Dr. Who and Feminism’s Failure To Get Shy Men Laid
| June 14th, 2007Since I don’t have time to write a post today — or, rather, I don’t have time to write a post NOW, because I’ve just spent a bunch of time leaving comments on a thread at “Feminist Critics” — I thought I’d just reproduce a comment I left over there. (By the way, Renegade Evolution is now posting at “Feminist Critics,” which improves the blog substantially, in my opinion.)
The context is a discussion of a scene in the most recent episode of Dr. Who, “Blink,” so consider this a spoiler alert.
In “Blink,” the protagonist, Sally, has some creepy experiences (including being assaulted by aliens), which she decides to report to the cops. The cops, surprisingly, take her seriously — it turns out there’s been a string of disappearances at the same location. The cop in charge of the case, who is quite dishy, takes Sally to a lonely police garage where the evidence in the case (a lot of abandoned cars, mostly) is being held.
Billy: Drink?
Sally: No.
Billy: Never?
Sally: …Maybe.
Billy: Phone number?
Sally: Moving kind of fast, D.I. Shipton?
Billy: Billy, I’m off duty.
Sally: Aren’t you just? (Takes out pad, writes number.)
Billy: Is that your phone number?
Sally: Just my phone number. Not a promise, not a guarantee. Not an IOU. Just a phone number.
It is a depiction of conventionally-gendered sexuality that many feminists decry; women as coquettish pursued, men as aggressive pursuer.
It’s also fictional. That’s important, because in fiction (and as this scene was written and played) we can be certain that Billy’s advances were welcome, that Sally didn’t feel intimidated by her surroundings or the lack of other people around, and so on.
In real life, Billy would in my view be taking an awful chance of being an asshole by acting that way. Maybe Sally is really into him, even in those circumstances, in which case it’s no harm, no foul. But maybe she’s not, in which case by hitting on her in a situation like this (where she can reasonably expect not to be hit on, where she can’t just blow him off because she has to deal with him in a professional capacity, and where she’s in a situation a reasonable woman could find intimidating) he is sexually harassing her.
Anyhow, because this discussion was on Feminist Critics, the discussion was mostly about how feminists have failed to improve life for painfully shy men by sufficiently encouraging women to make the first move (romantically and sexually). This led to the following post, in which I’m responding to (and quoting) Tom Nolan. (The comment of Tom’s I’m responding to can be read in full here.)
Maybe the feminist women you know are ready to make the first move (by a verbal expression of sexual interest)1 when they meet a man they find attractive, but the vast majority of women, whether or not they identify as feminists, do not do so.
This simply isn’t true of feminist women of my generation and younger, Tom. Admittedly, this is an anecdotal judgment — but it’s one based on actually knowing and being friends with countless feminist women and men. I’m sure your judgment is anecdotal as well,
andbut I frankly doubt your social life involves as many feminists as mine does. (Apart from online, my friends are exclusively feminists and/or queer and/or transgendered.)It’s a big world out there. In the US alone, there are 110 million women over the age of 20. If only one percent of women are willing to make the first move — and I suspect the reality is much higher than that — that’s still hundreds of thousands. But of course, that 1 percent (5%? 20%?) isn’t distributed randomly throughout the population; they, and the men and women they care to be romantically involved with, self-select into more egalitarian social circles. If the social and sexual norms of your friend group aren’t working for you, find a new friend group.
Which leaves the man with all the risk. Not just the risk of being rejected, which anybody, male or female, has to accept when they make the first move. But also the risk of being branded an asshole by right-thinking feminists.
Yes, Tom, women take no risks in the conventional dating script. Women are never called names or branded stuck-up or cock-teases or bitch because they say “no” when men ask them. Women in the conventional dating script don’t take the risk of never being asked at all (an outcome that many men here apparently find pretty onerous when it happens to them). Women in the conventional dating script are never put in horrible situations by their dates, and are never date-raped. And if they do have sex voluntarily, there’s never a risk of pregnancy.
Seriously, how blinkered and male-centric could your view possibly be? I agree with you that the conventional dating script carries risks for men, but to say risk belongs exclusively to men is lunacy.
…the men who care about the way feminists perceive their sexual behaviour will shy away from taking the initiative (”Hey, I don’t want to look like an asshole!”)…
We’re talking about a cop using his job to manipulate a crime victim into a lonely garage so he can hit on her. I think that’s inappropriate, but that doesn’t mean that I think it’s always inappropriate for men to take the initiative in every situation. That you conflate these two entirely separate things (”cop hitting on crime victim in lonely garage” and “all instances of men taking the initiative”), as if because I think the former is assholish I must also mean the latter is assholish, is frankly ridiculous. Real life has nuances your argument fails to acknowledge.
In other words: male feminists have, all else being equal, poorer sexual and romantic chances than male non-feminists.
This opinion seems based on the experiences of men who are at least as anti-feminist as they are feminist.
The feminist men I know have had romantic and sexual lives as full as those of other men — although of course, what that means varies a lot. Some of the feminist men I knew in college frankly slept around — and “fell in love around” — a ton, as did their partners. (That sort of behavior faded in the post-college years; nowadays almost everyone is married, it seems.) Others did not, either because they didn’t want to or because they lacked the opportunity.
The big distinctions I see is not between feminist/non-feminist, but between shy/outgoing and (less importantly) between conventionally unattractive/attractive. Trust me, outgoing, attractive feminist men (and women) don’t spend their lives bereft of romantic partners. On the other hand, shy and unattractive men (and women) are going to have a hard time finding both romance and fuckbuddies, regardless of if they’re feminists. Other than the “feminism is to blame for everything” attitude that permeates discussion on this blog, I don’t see any reason to say that the problems shy men experience is due to them being too feminist.
