date principle? And why going dutch can't be a way of assessment? Going Dutch would allow both to financially assess each other.

Because it's not a financial assessment, Boo. The guys who flash a lot of money to try to impress a date, take her to expensive places -- smart/sensible/grownup women find this a put-off, because either the guy's a show-off or he's just trying to get them into bed, and either way not too smart about money.

It's about whether or not a man has a generous nature. And there's no reason why it shouldn't go back the other way, and, here, often it does. A stingy man will be a problem in your life. Women understand this. Not because he won't shower her with gifts, but because when some flexibility and give is needed in life, he'll just get jealous-minded and petty. One gives with agreements, favors, help as well as money. It's important in a relationship that both people be able to give, be easygoing with each other, and be generous. A man who makes a big deal on a date over a few bucks, or who's busy calculating everything to the penny...yeah, no thanks. It's a character issue that will come up over and over.

No, that's not what I said. I said that that's not where the problem lies for the OP. And I can see it in what he's written so far.



If you're in a relationship, unless it's one of those relationships where the man can't feel manly unless he's always whipping out his big wallet, it goes back and forth. One of you will pick it up, then the other, or whoever doesn't have but ten bucks on them will pay the tip and the other will pick up the rest, and another time the other will pick it up...people who're close like that don't bring their accountants with them to the restaurant. Frankly, even when it's just girlfriends going out, it's seldom on the dot. Someone will put it on a card, one of the others won't have cash, etc., next time that person will pick up the drinks, it all comes out in the wash.

@TimmyBoy I am afraid I've done a terrible job answering your post. You *should* eat your vegetables, but I am not your mother, and I tried to tell you I am only making suggestions based on my understanding of one cultural practice.

Secondly, I included "dating" because it seemed important to you; however, I am not limiting these suggestions to dating. The practice of reciprocity is very close to universal and has a very long history. Also, it is not gender-based.

A simple example is opening the door for someone. Recent society has taped a gender stereotype to the practice; however, it has nothing to do with one's sex (fortunately, most women no longer wear trains). If one is generous and not too encumbered, one opens the door for the next person. Today, people sometimes shorten the nicety to holding it open after continuing through, but some people make the full gesture and indicate the other person should go first. I try to do so, although I'll be polite and proceed if the man or woman insists I go first, especially if they are my elder.

If you *want* to be magnanimous socially, then you may want to try paying for a night out with a friend, or ice cream. or a drive to the beach, or (once you know them) a foot massage..... until it takes no money at all. Create an experiment and adjust the practice based on your experiences (allowing time for maturity and geographical variety).

So, NO, you *should* not pay for a date. You may *decide* that you *want to* follow the practice of reciprocity (it is a successful one) and occasionally pay for a friend's meal. You may *decide* you *want to* care for yourself and your future mate by making sound financial decisions, e.g., don't fall for sexist nonsense and messages from a poor self image that propel you to overspend.

Behavioral economics books may assist you since they further explain signaling and reciprocity strategies (and marketers have larger budgets than university scientists). Making sound choices in order to care for your children is not sexist, it is practiced by all (consciously or not), and is it necessary to ensure the child's success and the success of your DNA. I suggest you substitute the language of "sound practice" for "should."

I'm very happy to hear from all of you. I've very much enjoyed this conversation. Thanks, TimmyBoy for initiating it.