Dating advice vs. gender equality

Post Reply New Topic

Tarantella64 has precisely described the practice my friends and I share. However, there are some people who are more attuned to individual circumstances than others, so the attuned ones may need to lead the effort to help others who have smaller budgets at the time.

I am attuned, my husband is not, so I usually speak up and say, for example, "Jeff, Jane just bought all those textbooks for her new semester. Let's cover the whole tip this time, and she can keep supplying us with that terrific banana bread she makes that we love so much."

These gestures take study and practice (I'm middle-aged and grew up with a VERY social, adoptive mother who modeled such behavior). So, don't feel bad if it takes time. I find it best to partner with someone who has complementary knowledge and skills.

Thanks for your insight. It's frustrating and annoying, but helpful. So you're saying my chances of meeting a good match would increase if I became friends with a divorce attorney? That's a new one . (take note TimmyBoy, I think we found a solution!!)

A propos to who pays for what, I tend to agree with tarantella. Paying for the whole bill shouldn't be an obligation for either person, but it's nice to offer when there's an understanding that they'll pay another time. It makes the meeting less rule-laden/formal and thus more enjoyable (that way, you don't even have to worry about it). Some people have a "who paid for what" meter that might be the result of their personality or a cultural construct, in which case, it might be best for each to pay for their own. Generally, though, if you rigidly insist that each always pay for their own, that's interpreted as a sign of stinginess, not a positive attribute.

Ugh, 10 to 15 years is a long time.

@italstallianion What is the "yes all women" movement? I'll also Google the term. Curious.

I am also curious to what early/mid 1900 values you refer. After WWII, in the U.S. at least, many women were torn from the jobs where they earned self confidence, independence, and pleasure, forced to give those jobs to returning service men, sent back into a home life of dreary repetition, and salved with alcohol, pills, and other attempts to escape extreme, societal pressure to conform to the housewife model.

Would you really want a partner so bent against her will? Sadness, anger, lower household income, poor decision making skills resulting from depression, poor health................ This list true of men with limited resources, of course, as well, so dating between the wars (preceding the "party before we die in the war" period) must have been a bit of a downer as well.

Just teasing you a bit
However, all times are hard and good in their own ways.

Why are assuming he's not generous already? The thread has nothing to do with generosity.

Tarantella, I did not question the necessity of talking to girls before we go out. I was simply surprised that you discuss this particular subject with someone before you go on a date with them. It sounds like a bit of a heavy chat to have with someone at such an early stage, and I would usually presume that I should give women the benefit of the doubt that they are just as progressive as me, since they are the supposed main victims of sexism... But if that really is a normal conversation to have as a preliminary, then maybe I should have a go.

You know as well as I do that aspies look at social rules from an outsider's perspective. Of course I am going to question things. The dilemma for me is that sexist dating advice seems to be endorsed by the mainstream, women included, even though it contradicts what people profess to believe about gender equality in this day and age. I am wrangling over whether I have to abandon my principles in order to get by in the real world, as one poster suggested. The only attempts I have seen to square the circle have no basis in fact, e.g. the assertion that women are naturally more afraid of violence and therefore less inclined to communicate directly (if fear or violent reprisal is a valid excuse then I should be even more afraid).

I find it curious that you tell me I am being too fussy and critical, yet you also tell me to vet these women more to check that they are "sensible" before I ask them out on a date. You accuse me of being "defensive about money from the get go" (not sure where you got that idea from), but I thought "it's called having a conversation"? Should I be more discerning or not?

I also fail to understand why you think it is so bizarre that I should expect people to have rational justifications for their thoughts and behaviours - is that really your approach to life in general? Do you normally just accept people uncritically, no matter how stupid or nasty they are? What if I told you I was a neo Nazi?

Frankly, I think the elephant in the room here is that you are a feminist and you are trying to shut down commentary that sounds like a critique of your ideology. I am not sure I believe that you would really follow the advice you have given me on here. You are not giving me a coherent strategy and you are contradicting yourself all over the place. The only consistent message is that you are trying to find a way to pin this all on me, no matter how much of a stretch it is. I cannot follow advice I don't understand.

Oddlyeffective, I do not have a problem with being generous (when I can afford it). I don't mind spotting my mate for a pint from time to time. But is not an expected tradition. The general rule is that we contribute more or less equally. It is not *expected* that I will bankroll them all night. I don't see why this should be any different for dating.

Oh dear.