Frankly, given my own extreme shyness and fear of rejection, I doubt I would have had as many romances as I’ve had if I wasn’t a feminist. That doesn’t mean that I’m a feminist because it gets me laid, as some people have implied over the years. But it does mean that extremely shy men are probably better off if their social groups have more egalitarian romantic norms than conventional society’s.
But which feminists, in your experience, put as much emphasis on encouraging women to be sexually proactive as they do on discouraging men from being sexually proactive?
Yes, because getting shy men laid should be just as high a priority for feminists as stopping sexual harassment and rape. How silly of feminists to think that the latter requires more emphasis.
Thoughts? Comments?
- The first time through, I missed Tom’s phrase “by a verbal expression of sexual interest.” In real life, I think think the legitimate ways of expressing romantic interest are more varied than what Tom’s phrase suggests to me. (back)
June 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Awe, shucks, thanks.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Here’s my reply, for what it’s worth.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I guess I must have skipped my Feminism 1o1 class the day the professor talked about the duty of feminists or feminism to help shy men get laid.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
The thing about Feminist Critics is that a) they don’t understand the concept of alpha v. beta and b) it is essentially a herd of guys identical to Michael from The Office
That is to say that…
a) As far as I can tell from their posts and comments they believe that anybody who has had any sort of relationship with a woman is an “alpha male” and anybody who hasn’t is a “beta male.” In reality, there are far, far fewer alphas than betas. I would in no way classify myself as “alpha,” nor do I think that the people who know me would classify me as such. Yet, I have had relationships with women.
and
b) Just like the Michael character, these folks don’t seem to have any understanding of other people (women in particular). I’m not even sure that they see women as people. Their comments tend to refer to women as one homogeneous bloc.
I suspect that most of them have been hit on & flirted with but either they didn’t notice it or they weren’t attracted to the person flirting with them. It wasn’t until I was well into my 20s that I realized how many women had been hitting on me in my teens and early 20s. I simply couldn’t see it at the time.
I also suspect, based on their posts and comments, that they have narrowed their focus down to a very small subset of women. There is constant talk about “hot” women. The fact is that not all that many men qualify as “hot.” The fact is that people tend to wind up with people of roughly the same physical attractiveness. Thus, if you aren’t a stunningly beautiful man you probably won’t wind up with a stunningly beautiful woman. That’s just the way it is.
Reading that blog makes me want to shout, “Hey! Wake up! The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you. Perhaps counseling to address your low self-esteem and behavioral therapy to work past your fears would be more helpful than quick seduction techniques and pick up strategies.”
It sucks to be lonely and craving a meaningful relationship but, based on a cursory glance at humanity, the problem most likely lies within yourself and not in others. Also, women are people, too. They have the same motivations that you do. You can be friends with women. Honest.
At least Ren Ev is there to add some common sense to the place.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Yes, women are sometimes called names and branded stuck-up or cock-teasers or bitch as a part of the conventional script, but there exists a very potent cultural counter-script called “feminism”. This counter-script is always available, so a woman can switch to it at will and self-convincedly reintepret the name-calling man as a patriarchal asshole, thus neutralizing 99% of the emotional harm caused by being called a name. For men, there is no potent counter-script to help relieve the pain of rejection. If a woman calls you an asshole or laughs you off, whether you deserve it or not, you are left with that.
Yes, some women in the conventional dating script do also take the risk of never being asked, but this doesn’t seem to be what women in general tend to complain about. The main complaint by women is that they feel drowned by male sexual attention to the point of suffocation, not starved of it. The discourse is predominantly shaped by women’s essential rejectiveness of “No Means No” and “All Men Want Is Sex”, rather than by “we don’t get any/enough”. This is the general reality, the observation of which is not invalidated by attending to fine details like there being indeed a few women who suffer as a result of never being asked out.
This comment was written by BASTA!.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 5:49 am
In the world of Christianity a man is supposed to have only one wife and, somehow, it is he who must ask her for her hand in marriage. But this is not so according to the Bible! Contrary to all you have heard or read, it is women are supposed to take the initiative in relationships with men. Read Isaiah 4:1 where seven women approach one man for marriage. That’s right - seven at one time! And best of all, each comes with her own dowry!!
For those of you who call yourselves Christian, you know that the Bible’s law are supposed to be Eternal. That is, what applied in Mosaic times applies today unless they were superceded by Messianic Law. And the New Testament upholds Sarah as the ideal wife in I Peter 3:6. And what did Sarah do that was so special? She selected mistresses and concubines for her husband! Therefore, if you are a true Christian woman, you are commanded by Bible Law to do the same!!
This comment was written by Brooklyn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Well, so have I, and I’m not “alpha” either. Both Hugh and I find the term problematic, but I broadly understand it to mean “men who have little difficulty in attracting women, engaging with them socially, and moving the relationship towards intimacy and sex”. It doesn’t mean “someone who has never had a relationship in their lives” though that is an extreme version.
This is ironic, because you seem to be treating ‘these folk’ as one homogeneous bloc.
The bloggers are Hugh, TS, Myself, and now RE. Among the guests, Tom, Infra, and ballgame have invites to coblog but haven’t taken it up or did but subsequently withdrew. These people express views broadly concordant with the blog ethos. The views of, say, Jackd22 or Byrdeye, are no more representative of us than they would be representative of “the folk at Alas” if they posted here.
That’s a very good point, and one which I’ve had it in mind to blog about for a while now. I have no recollection of anything which happened in my teens that I can view now as them maybe hitting on me or flirting, but there were such incidents in my twenties which I look back on and wonder about.
Again, who is this mysterious they? Have I ever talked about “hot” women? Has Hugh? Except in response to others, and, like yourself in scare quotes.