TimmyBoy, look at your approach here. I am honestly trying to get you to see where the problem is. You're asking me if you should "vet" the woman before a date...no, that's not what I'm saying. There is not an on/off checklist for MEETS ALL QUALIFICATIONS, GO ON DATE. I'm saying that if you bother to get to know the woman a bit first, rather than rushing into dating, you'll have a much better idea of whether or not her values and yours line up. If you're dating women you've barely even met, why are you surprised when they don't turn out to be compatible with you?

Most people do not have "rational justifications" for their behaviors, no. Few people would consider it necessay to have such a thing. However, most people do behave in ways that make sense, given who they are and their circumstances. It is not their job to explain or prove to you (or anyone) why they do as they do. If you want to understand people, though, it is your job to ask (not interrogate), watch, listen, learn, until you see why, given where they stand, they do as they do. This is the nature of empathy. You'll learn a lot about the world that way. If you told me you were a neo-Nazi, and I found you interesting enough to talk to (or I was stuck next to you on a bus), then before very long I'm sure I'd hear a sad and banal story about how you came to Naziism and what it did for you, and you would be earnest and sincere about it, and I would know that it was the thing that was helping you stand up at that juncture in your life. And that I would have to be very careful about how I talked with you about it, because if there's one thing people don't take kindly to, it's yanking away the thing that's holding them up.

On generosity and pint-spotting: A romantic relationship is closer than a matey relationship, and people share more readily. But -- as oddlyeffective pointed out -- women are usually more generous than "spot a pint" with people they care for, and we pay attention to social and economic contexts and other nice things friends do for each other. Kind women don't usually take well to behavior that's stingier or "mine:yours" than that. If you're expecting that women will behave with you as your male friends do, then please be advised that this is not "egalitarianism", but a lack of understanding of women. "Women are equal and should just behave like men" -- no, that's not equality. But it is a common misunderstanding amongst many men who have limited experience with, awareness of, and understanding of women and the social environment in which we all live. In my department there are a couple of angry men right now, in fact, who don't understand why women shouldn't brush off harassment and get back to work -- after all, they would -- and have instead taken formal action against the man responsible.

And finally, I am laughing (nicely) at the paragraph about the advice-following -- of course I follow this advice. What do you think, there's a feminist conspiracy to steer you wrong? (Please don't say that you mistrust feminism if you want a girlfriend who regards equality as important. I mean you can, but you'll have reduced your dating pool to very close to zero.)

Please show me where I said that I go on dates with women I have barely met and don't talk to them first.

I'll wait here.

Actually, if you go back and read page 2 of the thread, you will see that I specifically asked if you talk about "THIS STUFF" (i.e. the matters I had been referring to) before you go on a date and you said "yeah, people converse before they go on a date roflolzorz!!!111".

I am open to advice, but I do not believe you are genuinely trying to help or listen to me.



Er, yeah they do, that's why we have these things called courts and these people called police who go around arresting horrible people.



I might have sympathy with whatever childhood trauma our would-be neo Nazi went through that made him turn out the way he did, and I might acknowledge that some of his life experiences could have led him astray, but I wouldn't just give him a free pass. I would still absolutely DESTROY his ideology, whether he "takes kindly" to it or not. I don't take kindly to bigoted morons.



Great! Then they can pay for ME on dates! Generosity RULES!



Why not? What piece of the puzzle am I missing here?



I don't think they should take formal action against the men responsible for sexual harassment. After all, they do not need to have rational justifications for their thoughts and behaviours. I am sure it all makes sense to them to behave as they do. I bet that, as soon as these cases hit the disciplinary hearing, the bosses just listen and understand.



I don't think there is a feminist conspiracy. I think you are deliberately distorting my words, but no, I don't think there is a feminist conspiracy.

What I think is that you subscribe to a particular brand of feminism that goes beyond the dictionary definition and you are using disingenuous arguments to try and plug the holes.

Last edited by TimmyBoy on 03 Sep 2014, 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You have not done a terrible job. I am afraid I don't really follow everything you are saying, but I appreciate you taking the time.



I am not against reciprocity. I have no problem with it. But that's not the issue. The issue is that many people still firmly believe that men should pay without reciprocity when it comes to dates.



What you seem to be suggesting here is that women will go for a guy who is flash with cash because it is an indicator that he will be able to bankroll her and their would-be family in the long term. If so, that seems like a very poor indicator to me. There might come a time when I have to be the breadwinner, and when I do I will rise to it, but there is no need to do so now when the situation is different.

Reciprocity extends beyond that one date. People reciprocate in less obvious ways than paying for a meal. A buddy may help you move. Someone might bake a cake for you to share with a sick loved one. As someone mentioned, it isn't as easy or strict as tallying tabs.