I’ve had more counseling and behavioural therapy than anyone else I know. Some of was tremendously useful, most of it a waste of time, some of it downright harmful. But none of it was any help or even attempted to address this issue.
Now the SC agrees with you that “The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you”. The difference is, it focusses on that problem and offers practical help.
I already am friends with women.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Well, there’s always self-respect. Emphasis on “self”.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Daran,
My opinions of the blog are based on reading the last 2 weeks worth of posts & comments. There is a strong and common theme that runs through the vast majority of posts and comments. That theme is that women only want an “alpha” and that therefore they are not fair to the denizens of Feminist Critics. Read back through and see whether or not that is a fair assessment.
I already am friends with women.
Yet that was a major topic of discussion there recently and the overall opinion seemed to be that a man couldn’t be “just” friends with a woman. Too much sexual tension or awkwardness or disappointment that she doesn’t want to fuck.
This is ironic, because you seem to be treating ‘these folk’ as one homogeneous bloc.
That’s true, yet they are a much smaller subset than “women” and they share a common POV - something that you don’t find in women as a whole. There are many ways in which you could validly treat bloggers and commenters at Alas as a bloc. It is a VERY small group of people. Women are a very BIG group of people.
Throughout the posts and comments that I read there was a consistent thread of low self-esteem and putting blame on others.
I’ve had more counseling and behavioural therapy than anyone else I know. Some of was tremendously useful, most of it a waste of time, some of it downright harmful. But none of it was any help or even attempted to address this issue.
That is both a shame and baffling if the focus was on this issue.
Now the SC agrees with you that “The problem doesn’t lie with women, the problem lies with you”. The difference is, it focusses on that problem and offers practical help.
Yet the impression given by the posts and comments there is that the problem is with women and often with feminism. So it appears that the aficianados of SC mostly don’t agree with me.
Also, SC (and the repeated statements praising PUA (Pick Up Artists for those of you playing at home)) don’t actually offer practical advice to shy, socially inept men. Neither the SC nor PUA tactics are really helpful for establishing a meaningful, long term relationship with another person. In fact, in many cases, the advice given is harmful if the goal is a meaningful relationship.
The views of, say, Jackd22 or Byrdeye, are no more representative of us than they would be representative of “the folk at Alas” if they posted here.
But the views of the commenters on any blog are representative of the opinions, mood and athmosphere of that blog. The fact that this sort of person is attracted to comment on the posts in non-adversarial fashion says a lot. “The folks at Alas” include not just the bloggers, but the commenters as well. I would consider myself one of the folks at Alas, just as I would Q Grrl and Myca and Robert and many others. I may personally disagree with Robert on everything under the sun, but I cannot deny that he has an influence on the personality, the environment of Alas. A blog, due to its interactive nature, is a community that includes more than just the blogger(s).
Feminist Critics is an environment in which the denizens seem to be saying that women are both inscrutable and unfair. The name alone, given the core subject matter at the blog, is a dead giveaway that the posters and commenters are directing much of the blame for their unhappiness and inabilities on others. The fact that so much of the blame is directed at feminism (and straw-feminist positions) shows how little the commenters and posters understand about feminism.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 9:25 am
“S’ils n’ont pas de pain, qu’ils mangent de la brioche”. Emphasis on “la brioche”.
This comment was written by BASTA!.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
[…] on Alas, a commenter took potshots at my fellow posters over on Feminist Critics: The thing about Feminist Critics is […]
This comment was written by Toy Soldiers Silience is Still Golden «.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Jake Squid
Would you have understood that you were being hit on if those women had said: “Jake, I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?”
Can you (or Amp) understand why I put so much emphasis on verbal disambiguation?
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Would you have understood that you were being hit on if those women had said: “Jake, I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?”
Can you (or Amp) understand why I put so much emphasis on verbal disambiguation?
And feminism, which encourages women to do just that, is what you blame for more women not saying that to you. This is why I don’t see any basis for productive conversation with you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Jake:
I would argue that the dichotomy is much less pronounced than you’re implying here. As I see it, what the SC is saying to sexually unsuccessful men is: “You’re not inherently unattractive. Your problem is behavioral. The behavior you thought women would find attractive is in fact unattractive to most women, and we can teach you to behave in ways that women find more attractive.”
The biggest problem many men have is that they have no idea how to act around women or what to say to them. So they avoid initiating contact with them. Understanding the basics of how female attraction works makes it easier for men to initiate contact with women they find attractive. For particularly awkward men, it may help to have specific tactics to try until they can get a better feel for it.
As far as behavioral therapy goes, do you remember the flack I got in the “Nice Guys” thread for saying that practicing talking to strange women was instrumental in helping me to overcome my social anxiety? I think that’s a good example of what Hugh was talking about when he blamed feminism for the problems of socially awkward men.
Some of the advice may be harmful. But I think on balance it’s helpful, if you filter it through common sense. Here’s why the SC tactics are helpful for establishing a long-term relationship:
1. As I argue above, they help shy men to get over their shyness and to understand that they can succeed with women.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.2. Success breeds confidence, and a man who’s confident in his ability to find another woman easily is unlikely to exhibit the insecurity and clinginess that most women find so unattractive.
3. Many men don’t need help with the maintenance aspects of a relationship. I was like that. I hadn’t had many girlfriends, but the few I’d had worshipped the water they thought I could walk on. All I needed was help with the early stages—getting a woman to spend enough time with me to see all I had to offer.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 10:59 am
OK, I feel stupid asking this, but what’s “the SC”?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
As far as behavioral therapy goes, do you remember the flack I got in the “Nice Guys” thread for saying that practicing talking to strange women was instrumental in helping me to overcome my social anxiety? I think that’s a good example of what Hugh was talking about when he blamed feminism for the problems of socially awkward men.
Although that is conflating some feminists with feminism. But, yeah, I remember.
The biggest problem many men have is that they have no idea how to act around women or what to say to them.
Which is to say that they see women as fundamentally different than men - something that I think feminism disputes.
Understanding the basics of how female attraction works makes it easier for men to initiate contact with women they find attractive.
This perpetuates the notion that women are fundamentally different than men and I therefore find the concept to be anti-feminist. Do we all really believe that female attraction works differently than male attraction? This is why I find SC to be harmful and anti-feminist - it perpetuates the idea that women aren’t people the way that we are people.
Why aren’t these shy men reading How to Make Friends and Influence People? Perhaps it is because they don’t believe that women are people and/or they are really wanting sex, not a relationship.
How is anything at http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html not helpful in learning how to speak with women?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
OK, I feel stupid asking this, but what’s “the SC”?
“Seduction Community”
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Jake
I’m not quite sure what that first sentence means, Jake. You seem to insinuating something quite nasty, but are obviously chary of giving it forthright expression. But you are quite right to point out that there is no basis for a discussion between us. Fare ye well.
Anybody else like to have a crack at the question Jake didn’t answer?
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Feminism encourages women to say, ” I find you sexually attractive. Why don’t we make out?” if they are sexually attracted to somebody. You seem to blame feminism for the fact that more women don’t do that. Is that clear?
I apologize for initially phrasing it in a way that could be easily interpreted as insulting you personally, Tom.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Oh, this is all just self-centered crap! Women arent’ a monolith. Treat women as you would another man, for fuck’s sake: respect her boundaries, be pleasant, talk about the weather.
Branden Berg: weren’t you the one that posted about how you “practiced” your skills on women, who you did not know, who were sitting by themselves in public spaces? Of course you got shit for that. That’s creepy and annoying as hell. Don’t you read the news for crying out loud. Don’t you believe what women write on blogs about how annoying and innapropriate this type of behavior is? Better yet, why the fuck would your insecurities mean that you could violate/ignore a woman’s boundaries around space and privacy. Good grief man! Don’t go turning that around and blaming the feminists for your failure.
Besides, if “shy” guys are so poor with their interpersonal skills, how the hell do they know they’re even talking to straight women. Shit, I know men who serially “fall” in love with lesbians, or who hit on us, not as some kind of kink, but because they are so socially inept they can’t read the signals.
I say that if you’re having problems and still blaming it on someone or something else, then you should stay single. Your interpersonal skills are not going to improve once you’re in a relationship. Which is probably what women can pick up from you on your approach.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
heh. thanks, Jake. I won’t tell you what i was guessing it meant, lol.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Not being able to immediately identify who is and is not homosexual constitutes social ineptitude?
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
What about “serially” implies immediately? I’m not falling for this bullshit. If a man, of any stripe, cannot identify that a woman is lesbian, he is socially inept. Period. No mystery there. Christ on a cracker!
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Jake Squid
I don’t agree that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to the promotion of a decisive role for women in matters romantic and sexual. In three years of reading all the usual feminist blogs I can’t remember a single post suggesting that women learn to move beyond smiles, looks and suggestions to the point of actually saying what they want in potentially romantic situations. I have read countless posts, by contrast, bemoaning how forward, persistent and “entitled” is men’s behaviour in courtship. Which is to say: there is tons more emphasis on inhibiting male sexual enterprise than on encouraging that of women - an incoherence which is bound to lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.
Take your own experiences as an example. All those women who used to hit on you when you were younger - presumably they thought that there was some emotional, physical or spiritual advantage to be had from a relationship or an encounter with you. But they expressed themselves in an ambiguous way which you didn’t know how to interpret. As a result those women missed out on whatever it was they were seeking from you. If they had expressed themselves verbally, however, you could have been in no doubt as to their intentions and you would, sometimes at least, have fulfilled their desires. But they didn’t, did they? There are, of course, some women who do dare to put themselves on the line by speaking out, but most women, feminists included, do not.
Now their anxiety is natural: making a unilateral declaration of desire exposes us to rejection and humiliation. I don’t blame women who are otherwise feminist for wanting to hang on to their traditional role in courtship -
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.so much less embarrassing, so much more gratifying to vanity than a truly liberated (and liberating) one could be. But they would still do well to give it up, and I think it’s a crying shame that feminists don’t encourage women to take a lead which would give them a better chance of romantic and sexual happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, of course. But a better chance.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Okay.
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I edited while you were posting.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
If a man, of any stripe, cannot identify that a woman is lesbian, he is socially inept. Period.
Because all women have neon exclamation points over their heads, color-coded by sexual orientation, and interpreting a particular woman’s interests is simply a matter of consulting the handy pocket reference card.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Or paying attention to what she does. I dunno Robert, I take it you can usually tell who the gay guys are, no?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Assuming persons manifest sexual predilection on a reliable basis in public setting. Otherwise, ascertaining predilection will require investigation or stalking. Or assuming that other behaviors, though not sexual, are markers of a predilection because they allegedly correlate with it.
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Riiiiiight.
Seems like ya’ll are ready enough to call women “dykes” when we’re mad at you.
Really guys, women aren’t some mystery that requires an instruction manual and a decoder ring.
I stand by what I say, especially in the interest of feminism and women’s autonomy: if a guy cannot tell if a woman is a lesbian, he is socially inept. Or, rather, I just refer you to post #29 as proof.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I don’t agree that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to the promotion of a decisive role for women in matters romantic and sexual.
This is precisely why there is no basis for a productive discussion between us.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Why does the interest of feminism and autonomy necessarily require the allegedly easy discernability of a person’s sexual predilection?