BTW, someone suggested I do not think you are generous. I have no idea if you are or not. I was emphasizing it should be a carefully considered choice, not a mindlessly obeyed behavior.

And, I tried very carefully to remove gender qualifications in my statements, so how did you interpret my words as, "What you seem to be suggesting here is that women will go for a guy who is flash with cash because it is an indicator that he will be able to bankroll her and their would-be family in the long term"?

I wrote, "sound choices in order to care for your children," and there are many more components to caring for children than money. People (males, females, transgenders) also look for compassion, humor, flexibility, etc. when selecting potential mates/caregivers for themselves and their children. I was trying to applaud you for being frugal and responsible, paying your student loans first, and I thought other people (including dates) would appreciate those qualities in you as well.

assuming much?

@TimmyBoy, please also consider that many people do not understand even their own motivations. The fact that "many people still firmly believe" something, despite what seems rational to you, might indicate they are not the best sources of information. For this reason, I suggested that you look at some behavioral economics studies. Yes, you will find multitudes of people are concerned with daily and future survival. You will also find people sometimes, seemingly, work against their own best interests; however, actions good for the community can also strengthen the individual's health.

I feel like you know this already but may have had some painful experiences that make wishful thinking more appealing (as it is to most of us). There are kind, generous people out there who don't love others only for their grand financial status. I bet you are one of them and will likely find another in time, with patience and perseverance.

I interpreted your words that way because if all you are saying is that I should be a nice and caring person then that kind of goes without saying...

@TimmyBoy, I'm pretty sure I didn't say you should be a nice and caring person. And, if it goes without saying, why all the Sunday schools and civics lessons?

Recap:
*You can acquire a lover without paying for a meal.
*People like other people who make less money than they do. People like other people who do not drive. Some people prefer people who don't emit toxic fumes and waste fossil fuel. Some people prefer people who responsibly pay off their student loans in a timely fashion.
*Alpha behavior can be appealing during sex, if one prefers not making certain types of decisions, and if one plans on becoming a social worker and is looking for a money-smart partner.
*People have different communication styles, not necessarily based on gender.
*Alpha does not equal macho. There are plenty of macho losers.
*Alpha does not equal rude. Nor does it equal "nice and caring," although those are useful traits, because good leaders serve their people.

I started wondering how "many people" are defining alpha and did a 30-second search. I have not read the underlying studies upon which this article is based, and in fact only skimmed quickly through it (feeling a bit frustrated); however, right or wrong, it brings up some interesting points for future contemplation:
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

From the article's conclusion:
"In fact, it appears that the prestigious man who is high in both assertiveness and kindness is considered the most attractive to women for both short-term affairs and long-term relationships. This research should offer some assurance that the genuinely nice, passionate kid who learns a culturally valued skill can be immensely attractive."

Go out for drinks with a bunch of 35-yo women and you'll find out.

TimmyBoy -- I'll say it again, the problem you're having with dating is not primarily "women want to roleplay crazy gender roles". Please take a look back over how you've been responding to people on this thread. I don't know whether you came here primarily to vent or primarily to seek advice, but every time it's been explained to you that (a) people behave in ways you don't find reasonable and (b) seeking to understand and accept rather than prove yourself right is a behavior many women find attractive, you've really dug in and insisted that this is dumb, your judge/jury reactions to what they say are what matter. It's not helping you.

oddlyeffective's suggestion about behavioral economics is a very good one. Behavioral economics is the successor to models that assumed thoroughly selfconscious and rigidly "rational" (in the sense of weighing a few known costs/benefits) actors. As a model of how people actually behave, rational-actors is terrible, which is why it's been superseded. Behavioral economics takes into account that people are frequently unaware of their own motives, let alone others', and that regardless, in the broad sweep of things people make choices that are not irrational, but are informed by serious complexities in circumstances and things that may not be apparent to the observer, including subjective experiences of quality of life.

In any case: yes, of course women can pay for a date, and many do. I'm one of them, particularly if I know my date/boyfriend has less disposable cash than I do, or I've wanted to go to a more expensive place than he can afford. There's a great deal of inexperience-driven talk on this forum that has women searching for sugar daddies as mates, but it's well off the mark. Yes, if you talk to women who are serious about having families (and certainly not all want children), a steady income shows both steadiness of character and the ability to contribute to a household financially, and these things are important. But kindness, the ability to foster and support, self-confidence particularly in bad times, enough strength to look after more than oneself, easygoingness, the ability to get along with people, a sense of responsibility to family and community, warmth, lovingness -- in short the ability to be a good father -- these are things women talk about when we hear that a friend is getting serious with a man, and the kinds of traits we bring up when we try to let her know we're supporting her in her choice.