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I stand by what I say, especially in the interest of feminism and women’s autonomy: if a guy cannot tell if a woman is a lesbian, he is socially inept.
I disagree with you, Q Grrl. When I attend a party or event with people I’ve never met before I have no way of knowing whether they’re gay or not. Unless they are there with an obvious partner or they tell me. I don’t believe other people have that ability either.
I have no idea whether or not any of my co-workers (I’ve only been at the job for a month) are LGBT or not. I haven’t asked and they haven’t volunteered the info.
Hell, lots of my friends and family thought for years that I might be gay and they weren’t all socially inept.
Sure, there are some generalities and stereotypes you can use to inform your initial impression, but they are by no means universal. Have you never been interested in a straight woman who you thought might be gay?
Am I mistaken to think that your position on this has a lot to do with het being the default identification of people?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
On the issue of shy people learning to talk to strangers, one person I know posted a request on his blog for volunteers he could call to practice conversation. I volunteered, and we had a couple of completely unobjectionable, 10-minute long phone conversations.
On the issue of women asking men (e.g., for a date), I’ve certainly done it more than half the times that resulted in action (a date). My personal opinion, not based on any scientific study, is that the observed behavioral difference is more likely attributable to differences in selectivity. That is, het women in general are more selective than het men in general: het men will find a larger proportion of their local het woman population desirable than the proportion of the het man population that het women find desirable. I think there’s also a contribution from men being more willing to risk a poor result (i.e., say yes to the date but then have a bad time) than women are (after all, for far more women than men, a poor result includes a high risk of rape and other violence).
This comment was written by Kai Jones.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Because I believe that when men, as a class, stop objectifying women, then it will be glaringly obvious to men which women are lesbians and which women aren’t.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
No, I’m not attracted to straight women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Seduction Community”
Oh please. It’s not about seduction but treating women as people.
Why aren’t these shy men reading How to Make Friends and Influence People? Perhaps it is because they don’t believe that women are people and/or they are really wanting sex, not a relationship.
Excellent. Men who treat women as people are very seductive to me. I find feminist men the sexiest. Ideally, the guy would be nice, feminist and “hot.” That perfect combination hasn’t come up for me yet.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
So, more accurately phrased, you are saying that when this central tenet of feminism is realized, then this allegedly easy and obvious discernment of sexual predilection will consequently result? Is that the proper sequence?
This comment was written by Megalodon.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Or paying attention to what she does.
In public, what do lesbians do that straight women don’t?
I dunno Robert, I take it you can usually tell who the gay guys are, no?
If they tell me, or ask me out, or stand on the float at the Gay Pride parade whipping their shirt in the air and screaming “queer for life!”, sure.
Otherwise, not so much.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Jake Squid (quoting me):
It’s not a fair assessment of the posts, no. Since the beginning of this month, there have been twelve posts: Six by RE, who’s really hit the ground running. (I presume you’re not claiming that RE is speaking to this theme.), two by TS on unrelated matters. Two by me on administrative matters, one by me as part of a broadranging discussion with an individual guest that did not address this issue. None at all by Hugh.
That leaves just one by me on this topic, which is the one examining the scene from Doctor Who. In it, I did not say that women only want “alphas”, nor did I suggest that they were not being fair to FCB posters.
Nor do I get the impression that “the vast majority” of recent comments speak to this theme. The topic has got a lot of attention recently, largely because of RE’s posts. Yes there are some comments that express this ‘theme’, mainly from guests we’ve never before seen on FCB. They do not represent us.
It was a major topic of discussion because RE asked the question. I did not participate in that discussion, but Hugh did, and his replies were far more nuanced than your characterisation. Nobody else in that thread represents us.
That’s a circular argument. You’re treating the discussion as though each speaks for all - an attitude which will inevitably lead to you attributing to them a shared POV - then justifying it on the ground that they have a shared POV.
I agree that women aren’t homogeneous.
There’s a consistent thread within feminism of blaming men for everything, so I don’t think you’re in a position to throw stones.
Many of the posters do have/have had low self-esteem. Some of them blame women generally, but, once again, they do not represent the blog.
It certainly was a shame. It’s not really baffling though. Other than the SC, which, as far as I can tell, is a recent, internet-based phenomenon, there really is no societal aknowledgement of or support for men who have these problems
The techniques advocated by the SC either work or they don’t. They appear to work, perhaps not as well, or for not as many men as some SC advocates might claim, but they do work to a degree.
The question is, how?
Do SC practitioners change women? Do they change feminism? Do they change societal attitudes?
Or do they change themselves?
See Brandon’s reply. In my case of the three romantic/sexual relationships I’ve had in my life, one lasted several months before we just drifted apart, the other two both lasted seven years. So I don’t think maintaining a relationship is the problem for me. It’s getting there. The one that lasted months was romantic but did not become sexual, from my side, because I couldn’t then even conceive of the possibility. That might be the reason it failed.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
All I am going to say is this…
The FC blog is a lot deeper than people are giving it credit for. Speaking for one of the bloggers there, um, that would be me, yeah, well, I do have a problem with some aspects of feminism. I’ll admit that flat out. I was the one who asked “can (hetero) men and women just be friends?” And guess what? Yep, I do think they can be. Sure, has there been lots of talk of the SC there? Indeedy. Partially because I wanted to know more about it…me, female, curious as to what it was about…
That’s all.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Daran,
Many of the posters do have/have had low self-esteem. Some of them blame women generally, but, once again, they do not represent the blog.
Yes, they do. Unquestionably.
I think that your response indicates that you missed this:
But the views of the commenters on any blog are representative of the opinions, mood and athmosphere of that blog. The fact that this sort of person is attracted to comment on the posts in non-adversarial fashion says a lot. “The folks at Alas” include not just the bloggers, but the commenters as well. I would consider myself one of the folks at Alas, just as I would Q Grrl and Myca and Robert and many others. I may personally disagree with Robert on everything under the sun, but I cannot deny that he has an influence on the personality, the environment of Alas. A blog, due to its interactive nature, is a community that includes more than just the blogger(s).
I think that this addresses your concerns about treating FC denizens as a bloc and your separating the comments from the posts and identifying individuals. Just as many people have had complaints about the environment at Alas that were not restricted to individuals (whether blogger or commenter), I am making a complaint about FC. If you disagree, that’s fine but it doesn’t change my impression of the place. I sincerely doubt that I’m the only one who feels this way.
Other than the SC, which, as far as I can tell, is a recent, internet-based phenomenon, there really is no societal aknowledgement of or support for men who have these problems
What problems are you talking about? Shyness? Low self-esteem? There is certainly societal acknowledgement and support of men and women who have these problems. I did give the link to Dale Carnegie. Dale Carnegie wrote a book - an extremely popular and well-known book - 80 years ago for men with just such problems. Mr. Carnegie was not the only one, nor was he a member of a very small number of authors, to write such books, so I can’t agree with your opinion on this.
I suspect that what you mean by “these problems” is really “men not viewing women as people and, therefore, not understanding how to interact with them.” If that is the case, I have very little sympathy. Start treating women like people.
There’s a consistent thread within feminism of blaming men for everything, so I don’t think you’re in a position to throw stones.
Even if I agreed with your statement, one does not invalidate the other. Hell, I could be an arsonist, but that wouldn’t invalidate my ability to point out a thief.
Of course, your inability to distinguish “responsibility” from “blame” and “men as a class” from “every single man” is the reason you believe that feminists blame men for everything.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I didn’t miss it. I’m going to address it separately.
The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
Please give the link.
It’s not the case.
[…]
I recently addressed the collectisation fallacy here.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I agree that “Oh yes they do, oh no they don’t” is not productive.
On the other hand, one of you could prove the other wrong. Tom’s negative is inherently inameanable to proof, but you could prove that feminism does more than pay very occasional lip-service to this by pointing out a few of the many thousands of feminist posts which do address this issue.
Unless, of course, such posts don’t exist.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Please give the link.
A summary of Dale Carnegie’s book can be found in the link that I provided in comment # 16.
… pointing out a few of the many thousands of feminist posts which do address this issue.
Since a major part of feminism is the idea that gender roles must be deconstructed, must I really bother?
If you read Alas you will have seen it mentioned many times. This is also commonplace at Pandagon. Also, even an anti-feminist site ( http://www.probe.org/content/view/651/169/ ) cedes the point:
The legacy of feminism is the refusal of the God-given role of men to be initiator, protector and provider.
You can try:
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2005/11/dating_etiquett.html
or:
http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/fem167.html
where it is written:
… the point is that nothing about feminism should be anti-male, it can certainly be anti-certain men, just as it can be anti-certain women, but the point is to liberate each individual from their assumed roles in society and allow them to be individuals. Feminism is as much about freeing men from their roles as it is about freeing women.
Sheesh, the more I search (which is not my forte), the more I find anti-feminist sites stating that feminism has encouraged women to take on a more active role in dating, be the initiator, etc. and how bad that is. How women should let the man be in charge. Given that it is anti-feminists encouraging women to let men do the asking, I’m not going to give any more links. For thingssake, when your own anti-feminist allies are complaining that feminism encourages women to take an active role in romantic and sexual matters, I don’t see the point of having me provide the links for you. You’ve probably already seen it a million times on anti-feminist sites that you agree with.
If anybody with better research skills than me wants to provide a comprehensive list for Daran, be my guest.
Wow.
Jake: What problems are you talking about? Shyness? Low self-esteem?
Daran: The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
The solution is obviously to believe that women are people. What approach would make men inclined to entertain the idea of an intimate relationship? Women like the same thing. It isn’t that difficult a concept. Every time you specify “women” you just confirm that you think that there is a fundamental difference in the thinking, motivations and desires between men and women. You are dead wrong.
Look, you’re missing something obvious here. Why are you socially inept with women but not with men? Do you treat men differently than you treat women?
If so:
Why? What makes you think that you need to approach and interact with women differently than you do with men.
This is precisely why it is so difficult to converse with you on this subject.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hey Amp…
Amp said:
I agree that for a policeman to treat a woman this way in real life might border on sexual harassment. I don’t think there would be the same problem if it happened in a coffee shop, however.
I don’t think that Tom is suggesting that men have more risks in dating in general. I think he is suggesting that men suffer certain types of risks more often, on average. The examples he gives are the risk of being actively rejected, and the risk of having their behavior condemned by feminism.
I don’t think this conflation exists in Tom’s post, because you are focusing on the issue as a policeman-woman interaction, while in the thread we have mostly been looking at it as an example of man-woman interaction. What Daran and Tom seem to be arguing is that some feminists would construe such male behavior as sexual harassment, or tantamount to it, even if the man hadn’t been a policeman.
What we are trying to point out is that a lot of gendered dynamics that feminists condemn actually work very well with women from a practical standpoint. (You condemn it as “a depiction of conventionally-gendered sexuality that many feminists decry; women as coquettish pursued, men as aggressive pursuer.”) What are the implications of this? We don’t know, but we are trying to figure them out.
Tom said:
Amp said:
If you are suggesting that men who are hold views like Tom’s and mine do so because they are anti-feminist, I would suggest that you may have the direction of causation backwards. In my case, one of the reasons I went from growing up with very feminist intuitions and views, to being a critic of feminism, was because I realized how harmful feminism had been to my ability to have authentic and spontaneous interactions with women sexually and romantically.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
This sounds like a sort of tautology: feminist men who are attractive to women are… attractive to women. The question should be whether the proportion of feminist men who are of a certain attractiveness to women is the same as the proportion of men in the general population of that level of attractiveness. I think the answer is “no” for several reasons.
First, men interested in feminism are probably less likely to be attractive to women. Would you agree that on average, feminism selects men who are less gender-conforming from the beginning? Men who are less masculine that average are the men who are attracted to feminism. However, certain aspects of masculinity are important to women in terms of sexual attraction (though some women aren’t attracted exclusively to masculine qualities, and are attracted to feminine qualities in combination with masculine qualities). Hence, more feminist men than men in the general population will be below the cutoff of masculinity necessary to be attractive to women, and to negotiate the male gender role in courtship.
Second, once men become feminists, for some of them, feminism is likely to impair their attractiveness or ability to interact with women. This may not be true for feminist men who are already attractive, confident, and extraverted, but it may be the case for many feminist men who are shy, anxious, introverted, unassertive, and sexually repressed. I don’t argue that all feminist men with those personality traits and behaviors will have that experience, but as I’ve argued before, certain aspects of feminism (e.g. notions of sexual harassment, objectification, and “pressuring” of women) will impair the ability of such males to engage in sexual and romantic interaction with women if taken seriously.
I agree that “extremely shy men are probably better off if their social groups have more egalitarian romantic norms than conventional society’s.” I’m just not convinced that feminism advances consistently egalitarian romantic norms. There is nothing egalitarian about socializing men to respect women, but not to respect themselves. There is nothing egalitarian about drumming messages about not sexually harassing/objectifying/pressuring women, without defining the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable, and without concern for what damage that approach does to shy and socially inept men psychosexually, and without even considering ways to get the same message across to men in ways that aren’t damaging.
I’m glad feminism has helped you in your experiences with women. I don’t deny that feminism can do so. What Tom, Daran, and I are trying to communicate is that for some men who are shy, socially inept, anxious, and unassertive, feminism has a damaging effect on their ability to have sex and relationships with women. Feminists need to recognize that type of experience, instead of trying to invalidate it.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I’m well into my 50s and never married. And it definitely was not because of shyness - it’s just that women never gave a sh*t for me. I’m not a macho type which is what most women prefer. Ironically, ‘macho’ is the Spanish word for a male mule which is a strong, stupid, stubborn, and sterile animal. If that’s what most women want, that’s their right I suppose.
Oh well - it’s the single life for me. And, I guess, it was destined to be.
But one final thought on what I wrote above — I said that according to the Bible, it is women who are to take the initiative in marriage. In my many years I have known of about a dozen couples in which it was the woman who took that initiative. Each couple had one thing in common: there was no divorce! Unlike many other couples I have known, each of these couples remained together forever.
Perhaps it proves that the Bible’s teaching on marriage was correct all along!
This comment was written by Brooklyn.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Tom said:
Ampersand replied:
It’s fallacious for to you to argue that just because we think that it will take work and effort to give women the tools to be sexually assertive and initiate sexually, and that feminists are shirking on that work even though it is mandated by their stated goals of liberating women from restrictive femininities, then we must think that getting shy men laid is as high a priority as stopping sexual harassment and rape. Come on. (If you think I am misinterpreting you, please correct me.)
As Tom has pointed out, there are many good feminist reasons for feminists to encourage women to be more sexually assertive. Strangely, feminists don’t really give women any encouragement or practical advice to actually do so, which is probably part of why so many women don’t. Merely telling women that they should have the choice to initiate isn’t enough to liberate them from the strictures of femininity.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Daran (eliciting an answer from Jake)
Oh goody, I can communicate with Jake through Daran. “Ask your mother to pass the butter, please, Jemima.” “Tell your father that it’s margarine.” etc. etc.
Jake
My point was that feminists are by and large more willing that men abandon some of their traditional attitudes (e.g. persistence in courtship) than they are that women abandon some of theirs (e.g. passivity in courtship). Blanket declarations of feminist principles are no defence against the claim that many feminists apply those principles with partiality. A better defence would be evidence of feminists actually encouraging women to be proactive.
Of the three links you provide, one - to the Happy Feminist - actually does this (and I absolutely applaud her initiative, by the way). That’s good evidence and weakens my case.
The other links are duds. One is by an antifeminist who doesn’t “concede the point” that feminism has impinged on the rights of men to be proactive, but rather declares - without a shred of evidence - that it has done so. It is the work of a fundamentalist wowser. Really, are the unsupported opinions of such people to be regarded as evidence one way or the other? And the other link limits itself to a declaration that being feminist doesn’t entail hating men - but whoever said it did?
It’s a poor show.
I stand by what I said: feminists rarely make a point of emphasizing the importance to women and to their happiness of verbally articulating their desires in a sexual context. So it is quite unsurprising that women - feminist or not - rarely do. Quite unsurpising, Jake, that none of those women who were hitting on you ever actually told you that they wanted sex or romance with you.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Quite unsurpising, Jake, that none of those women who were hitting on you ever actually told you that they wanted sex or romance with you.
That’s actually not true. When I was 19 or 20 my best friend in the world said straight out, “I want to be your lover.” I said no. Things were awkward for a couple of months and then we continued our best friendship for about another 10 years until my abusive, controlling first wife ran her off.
Unsurprisingly, my first wife was also straight-forward in expressing her wishes in that she grabbed me and kissed me (which would, of course, have been unwelcome had I not been attracted to her).
My current wife, although I was the one who initiated contact, was straight forward expressing her wishes for a romantic relationship.
Both times that I have been married, I was the one who was proposed to.
In other words, I am not someone who would commonly be considered an “alpha,” I am not incredibly attractive, yet when friends have been interested in me, they have made the first move. (Of course, if any of you folks who know me in the meat world would like to dispute my self-assessment, feel free to flatter me)
In all fairness, the women who were hitting on me/flirting with me when I didn’t get it were doing so in a way that I believe the vast majority of people would have understood clearly. The fault was mine for lack of recognition, not theirs for not stating their wishes in a clearly spoken manner.
For example, how could I not have realized that the woman stroking my hair at a party wasn’t coming on to me?
Now that I know how to recognize it, its hard to see how I didn’t understand at the time. I chalk it up to being depressed, having low self-esteem and being socially inept. Exactly what I am accusing you lot of.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
And the other link limits itself to a declaration that being feminist doesn’t entail hating men - but whoever said it did?
Unless I’m mistaken about which link you are talking about, you’re being obtuse. The quote from that link is:
Feminism is as much about freeing men from their roles as it is about freeing women.
Not to be rude, but you are fucking complaining about the role as initiator that you are stuck with and are no good at. The quote says that feminism is about freeing men from their roles - for example the expectation that they be the active one in starting a relationship.
But, golly, I hope I’m wrong about which quote you were referring to.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Feminists absolutely encourage women to be active in pursuing their own sexual and romantic desires.
Not only do feminists criticize the gender socialization that teaches us all that men should be the intiators and pursuers, and women should be passive - we do so much more!
We:
- agitate for comprehensive, judgement-free sex education (and when the state won’t provide it, some feminists do it themselves: Scarleteen;
- fight for women to have access to birth control and abortion (women are more likely to want to have sex with you if they don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancy);
- have started sex toy stores (Good Vibrations, Toys in Babeland, Good for Her, Come as You Are, and many more) so women can explore their sexuality. Both Good for Her and Come As You Are offer workshops on flirting.
But I think the key thing for the purposes of this discussion, is that we fight for greater acceptance of different gender identities, expressions, and presentations (as in, we are critical of those elements of society that pass judgement on men for not living up to the masculine ideal).
As for whether men should be able to tell if a woman’s a lesbian - not always. My best friend is very femme, no one ever reads her as a lesbian. I, on the other hand, lean towards heterosexuality, and I get read as a queer woman about 85% of the time (despite being relatively feminine in presentation). But straight guys should know: if she says she’s a lesbian, she almost certainly isn’t going to sleep with you. If you keep pursuing a woman who has told you she’s a lesbian, you’re a jerk.
This comment was written by debbie.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Look, look! Comment number 53 in this thread is another cite showing that feminists encourage women to be more active romantically & sexually.
That was easy.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
But straight guys should know: if she says she’s a lesbian, she almost certainly isn’t going to sleep with you. If you keep pursuing a woman who has told you she’s a lesbian, you’re a jerk.
That is so weird. You seem to be drawing a parallel to if I tell a gay man that I’m straight, that I’m not going to sleep with him. And if he keeps pursuing me that he’s a jerk. So you’re saying that women react and have the same motivations as I do? Are you certain?
(That, TS, is sarcasm)
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
The specific problem of being able to engage with women in a way which offers the prospect of leading to intimate relationships.
Daran, if I recall correctly, you have mentioned that you have a neurological disorder that gets in the way of your forming relationships. Am I wrong?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Jake
First off, congratulations on being proposed to etc. I’m sure you’re just being modest when you say you’re not an alpha, though…
That happened to me once too. Had to wait a long time though…
Come on, you know that a blanket declaration of principle won’t do. Tut nichts zur Sache.
Calm down, calm down. That feminists promote sex education and reciprocity in sex-acts is not at issue. The issue is: do feminists generally encourage women to be verbally proactive in potentially romantic or sexual situations? Such would be in line with stated feminist principles, no doubt. But I contend that the demands that men should refrain from being sexually persistent vastly outnumber the demands that women (for their own sake) should be sexually proactive. I don’t think one link to the Happy Feminist demolishes my case.
Well, it’s very evident that your social skills have improved out of recognition since then, Jake. You’re an inspiration to us, I’m sure.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
In addition to the links Jake provided, there are also links like this post from Tofu Slut, or this one from Smallhands, or this comment left by Diane at Feministing. It’s also common for feminists to list women asking men out as a example of good feminism has done, as in here and here. And whether or not the women having the conversations self-identify as feminists, it’s hard to imagine exchanges like this or this happening if feminism hadn’t happened first.
That said, I disagree with your implication that if feminists really believe romance and sex should be egalitarian (including, but not limited to, both sexes initiating relationships), we’d therefore see thousands of posts by feminists entreating women to ask shy guys out.
That’s not a fair or reasonable test, because feminists aren’t narrowly focused on the question of what feminists can do to make men’s lives easier, and we shouldn’t be expected to have such a focus. Not everything in the world has to be about men.
Virtually all feminists believe that in a more feminist world, all of dating and romance would be more egalitarian; it doesn’t follow from all of the above that feminist bloggers are going to find “hey, ladies, have you asked a shy man out today?” to be a pressing topic to blog about.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’m well into my 50s and never married. And it definitely was not because of shyness - it’s just that women never gave a sh*t for me. I’m not a macho type which is what most women prefer.
Can men be manly and feminist? All men should respect women. Women like the sensitive artist type as much as manly men. Coming at this from a different angle, 51% of adult American women are not married which is a record high. (And 47% of adult American men are not married.) This is partly because women look at their mothers’ lives and don’t want it. Women in Taiwan, S. Korea and Japan are delaying marriage or not marrying because of traditional expectations in marriage. Men are importing women from other Asian countries who may not even speak their language. Wouldn’t it be easier if men became feminists in all these countries?
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators