Are Women Good, and Men Bad?

Evan Marc Katz

According to author Suzanne Venker, “the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off… Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”

When Venker asks men why they don’t want to get married, men say the same thing over and over:

“Women aren’t women anymore.”

Venker’s article on Fox News, and her new book, “How to Choose a Husband (and Make Peace with Marriage)” are decidedly controversial. I think Venker knows this and plays up her message, shifting the the blame for all relationship problems from men to women. This, I think, is a mistake. One gender is not to blame for all ills. Not men. Not women.

I wrote to Venker and asked her to send a copy of her book, so if I think it has any merit, I can share it with my readers. Without having read it, I can only respond to what she wrote in this one article.

If you date men, then, predictably, MEN are going to be the problem.

And while I don’t agree with her hyperbolic language about women “surrendering to their femininity,” which really does sound like some sort of flashback to the 1950′s, I do think there she has a point about women sharing responsibility for their relationship failings.

I go to great pains on this blog to establish the same concept, and receive a good amount of pushback for it. As Venker wrote, “After decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”

This is, by and large, true. Just as women should rightfully be outraged that Venker “blames” women and feminism for today’s relationship woes, men are outraged that we are always perceived as the problem. It’s all a matter of perspective.

If you date men, then, predictably, MEN are going to be the problem.

But if you date women (like men do), you may logically conclude that women are, at least part of the problem. After all, women are the ones who have changed more dramatically in the past 40 years. In gaining equality, they’ve embraced many male characteristics, blurred gender roles, and muddied the waters when it comes to work, money, responsibility, leadership, etc. This isn’t a bad thing and I’m not trying to go backwards or put the genie back in the bottle.

However, as a result of these changes, women are dissatisfied with men, men are dissatisfied with women, and both tend to play the blame game.

That doesn’t fly here. Look in the mirror, figure out who you are, figure out what you need, and you can find a complementary life partner, instead of blaming the opposite sex. What does that mean for my smart, strong, successful women? Well, it probably means that you should get used to equality. You will now have the same dating dilemmas as men.

If you’re an alpha female, better get used to the idea that certain men don’t find you attractive. Better get used to the idea that you may have to be the primary breadwinner. Better get used to the idea that the best fit for you is a more easygoing man, instead of the most “impressive” man.

In short, by becoming equal to men, women had better be willing to “date down” with someone who is less driven, educated, wealthy or ambitious.

Alas, we men have never called it “dating down”. We just called it dating.

And we liked being able to choose partners based on kindness, fun, laughter, attraction, values and compatibility.

I hope women learn to value men for the same reasons, instead of height, education, and income. Because whether you agree with Suzanne Venker or not, you have to admit, changing gender roles make relationships more confusing than ever before.

Click here to read the original piece and kindly share your thoughts below.

Print Friendly

Related Posts:

1. Study Suggests Women and Men Have More in Common When It Comes To Choosing a Partner
2. What Do Men REALLY Want From Women?
3. The Secret to Love: Mr. Imperfect is Actually Mr. Right
4. Men and Women Want the Same Exact Things – on Paper
5. The Most Important Quality Men Value in Women

Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared.

142 Comments »Filed Under Understanding Men

142 Responses to “Are Women Good, and Men Bad?”

1. starthrower68 1

   I think radical feminism has pissed off men and rightly so.  I think there are women who believe men are beneath them and have no real use for men.  But I believe that the majority of women are just trying to navigate the world today as best we can, just like the majority of men are.  I have done things in hopes of bettering myself not so that I can show anyone up, but as a single parent, I want to provide as best I can for myself and my children.  I respect that men don’t like gold-diggers anymore than they like women who look down on them and I have never or would I ever attach myself to a man so that he can take responsibility for my obligations and commitments.  I was raised to take responsibility and stand on my own two feet. 
   I think there are larger implications though.  Ephesians 6:12 says we war not against flesh, but against powers, principalities, and forces of darkness.  We live in an age where groups are being pitted against each other, i.e. liberal vs. conservative, race vs. race, man vs woman.  Men and women are not necessarily wrong, just different.

2. Ellen 2

   As an alpha female clevely disguised as a Southern Belle in order to better fit in, many would think I’m dating down a little right now. My current GREAT alpha bf has less education, makes less than I do, and his house is less impressive.
   But heres what makes it mitigable /ˈmɪt ɪ gə bəl/ Show Spel:
   The above gradually revealed themselves, but at each turn he MORE than compensated for these so-called deficits by having the biggest heart, by being consistently kind and generous to everyone, by treating me like a princess at every opportunity, by valuing and getting to know the REAL me, something none of my exes or previous dates had accomplished.
   We also share the same values.
   I examined casually each of the so-called deficits and realized:
   less education, but he had ADHD as a kid and was impatient so never finished college. He should have been in gifted programs but there weren’t any then! He has an IQ of 150, way higher than mine, so it’s all good.
   currently making less money than moi, BUT he was on the advanced corporate ladder for years, outearning me for YEARS before he finally stepped off and became self employed. He is also trying to resurrect his business after a brutal recession. His product sells for approx. $500K so his ship will come in eventually. lol
   his house is less impressive because, despite a similar social class growing up, he is simpler and not into impressing anybody. It’s been his bachelor pad some 20 years also so kinda a mess!
   And he has other qualities that more than put him over the top imo like height (6’1″), ruggedly handsome, and the bod of someone 20 years younger. Shoulders and arms to die for, etc.
   I think he is aware of these discrepancies but loves me all the more ’cause they just don’t mean that much to me and never will.
   In the meantime, til he can resurrect his company I make sure I give him opportunities to play the hero: to provide for me (bring me groceries or take me to dinner*, whatever), chop me wood, fix things at my house that are broken, etc. ,etc.
   *he does odd jobs and at 50-something has a lot saved in the bank, but I digress….
   ********************
   Women NEED to do this, sit on their hands if necessary. Over the years I would notice aggressive women in business or out and about and note how negatively men reacted to them. But no one likes pushy people, male or female in my view.  So I sugarcoat my alphaness with civility and pleasantry and beaucoup smiling and not bragging about my accomplishments too much unless I have to to get that raise or credit I deserve, at work or socially.
   It’s only when a man, in whatever capacity, has known me a good while that I slowly reveal my degrees or impressive talents. Then it’s not overwhelming imo. I shouldn’t HAVE to do this, many men don’t do it, but I am a big believer in tamping down on the ego to grow spiritually. So, again, all good imo.
   But yeah, the paradigm is shifting and no one is especially happy about it. In time it will all sort itself out I think.
    
    
    

3. Alpha Girl 3

   Wow, thanks for bringing this up Evan I feel it’s a lot of BS, all together. What worked in the past is now proving not to work in the future.  The western woman is totally redefining rolls especially in dating.  I think Disney and some parents and grandparents views are not helping women and men alike.  Men are taught to save women and be there Prince Charming and to provide. They make the choice of choosing there wife or princess. On the other hand you have women, which Susan’s article explains. I’m also going to hold dating gurus responsible for keeping us women in past as well. Bottom line roles are changing and there is no way around it.    More and more women and men become confused because of everything that they hear from others for advice to why things aren’t working to find a mate. Although I do find some truth to the yin and yang of energy, I don’t feel I have to dumb my dating down, this is a huge disservice to me. I should have as much right as any to let someone know I’m interested in them and them take it from there. I’ve read both of these articles from Susan. All I can say is that she lives in the past and her mentality is keeping us there. Like I’ve said before, even though I don’t have a daughter but if I did 25 years in the future I sure hope the dating ground becomes more even! I’d let her know it’s okay to ask a boy out and even ask him to marry.  I think a more egalitarian perspective is the key. 

4. Jackie Holness 4

   I saw Venker on the “The View” some months ago…She has some valid points…in that women are often getting in their own to find love in modern times…but that does make women bad and men good and vice versa…

5. Karmic Equation 5

   From the article: “It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”

   So true. This is the version of feminism I’ve come to understand (not the positive one that happened when I was but a child) — That the sexual equality that women in the 60s fought for (to have sex outside marriage without consequences, e.g., pregnancy, societal disapproval) have had the unintended consequence of giving men the one thing that leveled the playing field in battle of the sexes…Sex itself. *Men* now can have sex without consequences…they no longer need to marry to have unlimited sex. There are now unlimited women free to give them sex without obligation.

   From the article: “Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

   If we understand femininity as giving, nurturing, appreciative, and supportive, then I fully support this statement, too.

   I agree with Evan that “If you’re an alpha female, better get used to the idea that certain men don’t find you attractive. Better get used to the idea that you may have to be the primary breadwinner. Better get used to the idea that the best fit for you is a more easygoing man, instead of the most “impressive” man.”

   That’s why I date men that I like — without regard to their education or earning capacity — who bring out the feminine in me — I admit that I like tall, dark, and handsome — Which is what I traded “education and wealth” for; I still require ambition and intelligence. Though the ambition I require has less to do with career than with my man’s desire and perseverance to be the best at whatever he chooses to be…the best golfer, then best cook, the best joke teller, the best laundromat owner (haha)…and intelligent enough to know that I’m the best woman they have ever met ; )

   All kidding aside,
   1) I believe you can be both alpha and feminine. Those qualities are not mutually exclusive.
   2) Feminism as it has now come to be defined, while leveling the playing field FOR women *environmentally,* e.g., in business and in society, leveled the field AGAINST women *personally,* e.g., in sex and in relationships. (We held the higher ground when sex was harder to come by for both sexes, pun intended).
   3) I am happier in my personal life, where I’m “in my feminine”, than in my career (which I love, though, don’t get me wrong), where I’m quite alpha. I really recommend all the alpha women to just indulge in their feminine in their personal lives and not just when shopping. LOL — It’s really is a lot of fun (and so much easier and less pressure-packed) just being feminine. Men will flock to you like flies to honey.
   4) As Evan suggests, date “partners based on kindness, fun, laughter, attraction, values and compatibility” as men do. This is really the key to relationship-happiness, imo.

6. Karl R 6

   Evan said: (original post)
   “women are dissatisfied with men, men are dissatisfied with women, and both tend to play the blame game.”
    
   Blame has to be the least productive response to a problem. It doesn’t prevent the problem. It doesn’t solve the problem. It tends to be a distraction to the people who are trying to solve the problem.
    
   If your relationships aren’t working out, you’re probably the only person who cares enough to solve the problem. If you start blaming the opposite sex, you’re claiming the problem is something that you can’t change/effect/solve.
    
   You can’t change other people. You can only change yourself. For that reason, you ought to hope that you’re the main cause of your dating problems. That means the problem has a solution.
    
   Suzanne Venker said: (in the article)
   “women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy.”
    
   There are plenty of women who think this way, but there’s no shortage of men who see women as the enemy also.
    
   If a woman sees men as the enemy, that means she sees me as the enemy. If she sees me as the enemy, then it’s a complete waste of my time to try to persuade her otherwise.
    
   I can’t change other people. It’s faster to find a different woman.
    
   For the men who see women as the enemy, every rational woman will avoid you for the same reasons.

7. Androgynous 7

   Yes, the first thing women need to do is to start taking more accountability. In the past, things “happened” to women because they did not have control or power over their own lives and destinies, which was placed in the hands of fathers, male relavtives, husbands or generally the circumstances in which they were born into.  Things have changed dramatically now, with numerous life options open to women that never existed in the past, and women have never had more freedom or power to choose – yet, women retain the old mindset of blaming others when things do not go their way, rather than take responsibility.
   Complaining about the hit their careers takes when they have children, rather than accepting that this is a part of what having children entails, and that it was their decision to have children (after all men don’t get to tell women what to do with their bodies, right ? not even husbands).
   Complaining that a liberal arts degree does not pay as well as say a STEM degree, even though it was their decision to study a liberal arts degree because a STEM degree was too “boring” or “dry”.
   Complaining that their husbands don’t have time for them or their family even though she married him because he was a driven, career oriented man pulling over six figures.
   It goes on and on. Time for women to take accountability, just as men have always had to, or been expected to.
    

8. Mickey 8

   Gender relations have now devolved into a tale of two camps:
   THEM AND US!!!

9. Lia 9

   @ Karl R # 6  Well said.  I wouldn’t want to be with someone who held me in contempt and I wouldn’t expect a man to want that either.
    
   ******
    
   I do not wish to make small the accomplishments of those who have earned degrees and those who have succeeded in making lots of money, I admire both for these are not areas that I have achieved success.  I would however, like to express gratitude for something that a man did for me that all the degrees and money couldn’t do.  
     
   As a single mom I learned to take on both the yin and yang roles in order to survive.  (The father of my little girl was not around.)  I did what needed to be done and never looked at what effect it had on me.  
    
   When my daughter was 5 months old she started having seizures.  There were so many doctors, so few answers.  I felt like I had fallen into an horrific nightmare from which there was no waking.  There were times she would go into a seizure and not come out of it and I would have to have her rushed to the hospital where they would keep pushing drugs into her tiny body until the convulsions stopped.  The first time that happened I was terrified that she was going to die.  Later, after I got her home and had laid her down in her crib I went into the bathroom and look at myself in the mirror and made the decision that I would never again allow myself to feel the grief, fear and overwhelm.  She needed me and I was all she had.  With that decision I shut it down.
    
   When she was almost four-years-old I had to take her to the hospital for some testing that involved an overnight stay.  I had been to the hospital with her so many times before, but this time was different.  This time I had someone in my life.  Suddenly I could hear the sound of his footsteps coming down the hospital corridor.  He wasn’t some brilliant neurosurgeon come to save the day, he didn’t have bucket of cash to throw at the problem, he couldn’t change anything that was happening to HER, but him being there made all the difference to ME.
    
   With the sound of those footsteps I knew that someone was there for me, someone had my back. The grief, fear and overwhelm that I had been holding in my body began to melt away.  I hadn’t even been aware of those feelings until that moment.  He simply walked into the room, came over to me and put his hand on my shoulder.  And for the first time ever I. felt. safe.  I will never forget that feeling.
    
   That is what one of the many things a man brings to a relationship.  That is irreplaceable.  

10. Chance 10

    From the article:  “…the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”
    I’m not so sure this is why the rise in women has pissed many men off.  From my observations, most of the frustration that men experience comes from women who want it both ways as it relates to gender roles (e.g., women who expect that traditional housewife duties should be shared 50/50 and also expect that men should make more and shoulder the financial burden, or women who expect to have an equal opportunity to advance their careers and also expect men to pay for dates).
    One could go on and on with examples, but to put it in general terms, there are two things that infuriate a woman of this type (especially in the context of dating): 
    1.  Men who expect women to adhere to traditional female gender roles, and;
    2.  Men who don’t adhere to traditional male gender roles.
     
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice the brazen hypocrisy in this, and that is what frustrates most men that I know.

11. Lucy 11

    I don’t have to date down because I don’t fit the archetype of the strong woman, at least not in the sense that I’m an alpha female. I have no problem with men taking the lead. I really think that one of the hardest legacies of feminism is that we women are expected to be so strong all the time, to roll with the punches and not get so emotional. I don’t think I’m weak but I find it hard to channel my vulnerability in the right way. Feminism makes it harder to be a woman than it does to be a man. We have to have perfect careers and be perfect mothers and balance so many plates. I don’t blame feminism for any negativity as a whole, I just think that its cultural legacy favours some people over others. 
    It’s very difficult not to get hurt. But part of that is because of the choices that I have made. If you have no accountability for yourself then you haven’t really grown up and you always will feel dis-empowered. It’s much more positive to acknowledge the choices you’ve made, even if they are the wrong ones. Even the not-so-good guys I’ve been involved with, it was still my choice to go near them. It doesn’t take the blame from them but if I thought it was all their fault, dating would freak me out a hell of a lot more.
    I genuinely think that there are hardly any nasty guys. I think the nasty ones make up less than 5% of men. I really value traditional masculine traits, which should be celebrated and not undermined. Same goes for strong woman traits, which I think are quite difficult for some women to cultivate well if they weren’t raised with strong feminist values. Men expect more from women. Because of my background I struggle with trying to be strong, rather than trying to be feminine. A lot of men find my femininity attractive but it’s harder to discern the good ones. So I think even if being a strong woman is hard, you’re at a huge advantage over the not-so-strong ultra-feminine woman such as myself. Celebrate your strength. I admire and look up to these women.
    @Karmic – I don’t think femininity and being alpha are mutually exclusive. I just struggle to learn the alpha part. 

12. Cat5 12

    Lucy @ 11
     
    “I think the nasty ones make up less than 5% of men. “
     
    “A lot of men find my femininity attractive but it’s harder to discern the good ones.”
     
    These statements do not add up to me.  If less than 5% of men are nasty, why is it hard to discern which men are the good ones?  Wouldn’t that make more than 95% of men good ones?

13. sarahrahrah! 13

    Venker’s article seems like a lot of nonsense.  Let me count the ways.
     
    First, blaming problems on the “rise of feminism” doesn’t make sense.  Feminism is a loose collection of philosophies centered around the female experience.  There is no single feminist ideology and it doesn’t act on it’s own, separate from human beings.  Blaming problems on the rise of feminism is like blaming problems on the rise of philosophy and reminds me of the paranoia surrounding the “rise of communism” in the Cold War United States.  History has since shown that this collective paranoia was unsubstantiated and quite corrosive to individual civil rights.
     
    A popular definition of feminism is the “radical notion that women are people.”  I think that all of the major strides for women in the United States have been positive:  allowed to own land, allowed to vote, allowed to have control of their own bodies, get equal pay for equal work, etc.  I don’t understand how any of these strides diminishes a woman’s femininity.  If anyone else does, please illuminate me.
     
    At the beginning of her article, Venker states:
     
    “the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent”
     
    Based on these numbers (assuming they are correct), she states that women want to get married, but men don’t.  
     
    That is not a logical conclusion based on the data she presented.  Of that very young population sample, approximately a third of both men and women  want to get married.  In our current economy, it makes sense that men don’t want to marry if they can’t find jobs.  That could be one reason for their lowered response.  
     
    Women are getting more college degrees than men, but she doesn’t state the difference between the two.  The answer is that it is not significant and, as we’ve read in other articles, men still get paid more for the same work so one could argue that women *have to* get more education in order to be as competitive as men, who still have an advantage in the workplace.
     
    As evidence for her assertion that men do not want to marry, she claims that she has talked to thousands of people over the years and that men tell her that “women just don’t want to be women.”  As a social commentator, I would have asked them what they meant by that.  ”Are women desiring sex changes?  Are they wanting use strap ons?  Do they not allow you to get the door for them?”  These kind of questions come to mind.
     
    She didn’t seem to probe these men about what they meant by their statements.  I’m inclined to think that her sample was somewhat biased given the fact that she chooses to promote her book on conservative sites like Fox News and because she is the niece of Phyllis Schaffly.
     
    Venker goes on to write:
     
    “In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”
     
    Venker jumps to the conclusion that women are angry but provides absolutely no evidence to support this.  (HUH??)  Then, they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy.  (Who? What? Where? Why? How?  There is no basis for this conclusion at all.)    What most concerns me is her assertion that women pushed men off their pedestal and put themselves on it.  What does she mean by this?  Given that the only objective change that has happened over the past 50 or so years is that women have (had to) entered the work force in much greater numbers and have tried to demand equal pay for equal work as well as the right to control her own body, then I think Venker is venturing into dangerous waters.
     
    Even the most macho man I know certainly wouldn’t want his wife earning a fraction of what the men in her position make.  And you only need to read the news in Ireland as of late to see how women fare when they are denied the right to control medical decisions about their own bodies.
     
    Interestingly, I don’t see the men and women that I know all that worked up about the opposite sex not being manly or womanly enough for them (though my sample is probably biased, too).  Could it be this author and others create these artificial dichotomies in order to fill pages of books and whip up false controversy in order to get media time?  I tend to think so.
     
     

14. Evan Marc Katz 14

    Sarahrahrah - I think you were too mad at the premise to read Venker with any measure of objectivity. As I said, I don’t agree with everything she wrote, but I think she has a point, which is why I’ve shared the article.

    1. Everyone agrees that the equality won by feminists is for the good of women. Her point (and mine) is that this new equality has made dating a lot more confusing than ever before. This blog is a testament to that, no? Thus, it can be concluded that the downside to post-feminism is that men and women’s changing gender roles have negatively impacted relationships. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have feminism. It means that there’s a negative side effect, just like one can complain about pollution, but not want to ban all industry and transportation.

    2. Men getting paid more for the same work is not nearly as pronounced as it once was. The real factor in why men get paid more is that they don’t take maternity leave and they work longer hours. They are not choosing to make tradeoffs for family like so many women. The actual difference in pay between men and women without these factors is less than 10%. Also, women don’t ask for raises as much. So while women and men are equal, we’re still different and that accounts for a lot of the income gap.

    3. Women just don’t want to be women doesn’t have anything to do with strap ons and sex changes, as you well know. It means that women have discarded their traditional gender roles as homemakers in exchange for independence and gains in the workplace. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there are many men who actually like traditional women (and many women who like being traditional as well). Just because that’s not you, you shouldn’t judge.

    4. Fox News might be the only organization that’s giving Venker an outlet because it’s closer to her narrative. Authors don’t generally get to choose who promotes them. We just hope someone pays attention. I’m very liberal, yet I was on Fox a few times.

    5. You’ve commented on this blog for years. You don’t think (some) women are angry? That some see men as the enemy? Really? Walk a mile in my shoes and you’ll get an earful of women’s anger, my friend.

    6. I don’t think that the author is making anything up simply to sell books. I think she believes what she believes and has found evidence to support her beliefs – just like any woman like you believes what she believes and finds evidence to support your beliefs. It’s called the confirmation bias. I try, on this blog, to break thru that, and share things with you that may challenge your beliefs.

    If you trust me, then trust that there is value to the six bullet points above and that your reactionary reading of Venker is a bit overblown.

15. Helen 15

    I think everyone needs to lighten up, including Venker, and step back to take a historical perspective.
     
    Of course there is going to be confusion and anger and upheaval.  The last 50 years have brought ENORMOUS changes in the role of women in society, in many parts of the world.  You think it’s possible to effect such an enormous change without ripple effects in every aspect of society?  If anything, this all happened rather peaceably in recent decades, although suffragettes have been fighting for women’s equality for over 100 years. 
     
    It is natural that there will be some backlash.  We don’t let go of old ways of doing things easily, as one old-fashioned generation educates another.  On the whole, these changes have been absolutely good – but you also have to be thinking in terms of yourself as an individual (not as part of a collective whole).  You may feel anger and confusion about larger patterns, but don’t let these hold you back from deciding what you want and figuring out the best way to have it. After all, you are dealing with individuals, not “all men” and “all women.”  Drop the anger.  We are all fighting our way through this tidal wave of change, and what a ride it is!

16. Anita 16

    Yeah, the rise of feminism isn’t a singular event–it’s been going on for centuries. It’s a logical extension of humanist thinking in general, which said that people are individuals that answer to themselves and not to god or king and that one person cannot own another. Granted, it’s a slow evolution in thought, so perhaps it seems like it happened overnight. But it didn’t, and it wasn’t just women who were pushing for it. It’s just that the idea “a white man can’t own a black man,” for example, doesn’t become a generally accepted axiom without that axiom applying to other similar situations (“OK–got it that a white man can’t own a black man. But is it OK for a man of any color to own a woman of any color? Which colors? What about owning kids? Are wives and kids property or people? Hmm…”)  
    Technology also factors in and hastened the shift in thinking. When survival required our physical participation, gender divisions made more sense and seemed to arise out of nature. But nowadays we aren’t tied to nature as we were, and so those biology arguments just seem like b.s. when all he’s doing is sitting at a laptop all day and women are numb below the waist when giving birth and most babies survive to adulthood. Sure, I’d give a guy his caveman privileges if we lived in caves. But we don’t, and the guys are all sitting around enjoying their caffe lattes while they ramble on about this DNA b.s. I say that unless we are all planning to go back to fighting wild animals on a daily basis (and getting slaughtered in large numbers in the effort), it’s time to give up the biology-is-destiny argument. Sorry it’s so tough for the guys to do that, but maybe if we all focus on being people and not on being “men” or “women” it’ll be a lot easier for everyone. I mean, does anybody (even the author of the article) believe that women are going to leave the world of work, go back into the home, and be housewives and mothers in large numbers? Does anyone see that happening? Or do you see more and more women getting involved in all aspects of society and society as a whole demanding equal treatment for everyone, regardless of their DNA?  

17. Frimmel 17

    Chance in #10 has hit on the points I would make. Feminism freed women from the ‘traditional’ role of their sex. Feminism did not free men from the ‘traditional’ role of their sex. And now women want to pick and choose the parts of equality that they want while men are still expected to ‘man up.’ 
     
    As to the ‘pay gap,’ I’d ask a few questions:
     
    If you can hire a woman and get the same work and save 20-something percent on her wages over the man, why do men have jobs?
     
    Do men have to pay for dates because they make more or do they make more because they have to pay for dates?
     
     
     
     

18. Ileana 18

    @Anita 16: ‘but maybe if we all focus on being people and not on being “men” or “women” it’ll be a lot easier for everyone‘
    I don’t think that what you’re suggesting is fair. What i understood (correct me if i’m wrong) from your comment is that we should just ignore our natural differences in the pursuit of ‘equality’. Yes, we are all people and should have the same RIGHTS. No questions, no buts.
    But you can’t just tell me that we should dismiss our gender-specific traits because of this reason.  We are people, yes, but typically, we are DIFFERENT. And denying this difference is another form of discrimination, because it is directed at both men and women. So, according to your idea, boys shouldn’t be allowed to be boys anymore and women should own far less shoes, bags and jewelry, things which, btw, are biologically ingrained in our system. 
    So if what you’re suggesting is ‘equal treatment for everyone, regardless of their DNA’, i am really looking forward to the first ever mixed boxing-gala, where women and men get to compete in the same category against each other because, well, they are all people and should get the same treatment. Does this seem ok to you? Because i think that this is simply WRONG!
    As for your  question: does anybody (even the author of the article) believe that women are going to leave the world of work, go back into the home, and be housewives and mothers in large numbers?
    Well, even if many would want to, they still WOULDN’T BE ABLE do it. Because they have to provide for themselves. Because they can’t rely on the fact that one day, maybe, there will be a man who will marry her and earn sooo much that they will afford t be a stay at home mom or eventually have an undemanding job. However, give them the chance, and i bet many women (NOT ALL) would trade their 50+hour/week careers to something more undemanding, if their comfort level wouldn’t be affected by this change. 
    Anyway, If what you are suggesting is really going to happen, and we will all live in a gender blind, colorblind society, i really hope to be long dead by than. 

19. Stacey 19

    Better get used to the idea that you may have to be the primary breadwinner. Better get used to the idea that the best fit for you is a more easygoing man, instead of the most “impressive” man.
    This ^^ ignores the simple fact that “independent, strong women” do not need men. They can support themselves and create families all by themselves. Having a man in the household who’s entire contribution consists of 2 sperm cells over the lifetime, and may be enough money to pay for his own expenses is a questionable value proposition. The downsides here are numerous, from having to compromise on many life choices to having to pay spousal support if he gets a divorce. A single woman/mother on the other hand can live her life the way she prefers, get her way 100% of the time, raise her kids as she sees fit and have no strings attached relationships. It’s not really obvious which option is better.

20. Amelia2.0 20

    Although I also echo the trepidation about moving toward a 1950′s type of social regression, I sadly agree that femininity or feminine energy holds little value in our culture, and I think that very well may be where the general anxiety about dating comes from.  I think it’s a shame that female energy isn’t given more props, as it were. 
    I tend to think, or at least as far as myself and the women I have known, who struggle to assert themselves effectively in relationships often eschew using femininity in favor of masculinity, as the latter is perceived as more powerful energy.  Not only is this false, but I think encourages women (and men, actually) to fall into the trap of employing the hammer approach to every problem.  Example: in the spirit of asserting oneself, deciding to read the riot act to a misbehaving partner, to every partner, everytime, rather than trying to communicate the same disapproval by calmly voicing your unhappiness and then withdrawing time/attention.  Women are encouraged to stand up for themselves, which is always great, but I think the “standing up” part is perhaps too vague when it is taught.
    At the risk of sounding steeped in new age nonsense, I really do think some Daoist philosophy makes a lot of sense particularly when describing power dynamics and balance that are analogous to relationships.  “Male” and “female” forms of elements such as water and fire illustrate effectively what power looks like as masculine or feminine.  For example, “male” water features oceans, fast-flowing rivers, and rising tides.  The power is obvious– huge and swelling (snicker if you must), yet when utilized can be used to generate vast amounts energy as with dams.  Alternatively, it can cause instant destruction as with an overflowing river or crashing waves.  “Female” water, on the other hand, features still ponds and lakes, rain, and ebbing tides.  It’s power is calming and nourishing.  Alternatively, it can gradually bring down the largest rock or structure through erosion and seepage.
    When thinking in this way, I see both forms of sexual power as equally strong, and both may be used effectively or destructively, just in different ways.  The challenge is what type of power to use, and how to harness it well.  Just as it would be nonsensical and useless to dam a pond, or to use a raging river to water your plants, it may be ineffective or even destructive to use one type of sexual energy versus the other, or to use it wastefully. 
    So I think a necessary amendment to Venker’s argument, if she excludes mention, is that a person, male or female, ought to be open to utilizing BOTH masculine or feminine power, depending on the situation.  But similar to what EMK said, if masculine energy is more comfortable for you to use, as a man or woman you ought to be aware of what that means in your life and how you relate so you don’t wind up in a lifetime of trying to force the square peg into a round hole (snicker again?).

21. Karmic Equation 21

    @Cat5 #12

    From postmasculine.com, Vulnerability and Manipulative Women:

    “…Well, throughout his life, he’s made irrational decisions to date irrational and emotional women, women who have manipulated him and generally made his life a living hell. It was his decision to date them. But rather than admit that to himself (that would, after all, be rational), it’s easier to believe that EVERY woman, all 3.5 billion of them, is born with some sort of neurological or ethical deficiency that men (read: himself) doesn’t have — even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it and there’s an entire social movement fighting against irrational gender beliefs such as this.”

    In your head change the female pronouns to masculine ones and vice versa…and then would this not apply to you perhaps?

    The only common denominator when you find that you’re only dating jerks is YOU…Change your attitude and belief system and you may end up attracting a whole new population of men.

22. Jenna 22

    Is this a generational thing? I mean, my late 20′s/early 30′s male friends aren’t expecting these traditional male and female behaviors and roles — they practically laughed in my face at the idea espoused in many dating books that girls should never in the course of dating initiate contact or engage in texting. They are all looking for their rough equal in education and intelligence. And this idea that smart successful women are all bossy, controlling, argumentative and chasing is not true, there are many smart successful women I know — including me– who don’t act like that bc it’s rude, boorish, and not classy. I cook for my friends, keep a feminine home and host gatherings, wear skirts, and am affectionate and friendly to those in my life and men who take me out. I’m not bossing people around and trying to one-up them. Some of these debates are very odd bc I don’t see them play out in my own realm. 

23. Evan Marc Katz 23

    Stacey, I have two kids under the age of 2. It’s a shit-ton of work. You think is preferable to do that on your own, without a partner? I can assure you what you gain in autonomy is lost in the fact that you have absolutely no time to yourself and no support whatsoever at home. Good luck with that.

24. Ruby 24

    I’m sorry, EMK, but this article was very poorly thought-out, and poorly written. Venker proclaims that “men are this” and “women are that”, with very little fact or insight to back it up. Venker writes”…Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.
     
    In a nutshell, women are angry.”
     
    Well, perhaps some women are angry because they have changed and some men haven’t? I don’t get Venker’s assertion that feminism has turned women into man-haters and man-blamers who are, despite all of that, incredibly eager to get married to the object of their loathing?
     
    The same Pew research study cited by Venker also found that two-thirds (66%) of young women ages 18 to 34 rate career high on their list of life priorities, compared with 59% of young men. In 1997, 56% of young women and 58% of young men felt the same way. Is that the fault of feminism also?
     
    Venker writes, “… the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family” Huh? If that is true, then why aren’t men threatened? Wouldn’t the increase in a woman’s economic status be an asset in terms of supporting a family? Wouldn’t that help to ease the burden on men?
     
    “Now the men have nowhere to go.” What does that even mean? I wouldn’t except any sort of progressive ideology from the likes of uber-reactionary and conservative Fox News. Nor would I expect anything progressive from the niece of Phyliis Schlafly. Schlafly, too, made a career out of telling women that they were better off not having careers.
     
    @Frimmel: The reasons why a man would pay more money to employ another man, instead of a woman or a minority, should be obvious. It’s called discrimination, and it is not a new phenomenon.
     
     

25. Cat5 25

    @ Karmic Equation #21
     
    I have no idea what you are talking about.  Why would anything you said apply to me?  I didn’t say anything about dating, my feelings about men or that men are jerks.  I asked a question of a previous poster (not you) because I could not understand what she was trying to say in her comment.  Perhaps you are reading negativity into my question, and need to take a look at your attitude and beliefs rather than project onto me and tell me what a problem I am and how I need to change my attitudes and beliefs because I’m pretty sure you have no idea what mine are.
     
    But for clarities sake and to help you understand, I will restate my question:  If Lucy (in Post #11) thinks most men are good (she says only 5% are nasty), then why would she have trouble discerning which men were good?  Wouldn’t that mean that she thinks 95% (100% minus 5% equals 95% or 100-5=95) of men are good?  If 95% of all men are good, then finding a nasty one would be pretty difficult because virtually every man she meets is good.  So why is she having difficulty discerning which men are good?
     
    Disclaimer: In my post above and in this post, I make no representations or warranties with respect to fitness for a particular purpose or to the correctness of the number(s) used.  I am not endorsing the number(s) used.  The number(s) used does not reflect my attitudes or beliefs.  I used the number from post #11.

26. Joe 26

    Stacey, nobody needs anybody else.

27. Michelle 27

    Why ANY woman would not want to provide a live-in father for their child(ren) is beyond me.  To add on to what Evan said, there’s also the joys of sharing experiences as the children are growing, not to mention the tribulations.  Most importantly, how selfish to deprive a child of a father figure, like men have no influence and don’t play an important role in children’s lives.
     
    Men are not women; women are not men.  Despite the advances we’ve made in allowing women to pursue careers (and manage a house and raise children) and technology, there are significant biological differences and each gender plays a very important role in raising the next generation of children.   These biological differences have been around for millions of years and aren’t expected to go away any time soon.  Although it may appear that women are better off today, I could argue in many ways that’s not true and society has paid dearly for it as well.

    I would be dollars to donuts that women that had the opportunity to stay home and raise their children would never trade that for the world, including a career.  And millions of women give up progressing in their careers to care for children (hence pay differences). 

    My two cents…

28. Ruby 28

    EMK #145
     
    Sorry for the double posting, but you also say,
    “1. Everyone agrees that the equality won by feminists is for the good of women. Her point (and mine) is that this new equality has made dating a lot more confusing than ever before. This blog is a testament to that, no? Thus, it can be concluded that the downside to post-feminism is that men and women’s changing gender roles have negatively impacted relationships. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have feminism. It means that there’s a negative side effect, just like one can complain about pollution, but not want to ban all industry and transportation.”
     
    That may be your point, but I don’t see anything in Venker’s article stating that the equality won by feminists is for the good of women. In fact, she goes to great lengths to state the opposite; writing, “Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever. It’s the women who lose.”
     
    The implication is that this has been the only “advantage” gained by feminism. By embracing feminism, women have merely gained the opportunity to provide men with easy sex? Nothing about women’s own enjoyment of sex, nothing about equal rights in the workplace (which is bad, according to Venker, because it emasculates men), and heaven forbid, nothing about the affect on women who don’t have sex with men.
     

29. Karmic Equation 29

    @Cat5 #25
     
    My bad… I apologize. I misread your post. I agree with what you’re saying.
     
    If anything my post should have been directed at Lucy, in support of your post.
     
    Mea culpa.
     
    @Lucy 11
     
    I think it was you who admitted you liked alpha males, right? Well, if you don’t have enough alpha (assertiveness) in you, then it’s no surprise that you end up in relationships that don’t work. IMO, you have to have a lot of alpha in you to have a successful relationship with an alpha. And while they are not mutually exclusive, it’s not always easy for some people to be alpha, even if they try.
     
    Instead of worrying about whether a guy’s alpha or not, just date guys who don’t repel you (basically lower your dating standard from “Wow, I want him!” to “Oh, he’s alright”) — and just date for fun and laughter and see what happens. You might be surprised. Expand your dating range. Don’t go to the same places you always go to, go to new places. It may be that who you’re looking for isn’t where you normally look.
     
    Good luck.

30. Jen 30

    I tend to think it is low self-esteem type men who are allowing themselves to be feeling browbeaten, and low self-esteem women that have casual sex that does not work well for them and then complain that men are non-committal. 
     
    None of the cultural changes being discussed here are bad and they only increase options for both men and women.  There is no shortage of women who like to take on a traditional role.  My brothers have traditional wives and I know they are very eager for them to take on more employment to decrease the monetary outflow! 
     
    Being smart, strong and successful, I agree with Evan, makes it harder to find a man to look up to in all the ways we would like.  But that would be the case in any era.  There are just more of us now that we have become more liberated, more choices and opportunities make us feel like we can have exactly what we want (both men and women), and there are easier ways to communicate about it.  As Karl R says, it all comes down to finding a rational partner who does not see the world in gender war terms.
     
    One thing I have seen is many men acting more like they want to be perceived as the pretty one, and they want to be pursued.  They drop all kinds of hints but never make a confident move in what I would consider a masculine way.  So maybe these men are reacting to what they see as women’s strength and adapting in their own way?  Or perhaps they have always been there and are just more numerous or visible now that there is more of a ‘market’ for them.

31. Frimmel 31

    Stacey in #19
     
    I’d point out that the commonality among ‘bad’ outcomes for children (teen pregnancy, crime, drug addiction, not finishing school) is not race or income but an absent father. While there is no denying that single mothers do raise functioning children with ‘good’ outcomes, there is ample evidence to indicate that single motherhood is a less than ideal choice for children. While the mother might not need a man all children need an involved father.
     
     

32. Frimmel 32

    Ruby in 24: “@Frimmel: The reasons why a man would pay more money to employ another man, instead of a woman or a minority, should be obvious. It’s called discrimination, and it is not a new phenomenon.”
    
     
    http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
     
    “As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more likely, unachievable.”
     
    Evan linked here or in another thread to Warren Farrell’s “Why Men Earn More” which reaches a similar conclusion.

33. Cat5 33

    @Karmic Equation #25
     
    Apology accepted, and I’m sorry I was brusque in my reply.
     

34. nathan 34

    Evan, for a guy who has claimed to be supportive of feminism, you sure post a lot of stuff that either critiques the movement, or like this article, dismisses its value all together. And when someone like Sarahrahrah here, or myself and others on different posts, offer a rebuttal based in feminist thinking, you’re quite quick on the defensive. Your criticism of someone like Venker is mostly generalized, whereas you give extensive attention to making point by point offerings on the ways in which feminist commenter X is wrong. I’m saying this as much to your readers as to you. In this particular case because the post you wrote above has multiple good messages that are getting lost.
     
    I totally am on board with less generalized blaming when it comes individuals in the dating world. It’s important to discussion social trends, and point out issues that impact us collectively, but at the end of the day, each of has to open our hearts and let imperfect others in. However, Venker’s article is riddled with blame. Blame towards women who won’t embrace traditional gender roles. Blame towards a generalized boogeyman called feminism. Blamed towards men who support a more equal, modern approach to gender and social relations. She’s an awful role model for the valid argument made in your post above Evan.
     
    In addition, I agree with your point that the modern dating and relationship world is muddy. Not terribly easy to navigate. And frequently as confusing as it is confirming of us as individuals, and not simply people playing out predetermined roles. However, whereas you generally seem to support the changes that have come – while also acknowledging that some negative fallout might be attached to those changes – Venker is basically focused on defending the “subculture” of men who want “women who are women” – i.e. women who mostly embody the 1950s housewife stereotype. If her article had simply offered insights into the male subculture she “stumbled” upon, and then suggestions for women interested in those kinds of men, then she would have been – like you – offering something in the way of guidance for navigating through the mud. But instead, she takes that subculture of men as a jumping off point for invalidating what the rest of us – the majority of us really, regardless of stance of whatever you think feminism is – are doing.
     
    Finally, I support the sense of flexibility you offer in this statement:
    “If you’re an alpha female, better get used to the idea that certain men don’t find you attractive. Better get used to the idea that you may have to be the primary breadwinner. Better get used to the idea that the best fit for you is a more easygoing man, instead of the most “impressive” man.”
    And in fact, would say that this is a place where some feminist women need to check themselves. I’ve seen in it in my own dating life, and in the lives of other men who claim feminist values, and then struggle to some degree because they don’t entirely “fit” the traditional man narrative. But whereas you and I are talking about flexibility, Venker is writing about rigidity, suggesting that if only men and women do what they’re “supposed to be doing” – what they did in the past, when men ran things outside of the house and women ran the house – then everything would be fine. Again, she’s a rotten role model for what you’re offering here. But she is kind of a great foil, don’t you think?
     
     

35. Ruby 35

    Frimmel #32
     
    The American Association of University Women recently did a study debunking some of the claims of the Consad report:
     
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/women-pay-gap-student-debt_n_2008484.html

36. Lucy 36

    @Karmic – Yes you are probably right about the alpha stuff. Part of this is actually figuring out who I am. Whoever thought that would be harder than determining what I want? I think this amount of confusion is going to cause me to be single for a while yet. Maybe I should junk the ‘alpha male’ terminology and just think, “Do I like him?”, “Am I attracted to him?”. I think I might be a man in a woman’s body sometimes. My first thought isn’t, “Is he good guy?”, but “is he sexy?”. My friend thinks I’m a sex addict. Maybe I should reassess? Ah so confusing. Thanks for your thoughts. 

37. sarahrahrah! 37

    @ EMK
    I do understand your point and agree with your conclusion that some women seem to hate men.  I appreciate that you included evidence to back up your claim.
     
    For the record, I don’t disrespect women who choose to stay home and care for their family.  I think they are giving their children the gift of their lifetime when mothers stay home and breast feed and bond with their infants and toddlers.  Being there for older children makes a big difference, too.
     
    I was not trying to figuratively crap in your living room by criticizing the article and I’m sorry if I came across that way.  When someone makes arguments based on a broad anti-academic appeal (as in blaming feminism and claiming that women have been taught by some mystery force to hate men), that is a concern to me because it smacks of fascism.  This mirrors a larger pattern of hate-baiting that I’ve seen expanding in the US for the past 15 years and I find both to be disturbing and disheartening.  
     
    I like what Helen – #15 said.  Yes, it is a time of tumultuous change throughout society.  Instead of looking at the bad side of things, I will try to appreciate the opportunities for growth and learning that living in this era affords.

38. Morris 38

    @Ruby #35. I get so tired of the wage gab issue. I’ve worked decades as a consultant. Know what EVERY company had in common? Women ran HR. Are you telling me women knowing pay women less?
     
    If all those companies I consulted for paid men more they would have to charge more for their products and services. I’d wonder why a smart person wouldn’t just hire more women and undercut those companies.
     
    A final note.  Women that start their own business make less compared to men that do the same. Are you going to blame that on discrimination as well?

39. marymary 39

    I think men may earn more for the same job because they ask for more money.  

40. Michelle 40

    #38 thank you Morris, great logic & reasoning, I’m with you, I don’t buy it.   There’s also factors that can’t be measured in these ‘so called’ studies.

41. Trenia 41

    Chris Rock does this joke about how fat girls can make fun of skinny girls, short men can make fun of tall men, poor people can make fun of rich people, but not the other way around. He goes on to say that people with the least get to talk about people with the most, and if people with the most want to talk about people with the least, well then, they have to give up some of their Sh*t. That’s how I feel about this article and any other conversations that speak to how women talk about men.
    Women’s images, media pretty much most things, men have the advantage and control it. So a few women write a few articles and blogs discussing how men are the problem in relationships, think they’re bad, lazy, whatever, but so what? Has that effected much in the world or in dating? Not in the least.

42. Kathleen 42

    This article has little impact on me 
    Anthropologists say that millions of years ago women enjoyed considerable economic, social and sexual power. The “double income” family was standard  Women lost this equality when farming cultures took hold.
    We are now in a time where women are regaining this equality. Im sure women and men can work this out as we return to what was the normal balance for millions of years.
     

43. Ruby 43

    Morris #38
     
    To my knowledge, HR departments, which are basically administrative, don’t set salaries. Company CEOs and CFOs do that.
     
    Your statement,”I’d wonder why a smart person wouldn’t just hire more women and undercut those companies’” implies that you don’t understand or accept that anyone would ever be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, or for any other reason. Did you read the article I linked to? When researchers controlled for factors such as hours worked and type of occupation, they still found an unexplained discrimination. If pay discrimination didn’t exist, why did we need the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?
     
    Without doing a “so-called” study, I’m not sure how you would measure and interpret huge numbers of random data.

44. Ellen 44

    How old is Venker, btw. Generally, except for enlightened men like Nathan, younger people, male and female , dont have the respect and historical knowledge of feminism. I.e., they did not live during pre-feminist times. I did. I was young but it influenced me. I also spent six years at two girls schools so am fairly pro-woman in my outlook and have seen what young women are capable of when not unduly influenced by males, at least in a school setting.
    It was, in a word, awesome.
    Trenia 41, gets it when she says, as Evan has, that you cant change men much. I honestly think
    the only way to get men to change bigtime is to go back to when women held that sex card and dealt it sparingly, when THEIR aims had ben met. Manipulaitve? Yeah. Effective? You bet.mRe pay discrimination, there doesnt seem to be as much as formerly, but women are perenially seemingly unable to ask for more or demand raises as

45. Ellen 45

    Mika Brzezinski`s travails at Msnbc illustrate. She was so incensed she wrote a book about pay inequity, but, inthe end, blamed herself for not being pro-active enough. And if a clearly alpha  and often just plain old bitchy! female like Mika cant be brave, theres little hope for the rest of us. lol 
    sorry for the typos and double post, but I just dont get Android!

46. Julia 46

    @Jenna 22 I think this is where EMK methods aren’t the best. Full disclosure: I am a client of his and I am 31. There is a pretty drastic difference between millenials and the generations before him. We are the most accepting generation of less traditional lifestyles. I see a rigidity in older generations that I don’t see in ours. I think many young women aren’t looking for the highest achieving man, mostly because most of the men we know and have grown up with are struggling. I want a partner, I am not looking for someone to provide for me, nor am I looking for someone to provide for.
    @nathan I think your analysis is spot on. Evan gives great dating advice, however he speaks from a position of great privilege and sometimes doesn’t understand that speaking on behalf of how women should feel, as people who are still underrepresented in government, on the pay scale, whose bodies are still seen as for public consumption might feel. Women don’t have it all and still have a great upward struggle. Until I don’t get left out of meetings, until my body is not a subject for public comment I will not receive the great privilege Venker thinks I have.
    And for the record to everyone discussing it, there are angry men and women out there. Anger is not a gender-specific emotion.

47. Morris 47

    @Ruby #43.  Your knowledge of HR is completely wrong.  They are the gate keepers of all thing PAY, benefits and many other things.  My HR directory friend’s head would explode if she read what you wrote.  Even if they didn’t directly negotiate salary they have that information available to them.  Again, if HR departments that are mostly ran by women have that information wouldn’t you think there would be more uproar at all those companies?  Either way believe me I think a CEO/CFO has better things to do besides deciding each individual salary.
     
    No I didn’t read the article.  Do you know why?  I’m an Econ major and did my share of studies and statistical analysis.  And for every one you produce that shows one thing I can produce one that shows the opposite.  There are way too many variables to conclusively prove the gender gap one way or the other.  I laughed when I read ‘controlled for factors such as hours worked…’.  You can only control for a factor like that IF either you remove all hours that aren’t the same.(Which usually doesn’t happen since it would significantly reduce and change the pool from the original pool.)  Or apply some algorithm to hours.(Again flawed.  Who’s to say what those extra hours are worth?  Even worse what if they made it linear?  Like someone working 20 hours a week should make exactly half of what someone 40 hours a week makes?  We know THAT isn’t true.)
     
    The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  First of all we already had discrimination laws.  This is pure politics.  What happened to Lily WAS bad.  Those kinds of things are the things we need to be vigilant against.  But sometimes laws that have good intentions can prove to have negative consequences.  Let me ask you.  So you’re all for equal pay for equal work.  That sounds great and it’s something we need to strive for.  But what happens if a person wants to ask for a pay raise?  If they are in a position that other people also occupy doesn’t that mean…
     
    A)  You have to give ALL those people a raise?(Or be subject to a lawsuit if/when other people find out.)
    B)  You have to deny that person a raise since you can’t give everyone else a raise?(Maybe they will go to a different employer.)
    C)  Promote that person to justify the raise?(And since men ask more they would be promoted more.  Leading to more lawsuits.)
     
    Do you see the issue here?  You can’t just have a blanket equal pay for equal work mantra.
     
    I didn’t say discrimination didn’t happen.  I’m sure it does and we need to be vigilant against it.  All I’m saying is that it isn’t this wide spread systematic issue that accounts for 20% salary differences.  It’s much much smaller.  Some things that need to be addressed are:
     
    Men work more hours.
    Men take less sick/vacation days.
    Men are more willing to work weekend and/or travel.
    Women are more likely to quit work after a child birth.(Last I read it was a little over 20% of mothers to first born children don’t come back to work.)
     
    Think of the implications.  If you owned a small business and had 3-4 qualified applicants wouldn’t this be an issue?  It’s illegal to consciously discriminate based on the above but you’d be an idiot to not acknowledge it plays a roll.  Especially the last one.  It’s expensive to hire and train people.  And if on average you knew one applicant out of the qualified would work more hours.  Take less days off.  Be willing to work weekends and travel.  And if they are of that family starting age, wouldn’t have a 20% chance of quitting.  Don’t you think that applicant had an advantage?  Fair or not?
     
    I’m not saying this should all fall on women.  Maybe we should be teaching men that it’s ok not to work so hard.  But that would also mean women need to be more open to being the breadwinner and encouraging stay at home dads.  It would seem to me that until the above issues are resolved there is NO way we’ll close the wage gab.  You simply can’t ‘factor in’ for those variables.  You can’t accurately put a price on extra hours worked.  Extra days worked.  Less chance of quitting.

48. Kathleen 48

    Ellen 44
    I agree with you. The people that talk about feminism in a derogatory way seem very ignorant about the history of feminism.
    I remember when my mother was trying to help support our family and she was automatically disqualified from a job because the first criteria was that she be male.   I remember observing in my first sales job with a major medical device company that there were ZERO females promoted to management. 
    I agree many women fail to negotiate equitable pay but since this is being recognized now I hope to see women more empowered with negotiation skills. 
     Older women vote and we saw that in the last election. Also the business community has evolved to need talents that are natural for females. Communication talents, service orientation, and service in medicine. As people have fewer children girls will have more resources. 
    Please if you are going to disparage feminism at least educate yourself

49. Soul 49

    @ Morris # 47:
    If I understand properly, you are saying that:
    - Less chance of quitting leads to a higher salary.
    I do not understand why you would accept this correlation to be just/fair?

50. Kathleen 50

    Morris 47
    (Sorry about the double post)
    Your comment about HR having the ultimate say on pay is absurd. It depends on company culture If a company values top talent, the people who need them ( high level leadership) will pay them what it takes to get them on board.  
    That would be like saying someone in a staff position on the HR team would make the ultimate decision on what to pay Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan when he was playing

51. Nicole 51

    @Morris,
    HR people don’t have the power to say yes.  They cannot change anyone’s salary.  They cannot hire anyone (unless the person is actually joining the HR department).  All they can do is control your access to the people who actually do have the power to say yes.
    If you get a job offer and negotiate on the salary, the HR person has to ask the people who have that power if it is a yes or no.  They can never ever tell you yes or no on the spot.  They might be trained to imply that they can, but they cannot.
    It’s a good lesson to learn b/c they can get carried away with the power of their no.  Many the HR person will block a qualified candidate which is why sometimes the higher ups will roll up their sleeves and get into the resumes.

52. Ruby 52

    Morris #47
     
    Apparently, you are an econ major and not a logic major. If you HAD read the article, you would see that some of the factors you cite account for some of the wage discrepancy, but not all of it, as you seem to think.
     
    “Your knowledge of HR is completely wrong.  They are the gate keepers of all thing PAY, benefits and many other things.”
    So now it’s women in HR departments who have been responsible for not hiring and for underpaying other women? Gatekeepers they may be, but in general, HR sets pay based on guidelines determined by company owners and management. HR departments don’t actually decide who gets hired and fired at a company, although they may convey the message, and implement company policy. Get your HR friend a helmet.
     
    “It’s illegal to consciously discriminate based on the above but you’d be an idiot to not acknowledge it plays a roll.”
     
    And now you are saying that it’s okay to discriminate? You can’t have it both ways, and you cannot assume that all women have the same needs and goals any more than you can assume that all men will work harder, take less days off, or be willing to travel more.

53. Evan Marc Katz 53

    @Soul – I’m staying out of this, but I would say that it makes more sense to invest more money in someone who is a longterm asset to a company. There is a high cost to filling jobs and training and turnover is bad for most organizations. So if it’s a woman who’s taking maternity leave in a year vs a guy who has nothing to do but work, it makes sense for employer to pay top dollar to lock down their long-term investments.

54. Morris 54

    @Soul #49.  Why do you pick one sentence?  I’m saying A LOT of things probably contribute to higher salary and YES a less likelihood of quitting would fall under that as well.   Why wouldn’t it?  Employment doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  Especially in the small business sector.  I also said breadwinning women should embrace their roles and encourage stay at home dads.  If that continues to happen both genders would be equally likely to quit after a child is born and the issue would resolve itself.(The quitting part that is.  Again it’s only part of the story.)  I think it’s irrational to think women can quit after childbirth at a 20% rate and think it won’t play a role(no matter how small of a role) in the gender wage gap.  To reverse what you asked.  Are you saying a person more likely to work more hours, days etc and not quit should have absolutely NO additional value under any circumstance?
     
    @Kathleen #50.  I think you misunderstood me.  I said they where the gatekeepers of pay and benefits.(HR generally processes pay and benefits.)  Then I go on to say, “Even if they didn’t directly negotiate salary they have that information available to them.”  Again, I acknowledge they don’t directly negotiate the salary.  BUT they have access to the information.  Or as you might put it.  They would know what Kobe or Jordan make.  Therefore, if there was a systematic gender discrimination in pay they would know about it.  And wouldn’t you think they would raise hell?
     
    @Nicole #51.  Read above.
     
    @Ruby #52.  Again I reiterate.  There are studies out there that can prove just about anything.  Just because you want to believe in that study doesn’t make it foolproof.  How do you factor in something like hours worked in a study like that?  Shouldn’t each company decide how much an additional hour might be worth?  You’re right I didn’t read it so I don’t know how they factored it in.  You don’t either, so I don’t see how you can claim you are right and I am wrong.
     
    I didn’t say it’s women that have been underpaying women.  I asked a question.  If women in HR have that information.  Which we all agree they do.  Why haven’t they raised hell if there was systematic gender pay discrimination at their companies?  We have laws against stuff like that and I’d assume they wouldn’t look the other way.
     
    I didn’t say it’s okay to discriminate.  I wish people wouldn’t.  But I understand why it would play a small role in some instances.  Why wouldn’t it?  Shouldn’t the goal be to narrow those issues so it can’t play a discriminatory role?  You’re not disputing those facts.  Yet you also don’t want it to be used in any shape or form.  I find that odd.  We don’t like generalities but we can’t pretend it doesn’t play a role in society.  I pay higher auto insurance because guys tend to get into bad accidents.(And I think men, especially young men, need to become safer drivers.)  I pay more for life insurance because men tend to have shorter lifespans.(And I think men need to take better care of themselves so we can live a longer healthier life.)  Yet I’ve never been in an accident and I take really good care of myself and expect to live a really long healthy life.
     
    Again.  I’m not saying men SHOULD be paid more since on average they work more hours, take less days off, work more weekends, are more willing to travel, are less likely to quit after a child is born.  That would be stupid.  It should be on an individual basis.  But I don’t know how anyone could think that that wouldn’t play a small role in the gender wage gap.  Surely a small amount of people consider this during the hiring process.  Especially in the small business community.  And a little there and a little here adds up.  And it probably plays a role in the gender wage gap.

55. Kathleen 55

    Smart companies will hire top TALENT not just look at someone who will put in the longest hours and work the longest in years. ( if you are just looking at long term investment in hours vs talent Im sure any US Post Office is a great model to observe)
    As Ive said, many of the natural talents of women have become important in todays evolving business world and a company that doesn’t take advantage of that talent because they are afraid a woman might get pregnant is loosing a competitive advantage. 
    The good news is that there are courageous strong smart women like myself who won’t tolerate covert sex discrimination. I won a large settlement from a large company for gender discrimination and I helped several other women in the organization to also win settlements. Imagine how more productive we could have been if we weren’t discriminated against in the first place by youngish inexperienced men in management and their incompetent HR director

56. David T 56

    I personally think there is a wage gap.  Note however, that Morris’ main point is that there are too many variables to quantitatively say one way or the other. I have to agree with that, but I also say there is value in the conclusions of common wisdom and perception. It isn’t always correct, but is more often than not. Now as to the why’s women are paid less, who knows?
     
     
    Someone up there asked if it was fair if “less likely to quit means higher salary”..of COURSE it means that and it is not only fair, it is logical.  If someone spends 10 years at one company, they will be worth more to that company than someone who has only spent 5 years there, even if that shorter term employee has 10 years total experience doing something similar at a different company. The 10 year vet knows the ins and outs better, has better communication with other in the company, etc.  Yes, some people become lazy, etc and their value  can decline over time, but in general, if someone is more experienced at carrying out a company’s business, they will do it more efficiently and have insights that a less experienced person will not.
     
    If you want to talk about companies paying less on day one for new hires based on what they think will happen, that is a different question. I think that effect will be hard to find; talk about easy pickings for a sex discrimination lawsuit!
     
    Regardless of that someone who does work longer for a company will on average be more painful to lose (worth more) than someone who has worked less time for that same firm.
    Might be interesting to look at Sweden in 20 years.  Fathers are strongly incentivized to take two months paternity leave. If they don’t the total maternity-paternity leave pool for each birth shrinks.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577561100020336384.html
     
    @Evan…it does make sense to pay more to keep people around, however in this day and age, very few employees are ever considered long term investments.  People are mostly considered cogs to be plugged in and out depending on market conditions.  (Most companies in project planning refer to employees as “resources”). Over time, most companies tend to churn through a lot of people regardless of gender. There are a few exceptions: folks in executive grooming career paths, for instance, or subject matter experts in a particular niche. There are not many of those types though.
     
    I bet if you do a salary comparison at large companies bases solely on years of experience at that particular company of first job employees, the gender gap is smaller.

57. Soul 57

    @Evan #53:

    Discrimination is, by law, when you make a decision based on likelihood and not on facts. That is the reason why I asked, in a seemingly naive way, why Morris would accept this as being fair….

    Fortunately, we live in countries where we hit a high score on the ” rule of law” scale, and people cannot make decisions based on probablity and assumptions alone, even if it is very human, and even if it would be more profitable economically-speaking.

    So, in a nutshell:
    - yes it makes perfect sense for a profit-seeking company, and
    -yes it is discrimination, it is unfair/unjust

    @ Morris # 54: I just picked the most obvious exemple in what you wrote, but you can apply my reasoning to the three variables you provided… go back to your ” theories of justice” courses)

58. katrina 58

    I have thankfully travelled, lived in and embraced cultures from all around the world. And in all of my personal experience of being a “dependent” on a man kind of women I respect the fact that American women have so much autonomy in a relationship and the men listen. Of course their is a power struggle. Men have for thousands of years been the literal masters of women. And society is so brainwashed with the effect of this arrangement that women are seen as docile, submissive which is considered feminine and translates to her being a “good” women. What it doesn’t tell you is that women suffer the most from poverty after divorce, stay in abusive relationships, are not taken seriously or respected for her mind and intuition and are left to work like cattle and slaves to care for their children all over the world. In many countries women will not even have custody of her children. Here in England women do not realize that the courts actually tend to side with the men to a great degree unless the women meets the “criteria” of being that good women. In Israel a women cannot have a divorce without her husbands permission. And in the middle east women are not allowed to earn money without her husbands permission and when they divorce will lose custody if she has no way to take care of them.  A complete opposite in America where women are free to talk back to their husbands, question his bad decisions and reprimand him and the men take it seriously because society supports female independence. American women now understand that men have trampled on them for far too long and taking advantage of their positions as breadwinners. Some men may feel their status as the “master of the house” has become demeaned but in reality they are being given an ultimatum to better everyones life in society and stop oppression or cross the seas and find a submissive wife who will put up with their shit (until she sees the freedom back here and puts your ass out too ;-0
     
    i do not believe that men are being oppressed by American women. In fact I believe that the reason the oppression of women has gone on so long is because our natures are to be compassionate, understanding, caring, and comparatively unselfish (all of which are the stereotypes of a good women) and for the most part this prevents the abuse that men have historically bestowed upon us. What i mean to say is that I do not believe that women take advantage of their power and responsibility over others as men. In a united nations survey women who had more material wealth spent 90% of it on their families whilst men were found to only spend 50% despite him being the main breadwinner in a third world country where his family were completely dependent on him.
    This really hit home for me because as a women married into an eastern family and society I found it quite unnerving that many women did not get regular haircuts or clothes equal to their husbands expediture on himself. Family that I at first thought were very poor thanks to the living conditions of their women were quite surprisingly earning double of my husband. Whereas the american women tends to be well taken care of despite being dependent on her husband. Which i can only thank to those strong women who have learned that they can work and earn their own money and at the end of the day don’t need to kiss a mans arse just to survive. And thankfully society is more supportive then any other society in the world and less judgemental to divorced women and single mothers.
    This author should be shot for further trying to make women vulnerable and oppress them. Particularly when their is such a high degree of abuse and oppression of women all around the world and still in America. We should be supporting womens rights in America.

59. justme 59

    I see no evidence of men being less likely to quit or being willing to work longer hours.  I see individuals in BOTH genders who are hardworking and dedicated.  I see individuals in BOTH genders who put in as little hours as possible and get as little done in those hours as they can get away with.  Perhaps women are more likely to quit due to children but overall; but i think men quit jobs just as often, just for different reasons.  My company took a position that had always been held by women, increased the responsibilties, increased the pay and hired a man.  He wasn’t there a full year before he quit for greener pastures.  The truth is people leave jobs all the time for a variety of reasons and the only gender who gets the strike against them is women.  This is why is discrimination and I am sadden by all the individuals who are justifying this practice.
     
     
    Also - the new thinking is you spend 4 to 5 years with a company and you move on.  If you are staying longer than that, you are stagnate.  Companies are realizing that brining in new employees brings new ideas. 

60. Evan Marc Katz 60

    I don’t like the direction this thread is going. Way off topic. The real question is whether the changes in women over the past 40 years have negatively impacted their ability to find happy partnerships, and what, if anything can women do about it themselves (presuming that you can’t change men)?

61. Kathleen 61

    Ok back to Evans question…
    I believe women are returning to a position of more equitable status to men, which has been the natural state of things over millions of years .
    How does this change things in my personal relationships?.
    For me I don’t have to only date up. I don’t have to only be with a man who has more material wealth because i have my own economic power. I have more freedom to be with a guy who makes me feel good as my primary motivator. My boyfriend is less educated and makes less money than me. He is loving, open hearted, and committed and that is refreshing
    The other way its changed things for me and my women friends is that we can successfully date younger guys as another option. These guys don’t necessarily need us as reproductive vessels and their  motivation for being with us seems to be because we are interesting attractive secure women I believe the number of younger men / older women pairings will increase. 
    For me these changes bring more freedom of my options There are more men that I can choose from.

62. marymary 62

    If women had been that happy with their relationships in the past they wouldn’t have felt the need to change things. Mind you, wars change things. In britain, the shortage of men during the war forced women out into work and they liked it. You can,t put that genie back in the bottle. 
    with work comes financial independence, with that comes choices, and that may well be the choice to delay marriage, not marry the first man who looks at you or get divorced if it doesn,t work out.  This gives men more choices too. they,re not obliged to marry someone just for walking out with her. There,s a fallout to choice, you might make the wrong one, even repeatedly.  but back in biblical times when women didn,t have the choices of today, divorce laws were laid down. relationship failure is nothing new. We just find new excuses for them.
    i think men and women are actually better off now. there,s birth control, you don,t have to marry to get a roof over your head, you don,t have to support a wife and five kids if you don,t want to, you don,t have to marry by twenty five to fit in, or just to get sex. You can be openly lesbian or gay, you don.t have to get married to the opposite sex to avoid gossip or stigma. How can this be anything but good for relationships?
    there was no golden age where men and women or men and men or women and women got on perfectly.  Maybe when we didn,t live as long it was easier to stay married for life. But back in Tudor Times Henry VIII cut off his devoted first wife, and beheaded two others. That wouldn’t fly these days.
    I see happy marriages and LTRs all around me. one where the man is only 22. he,s just bought a house with his girlfriend. If you think that is too young, then of course there will be some pain.  If we are all going to wait until thirty plus to marry, there,s gonna be some damage along the way – if not your heart, someone else,s.
     we all got more choices. What women can do is make better ones.
    I,m not angry, I don,t know any angry women, and while I have been on the receiving end of anger from a very small no. of men and women, I don,t choose to paint all with she same brush. So I’m not an anger expert but make the general observation that anger hides hurt and it you,re angry, look underneath at why. It might not be what you think it is. The opposite sex may be an easy target rather than what you could change in yourself.
    oh yeah and forget all that prince charming, soulmate, happy ever after romcom crap.

63. Morris 63

    @Evan #60 – I apologize for my part in taking the discussion off topic.  So back to the original topic.  I completely agree with Kathleen#61 and marymary#62.  I would like to add to that.  It might have been implied in the above but I would like to say it.
     
    I think women have a harder time dating because as much as times are changing peoples approach to dating haven’t kept up.  Maybe women should be more like men in this regard.  Men still overwhelmingly ask women out.  And since men are going to ask out the type of women they think they want to be with, even after all the rejections which are just part of the process, they will likely end up with someone they are happy with.
     
    Yet at least in my circle of friends women are just picking from the men that ask them out.  I’m not sure this approach is in the best interest of women.  Granted it’s a bit easier for men since we are more visual.  But I can’t count the times I’ve been out with my ‘girl’ friends and they met someone interesting only to end the night empty handed.  I understand it’s nice when the man asks the woman out or the man comes up to talk to the woman.  It makes a good ‘how did you meet’ story.  But times are changing.  Women should go get what they want and not just choose from what’s available.

64. Tom10 64

    “the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off…”
     
    I don’t think this is true: I’m delighted with the fact that women now have equal opportunities and chances to live their lives as they see fit. I can’t understand how anyone would have a problem with this.
     
    Evan # 60
    “The real question is whether the changes in women over the past 40 years have negatively impacted their ability to find happy partnerships, and what, if anything can women do about it themselves?”
     
    One unintended consequence of personal freedom which seems to piss (some) men off is that 90% of women (perhaps inevitably) chase the same 10% of men. The same thing for women: 90% of men chase the same 10% of women. This has resulted in the lucky 10% of men helping themselves to many women, and the lucky 10% of women perhaps becoming a bit entitled and overly picky. 
     
    If you’re not in the lucky 10% the solution seems simple: put yourself in there. Sort out your issues, develop your self-esteem, go to the gym, get some decent clothes, become self-sufficient, get a degree / car / house etc. And if you’re already at your max and still not happy with the results? Change your expectations.
     
    marymary
    “Henry VIII cut off his devoted first wife, and beheaded two others”.
    That wouldn’t fly these days.”
     
    Ha, that made me chuckle.
     

65. marymary 65

    Morris
    i asked my boyfriend out.  being just friends and waiting was causing me too much frustration. Also, other women were coming onto him and one of them asked him out right in front of me. i figured that if I didn,t do something I,d be friend zoned for life.
    i hadn’t,t asked a man out before, the ceiling didn.t cave in and five months later we are still together.
    turns out he didn,t think I liked him that way. there is one generalisation about men that I do support – not very good at getting hints. the plus side to that is there can be something refreshingly straightforward about dealing with men. 

66. Helen 66

    Morris 63: I agree completely.
     
    With this newfound liberation in women’s career opportunities should also come a newfound liberation in the realm of relationships.  Women SHOULD ask men out, and should, as you say, “go get what they want” instead of “picking from the men that ask them out.”
     
    I’ve always taken objection to the argument that women should sit back and be passive and let the men ask them out, because “Men like to pursue.”  Well, guess what: I like to pursue, too. Why should men be allowed to pursue, and not I? If we were being honest with ourselves, we would say that HUMANS like to pursue.  It’s part of our proactive animal nature; it’s not just confined to one sex.  The corresponding argument to women to be passive: “See, you have the easy job! All you have to do is sit back and relax and embrace your ‘feminine power.’ “ is BS.  No one likes to just sit back and wait; that’s not our nature, neither males nor females. Sitting back and doing nothing isn’t “feminine power.” It’s a completely powerless position.
     
    That’s where Venker completely trips herself up in her last paragraph about embracing our true natures. Men and women aren’t as different as traditional constructs would have us believe. We want to live, we want to be active. In the end, it is wisest to follow her advice, but not in the way she thinks. We SHOULD embrace our true and proactive natures; it makes for a happier society.

67. Nancy 67

    I have a hard time believing that EVERY man she interviewed said they NEVER want to get married because “Women stopped being women”.  In fact, I downright disbelieve that statement. (Many men admit that they won’t marry, because they want to remain free to have sex with as many women as possible) Perhaps that was a reason given by some, or even MANY men, but I don’t believe it is possible to ask a question of a large sample of the population and get a unanimous answer.  The writer has an agenda here, and facts be damned.  Also, considering the number of women who never embraced feminism, and who are still very traditionally feminine, that answer doesn’t hold water.  If a man really wanted to marry a traditional woman, he could find one, instead of refusing to ever marry because not every woman on the planet meets his criteria.
    I do believe the feminist movement has it’s pros & cons, one of the cons being strained personal relationships between men & women, but this article lays 100% of the blame on women & “femnism” which is what I have come to expect from anything from “the Faux Network”
     
     

68. Alpha Girl 68

    Katrina #58
    Well said! I Love it! As being an American women, I really appreciate everything you said. The western woman is helping to change the world As women. Even though I get upset about dating, I thank my lucky stars that I’m American and I have a choice.

69. Alpha Girl 69

    Morris #63
    Well said. I love that too. Men are more visual. Lol so am I! If he gets to keep asking women out art attracted to eventually one will say yes. Women get the short end of the stick to have to choose from what is avalible to them if they wait to be asked out. Kudus to you. Best advice ever. If you like a guy let him know it. Ask him out. You’ll have the same amount of rejection as a man if you put it that way but then your bound to get someone you want rather the other way around. But maybe the best would be you both ask each other out at the same time!! Yay. Then whoot!! Lol!

70. Nancy 70

    I meant to say that I have a hard time believing that EVERY man interviewed who stated that they NEVER want to get married all gave the same answer.

71. Anita 71

    Yay Nathan @34 and Juia @46! And EMK, you can’t fuel the fire by trying to justify the wage gap and then cry foul that we’re off topic. Not fair!!!
    Besides, I hardly think that stereotypes about how each gender will behave in a given circumstance is off topic, since we’re talking about how those stereotypes just don’t fit anymore and people are therefore getting confused about how to behave when it comes to personal relationships.
    Re women working, which seems to me to be quite on topic: In companies (I have worked in several Fortune 100) you meet all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds, in all sorts of personal living situations. Gay, straight, married, divorced, ever-single, kids, no kids, hate kids, going through the fertility treatment grind, etc. There is no way for a non-prejudiced person to be able to tell from the personal details of any employee (which is against the law to ask about) how that employee will behave in any given work situation. If you operate from personal prejudice, however, you will believe that you can. That’s why employers aren’t allowed to ask for those details. Anymore. Thank god for progress!! 

72. Evan Marc Katz 72

    Actually, Anita, I can do whatever I want. It’s my blog. And I’m far more interested in the dating implications of equality than in debating how real and/or significant the wage gap is in the United States.

73. Ruby 73

     
    EMK #60
     
    “The real question is whether the changes in women over the past 40 years have negatively impacted their ability to find happy partnerships, and what, if anything can women do about it themselves (presuming that you can’t change men)?
     
    Personally, I don’t think the changes that women have experienced have had a “negative” effect in this regard, but I do think that there can be some confusion regarding gender roles, i.e.: who pays, who asks for the first date, who takes the lead. It seems to me that dating is a last bastion of traditional roles for men and women. Dating advisers still, for the most part, encourage women to let men take the lead. In my observation, both men and women expect this, and it’s generally (although not always) what works in dating.
     
    I also don’t believe that men are more reluctant to marry because “women aren’t women anymore.” That’s an incredibly shallow and short-sighted view. Many men don’t want to give up their freedom, and are freer to reject marriage/having children than in the past. So are women. I do believe that women are more inclined to want to marry for love, rather than just for the financial support, or because everyone else is married by age 30, or whatever.
     
    Call me old-school, but I still believe that the personal is the political. The wage gap does affect a woman’s ability to provide for herself, which impacts her ability to be self-sufficient. How many women have stayed in bad relationships because, financially, they felt they had no other alternative?

74. Evan Marc Katz 74

    @Ruby – You’d do a lot better with your argument if you at least conceded the validity of the other side. Instead, comments like, “I also don’t believe that men are more reluctant to marry because “women aren’t women anymore,” pretty much suggest that Venker is entirely making up her observations about men’s dissatisfaction with American women. She’s not. Because you’ve seen it even in this blog for smart, strong, successful women – there are a decent number of guys who are having a hard time finding women who are feminine, nurturing, supportive, as opposed to busy, critical, and difficult. It’s not that you can’t be busy AND supportive, but let’s not pretend that every female partner at a law firm has the capacity to give certain men the traits that they desire the most. Eventually, everybody finds his/her fit, I hope, but the reason I posted Venker’s black and white piece is that she’s talking about a real and observable phenomenon. And the answer to it is not to deny the very premise, because you’d be denying a certain reality.

75. Ileana 75

    Helen @66: Although i usually find your posts spot on, but this line here is something i really do not agree with: ‘Women SHOULD ask men out‘.
    Now, why SHOULD women do that? I think women SHOULD do that if that’s how they want to approach relationships. But that doesn’t mean ALL WOMEN should do that if they fancy a guy. Some like being pursued, some like pursuing. Everybody SHOULD be allowed to do whatever matches their inner nature and makes them happy.
     
    Personally, asking a man out is something i would never do. Because it makes me too vulnerable and i don’t like that. Maybe i’m not ‘man’ enough Sure, maybe he says yes, but then i would be asking myself, why? – is it because he likes me, or because he was bored and had nothing to do? If he liked me that much, why didn’t he come to me first?.. then, it goes downhill from there.
     
    ‘  The corresponding argument to women to be passive: “See, you have the easy job! All you have to do is sit back and relax and embrace your ‘feminine power.’ “ is BS.  No one likes to just sit back and wait; that’s not our nature, neither males nor females. Sitting back and doing nothing isn’t “feminine power.” It’s a completely powerless position.’
     
    I actually think that ‘passive’ is not the right word here to describe those women who are being pursued. As I see it, i think it is quite an active state, because you don’t just ‘sit back and wait’ (although, some actually just sit there and do nothing and… guess what? nothing happens). You have to send the all right signals and give the green light for being approached, ie. holding his gaze a while, smiling, etc. etc etc. I see it as having the upper hand here, because if he doesn’t approach, he’s most probably not interested and gets to communicate it by not doing anything, therefore you don’t get to be rejected verbally. I also don’t think that going and striking up a conversation with him in the lines of ‘do you know how i can get to x” or’ could you help me find my phone’ or ‘where is the nearest cafe’ etc can be called passive. You put yourself in the position of being approached. If he doesn’t approach, maybe he’s not interested, maybe he’s in a relationship already, maybe he likes men too or maybe he just didn’t notice the opportune moment hitting him in the face and, by doing so, he is most probably not my type. 
     
    ‘Well, guess what: I like to pursue, too. Why should men be allowed to pursue, and not I?’
    Well, in this case, you’re lucky, because nowadays you are pretty much allowed to do anything you want. It is not frowned upon by society, and some men actually prefer it. 
     
    As long as some people don’t try to impose their views on others, I’m all for it

76. Lucy 76

    The way I see it men are pretty puritanical. By that I mean that their tastes haven’t changed much over time, but with a bit of gender equality thrown into the mix as well. It’s not a criticism, I just don’t think it possible to be idealistic about what men want. So I choose to be discrete about certain things. All the article does is make some uncomfortable truths known. 
    Personally I don’t see how being feminine harms gender equality so it doesn’t bother me. I’d be naive to think otherwise. I don’t let the thought of what men think stop me from doing certain things but I sure as hell won’t tell them about it. I have the freedom to reveal whatever I want to. I admire high achieving strong woman. I think they’re great. I don’t see how acting feminine undermines feminism though. It’s totally separate. How I choose to act will give me various results, but not any result more desirable than the other, just one suitable for me. I feel uncomfortable saying this, but sometimes, for some women, being equal means not being feminine and dropping any feminine attributes. If I did that myself, I wouldn’t be being true to myself. But I think some others are masculine or feminine anyway, regardless of gender, and they do whatever they are comfortable with. 
    I don’t blame men ceaselessly for hurting me. Well don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to stand up and call them out on bad behaviour. However I’m part of that too if I’ve ever accepted it. If I haven’t accepted it, they do get a telling though. Sometimes I don’t say anything, not because I don’t care or have no balls, but because I know that flawed people, regardless of gender, are not going to change, and there’s no point wasting my energy. With a lot of stuff in life, including relationships to some extent, it’s better to take the “fuck it” philosophy (sorry for the swear), take a step forward and try to forget the pain as best you can. Once you fall into the realm of bitterness, all you is harm your potential.
    I agree with what you said in the article. It’s hard to know what you want. Sometimes you think you do but you don’t. I think perfection is a bland consumer product and I don’t want it. However, trying to drop some imaginary qualities out of the equation for me, is still a bit difficult.

77. Lucy 77

    @Katrina #58 – I agree that the legal system can sometimes act more in favour of men than women. That’s a hard thing to change. However I believe it can go against men too.
    And you said: “This author should be shot for further trying to make women vulnerable and oppress them.” Yeah before I say anything, I’m politically independent and a centrist. Your comment smacks of typical leftist hypocrisy. No one deserves to be shot. So if you really believe in equality, you wouldn’t say something so aggressive. No one deserves to die simply because they are on a different side of the political spectrum to you.

78. marymary 78

    But there are a decent no of women who are having trouble finding men who aren’t narcissits and players or the disappeared.  We tell them to pick better.  If men are constantly bumping up against critical, difficult women then they need to pick better?  I know these women exist, my mother was like that. It may be that for whatever reason those are the women they find attractive.  Don’t ask me why.  I know why I found abusive and cheating men attractive but that took me months of therapy!  I don’t need not to be critical and difficult, in fact when I look back I could have stood to be MORE critical instead of being so easygoing.
    if you are indeed the parter in a law firm you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you want a man who is more successful and earns more than you.  I do know a good no. of female partners who are in relationships/married.  They are on a par with their partners or “higher”, at least in terms of income.  They can’t all ”marry up”. If Margaret Thatcher and the Queen can find a husband, so can you.  But note their husbands were happy to take the supportive role.  And I expect that at home they put down their “leader” hat and put on the “wife” one.  If you’re really busy and can afford it, get a cleaner/housekeeper and neutralise the housework conflict at least.
    if you find yourself with a man you can’t respect and are trying to nag, criticise, mind-control him into someone you can, do both of you a favour and either accept him as he is or cut him loose. Also, don’t expect a man to mind-read or wave a magic wand and give you the happy-ever-after. That way you won’t be contributing to this problem.  I’m not sure it is such a big problem in reality but I’m not American. I find that my female American colleagues are polite, gracious and helpful (more so than my English ones).  if they are morphing into biyatches in their relationships I’m curious as to why.
    there is such a thing as the male ego. In the same way that we like to be told that we’re pretty, kind, fun to be with with, cooked a nice dinner, whatever, men appreciate the thank you for taking out the trash, paying for stuff, or carrying the groceries even if you think it’s his job.  I don’t personally but I was single for over five years and did all that myself.  I’m very appreciative of my boyfriend’s help.  Good men like helping women.  I have two brothers and feel very looked after when I am with them. Let them do it.
    Don’t let small niggles get bigger and bigger and bigger.  Is it worth upsetting yourself and someone you profess to love?
    and physical affection smooths over a multitude of stresses and strains.
     

79. Ellen 79

    I don’t think Venker entirely made her “results” up either, but she definitely has an agenda. Good scientists don’t start with an agenda- they go where the data/facts take them.
    Re generalizations about men, it would say so much depends upon the man’s age and living situation (divorced with small kids, single, life-long single, etc.). In general I find younger men under 35 usually incredibly reluctant to marry unless lightning hits, and even then! lol
    Men in their 40s are either desperate to stop dating and find someone or THE biggest players on the planet.
    Now here’s where it flip flops often and where I have the most experience: Men in their fifties. Here in SC the men I dated 50+ were either incredibly cynical about the dating scene/future marriage and stated on their profiles they were up for relationships when really they wanted to just have sex with as many women as possible.
    A small subset feels death at their door or not far off and are INCREDIBLY willing to commit and do so in haste imo. Women in their 50s, the overwhelming majority of them, have experienced marriage and decidedly don’t want that. I find myself in the middle: I would marry to give my bf health benefits, but with Obamacare I shouldn’t have to in another year or so.
    In general, what men are bemoaning is the modern’s woman’s recent (historically) choosiness (I hear this from my early 40s male platonic friends).  We don’t have to settle anymore. THAT is a good thing. Men then choose to interpret that as arrogance I think. Or inability to be feminine (accepting enough), nurturing, supportive. Dating is brutal and women, like men, have learned to weed out the undesirable FAST. Maybe men are interpreting THAT as unfeminine, I don’t know.
    In the mini-relationships I was in in a three year period I was always feminine, nurturing and supportive to my little pseudo bfs. They seldom returned the favor, so I really just had a series of “friends with benefits” really, looking back.
    Also, the three years I was dating I seldom dated down even though I am in my fifties (I lied about my age, and have commented about that a lot on this blog, but I digress)- I contacted men of nearly all ages who were good looking but whom I thought had character and sweetness on some level. Who, I decided, had GOOD hearts after a date or two. Sex was important to me also so attraction was key. I didn’t want to waste my time or theirs….
    What is less clear to me is whether women and men ALL chase ONLY the top 10% of the meat market (another generalization maybe). They may do this initially, but the smart person learns to stop being so choosy. Unfortunately, what happens is these people drop out of dating, get discouraged. And that is a shame. imho
     
     
     

80. Jenna 80

    Morris – I totally, 100 percent agree that women need to be more proactive to ensure they’re getting the kinds of guys they want and deserve. From my own observations as a late twentysomething looking at my friends and associates of the same age, I can tell you that many great guys just don’t approach girls much, or may not even believe in online dating. When you only choose from those who ask you out, you’re not as likely to end up with the man and the relationship you want, and you may have to settle for the duds and players and uglies. That doesn’t mean you go around walking up to strangers and asking them to dinner, that wouldn’t work. But it does mean you write to men online in a flirtatious, fun way, that you build yourself up a great social life, that when you walk into a bar or other social venue you learn to talk to everyone in the room – bartenders, women, old guys, cute guys – to give great guys every possible chance to meet you without seeming as though you are singling any one out. You’re just being a social, fun person. This can also mean throwing monthly dinner parties or other events to invite your friends and a couple new people each time – all low pressure and generally social.
    Arden Leigh wrote a good book about this recently, called “The New Rules of Attraction,” and she’s gotten guys to commit to her even though she doesn’t follow traditional “rules” about never initiating contact. This was particularly helpful for people like me, who grew up not being all that social/flirtaious then wondering why never initiating wasn’t working all that well for me. Women should try a bunch of things and see what works and feels best for them.

81. Tom10 81

    Helen, Alpha Girl & Morris
    Re women asking men out.
     
    In this new era of women asking men out, I presume you all think that when women ask out men they should then pay for these dates, bring him flowers and then maybe hope for some sex at the end of the date too?
     
    In that case I’m all for women asking men out
     
    Sometimes I think it’d be great if women took the initiative – it’d make it so much easier for me. Something tells me though, that I’m not sure if I’d take a woman seriously who had to ask me out, rather than play her cards more traditionally. I.e. it’d be very tempting to take what’s on offer for a few weeks or months and not bother making any effort.
     
    Depends on the situation I guess.

82. Cat5 82

    For me, the biggest issue was that as a child of the 60s, I watched my grandmothers, mother, and aunts stay in unhappy and often emotionally and physically relationships because they did not think they had the option to get out.  The number one reason they thought that they couldn’t leave: their lack of education and skills to care for themselves and their children financially in the way their husband could.  The number two reason they thought that they couldn’t leave: divorcees were considered bad and loose women.
     
    As a young girl, I promised myself that I would get the education and skills to care for myself and my children so that if I, god forbid, found myself in an abusive relationship, I would not stay “for the sake of the children” or because I could not care for myself financially.
     
    For the record Evan — I am both feminine, nurturing, supportive, and busy, critical, and difficult.   Sometimes all in the same sentence!  Sometimes at different times.  It’s called being human.  I will add that it is easier for me to be feminine, nuturing and supportive, when my man is being masculine, nuturing and supportive.  A relationship is a two-way street and both parties have to do their part. 

    (And which part can you control, Cat? – EMK)

83. Ruby 83

    EMK #74
     
    Of the problems I’ve had in relationships, finding a man who is progressive and feminist hasn’t been one of them. I just don’t date men who feel differently and they don’t date me. Venker’s premise that there is “war on men” is nothing more than anti-feminist, inflammatory hyperbole.
     
    Are there some men who don’t like the fact that the female lawyer in your example is a type A woman? Sure. But wouldn’t they be better off looking for a woman who is more laid-back or traditional, with a less-demanding career? Those women are certainly out there. And, as you have said before, the high-powered lawyer might also do well to look at men who are more laid-back, with less demanding careers.
     
    I do agree that the lawyer might need to make more of an effort to show her softer, more nurturing side, as well. I get that if you spend your days in a high-powered, aggressive role that you probably had to fight hard to achieve, it might be hard to turn that down socially.
     
     
     
     
     
     

84. LC 84

    Dating down:  I dated one guy with a child who lost his job, I helped him find another job b/c I have good connections, and he repaid me by knocking up a waitress and moving to Missouri two Christmases ago.  The next guy lost his job, asked me for $20,000, and moved back to Iowa.  The next guy still lives with his parents, works as a courier, goes to college, and “doesn’t want a relationship.”  Men don’t want a relationship if they don’t have a job, and if they have a good job, they don’t want a woman who does.  So it just doesn’t matter what a gal does–take care of yourself and stop worrying about men.

85. JustMe 85

    Evan #74
    I believe a lot of women are still supporting and nuturing.  I would suggest that those men, who claim women aren’t this way anymore, are actually going after the more domineering type of woman.  Like the guys who think all women are crazy because they go for that type or the girls who think no men want commitment because they go for the non-committals. 
     
    Now, if they (the men who think nuturing women don’t exist) think nurturing and supportive means, demurely going along with whatever he says no matter what or always making sure his needs are met  to the exclusion of their own needs/wants/desires and never having an opinion- I really hope that type of woman doesn’t exist.  But, sadly, even she does. 
     

86. Karmic Equation 86

    I truly believe women held the higher ground on RELATIONSHIPs before the rise of feminism.

    Women–and men–prized a women’s sexuality, which could only be gotten through a RELATIONSHIUP with a woman. While the sexual revolution did give women freedom to express their sexuality openly, it actually devalued relationships. That’s what got lost in translation…and most women have bought into the sexual revolution freeing them to be sexual. We were always sexual. But the revolution actually changed RELATIONSHIPS such that it benefited MEN more than women…MEN can now have sex without relationships or marriage and without society frowning on them. Sure WOMEN can have as much sex as they want, too, but now there is no guarantee of a relationship…hence the lamentation of most women on this board.

    If most women on this board are smart and successful (read financially independent), then all this vigorous discussion about wage gaps, etc., is just us getting in our own way and defocusing us from the real problem. Women want relationships and the sexual revolution/feminism devalued that for women. Because feminism taught us that we should be more like men, in business and in sex. But women had the higher ground in sex/relationships…and lost it…And as most of you have pointed out, wage/career-equality has not yet been achieved. So remind me again, who again did feminism benefit more?

    @Helen, Alpha Girl and Morris

    I think I’m one of the most progressive women on this board, e.g., I can have sex without attachment and don’t think that sex = relationship for starters…and therefore, I believe I think and act “like a man” in this respect…But if I recall correctly, in other threads some of the same women who propose that women should ACT like a man (e.g., pursue)…are the sames ones who lament that men should act like WOMEN (e.g., sex = relationship).

    The power in being a woman is getting men to pursue you. Not in pursuing men. If you like men who like being pursued, odds are they’re not going to like you for long. They get creeped out eventually and they’ll question why they’re in the relationship with you (because they really love you or because YOU decided they should love you?). It’s funny, men don’t question themselves if they arrive at the conclusion themselves. That’s why you want men to decide to pursue you in the first place. They are very loyal to their own beliefs.

    IMO, if you can’t get the man you like to pursue you, then maybe you ought to consider that maybe you’re not “woman enough” to be pursued. As long as you have a vagina (sorry to be crass) you can catch any man you pursue. You’re not winning anything. To win as a woman, you have to get the man you want to pursue you. Why do you think that women who get around are called “sluts” while men who get around are called “players.” Because men have to WORK to get the sex they want (ask out, risk rejection, pay for dates, etc), women only have to say yes…there’s no work involved. Again, sorry to be crass, but that is the way it is.

    @Lucy &6 & 77

    Agree with you on both counts.

    @Tom10 #81

    Yes. Exactly! I think it’s wrong that women want their cake and eat it too. Doesn’t fit into the karmic equation of the universe.

    I think you’re either Canadian or British (the “eh?” in one of your posts gave it away)…If you’re ever in the USA, we have to meet and shoot some pool. Just as friends though. You are way too young for me. But I’ll bet the night would fly by with you regaling me with your stories. The ones that are PG enough to share, anyways. LOL

87. Alpha Girl 87

    Tom10 #81
    To answer your question honestly,  I have paid for dates and have bought my guys flowers and little trinkets some like it and some don’t. But if I ask a man out for a date, more than 95% of the time, he offers to pay. I’m not stupid, of course I’m gonna let him pay. My personality is more like you offer to pay, hey fine by me, I don’t need to stop them whom ever they are male or female. Also gifts don’t have to cost a lot of money. It’s the thought that counts. Though sometimes when buying drinks. I offer to buy a round. 

88. Alpha Girl 88

    To everyone, I love this video an the fliaside at the bar. Lol. Check it out, what if the roles were reversed. http://youtu.be/g5DkCJIqkgc 
    I think it’s appropriate to share. And to Karmic Equation #86, you are right. To put it bluntly, it’s the power of the pussy. To be ultra frank, I’d love to marry a man who is my best friend who I am attracted to, who would be wiling to have a open relationship 5years + down the road. I don’t think people are meant to be monogomous. But I’d likes a best friend to have to stay with me until u get old, who I am attracted to. 

89. Karmic Equation 89

    @Alpha Girl 88
     
    I think most married men would welcome an open relationship 5+ years down the road. It’s women who usually don’t want that. Why even be married, though, if that is what you’re looking for down the road? I don’t get that.

90. Karl R 90

    Karmic Equation said: (#86)
    “But the revolution actually changed RELATIONSHIPS such that it benefited MEN more than women [...] Sure WOMEN can have as much sex as they want, too, but now there is no guarantee of a relationship…”
     
    How does this benefit men more than women?
     
    Are you assuming that women only engage in sex in order to gain a relationship? (You don’t seem to be, based on your other statements.)
     
    Are you assuming that men used to be willing to get married just to have sex?
     
    Are you assuming that more women than men want to get married? Within certain limited age ranges (i.e. under 30), that may be true. Overall, the difference (if any) is slight.
     
    I’m not sure where you’re seeing a greater benefit for women rather than men.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#86)
    “MEN can now have sex without relationships or marriage and without society frowning on them.”
     
    This is new?
     
    I don’t care how far you go back, society frowned on women having sex outside of marriage. Men received minimal (if any) social censure. Look at the old testament definition of adultery: if a man (single or married) has sex with a married woman (not his wife), both are to be stoned. If a man (single or married) has sex with an unmarried woman it’s not considered adultery. That’s the law as it was written. For an example of practical application, look at the new testament story of Jesus and the adulterous woman. The crowd was ready to stone the woman. The man she had sex with (who, by law, should receive the same punishment) got a free pass.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#86)
    “Why do you think that women who get around are called “sluts” while men who get around are called ‘players.’”
     
    Because the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.
     
    I have to say that I’m amused by your opinion. Women fought for (and largely gained) equality with men, and somehow men benefited more than women. That’s like the women on this thread who claim that dating is unfair because women (having caught/surpassed men in education) now have to marry down.
     
    Either you’re a pessimist who focuses on the bad in every good situation, or men truly are the smarter sex. I’m betting on the former.

91. Tom10 91

    Karmic Equation
    Ha you got me – I knew the game was up a long time ago. There are just too many differences in spelling and phrasing to catch them all. You’re close but I’m none of the above – I’m Irish! Things are pretty similar here to the USA nowadays.
     
    I knew from your first post that I’d get on really well with you if we met. It’d be great to shoot pool with you the next time I’m stateside. I have a few funny stories for you alright but maybe I’ll leave out some of the more outrageous ones
     
    Alpha Girl
    Fair enough – I respect that you carry your thinking through to its logical conclusion (or at least offer to).
     
    However, like Karmic Equation and Evan I think that one of the only ways a woman can gauge a man’s interest is by analyzing how he intently he pursues you. By asking him out first you deprive yourself of one of your most basic tools.
     
    The video you linked was funny.

92. Alpha Girl 92

    Karmic Equation # 89 
    i would not tell a guy off the bat that I want an open relationship. I’ve done this in the past before and from experience he’ll run like the plague. Men are very territorial. Like I said its something that has to develop over time with trust. As for why I want to get married. It  definitely has its benefits here in US and in other countries. although nothing in life is a guarantee, I’d like to have a life partner. Someone who may be at my deathbed when I die. Sex is one thing lifelong companionship is another. 
     
    As for Tom10 #91
    the pursuing thing I’ve heard many if times before. I even got engaged to a guy who I wasnt attracted to bcause I knew he was truly interested in me. He wouldn’t take no for an answer. At that point I did what was suggested, pick for my only avalible option. Bad chioce. After that, never again. Most guys who ask me out I’m not physically attracted to. I felt sorry for myself at the time and that I needed to find someone to marry who truly wanted me. Once again worst decision ever. I spent nights making excuses to sleep on the floor. We even lived together he took care of me financially. I was tired of being alone. This was in my mid to late 20′s.

93. Alpha Girl 93

    Sorry for the bad spelling but my iPhone makes a lot of errors when I’m trying to post from non mobile theme. I don’t know why and going back to fix stuff can be a nightmare. 

94. Helen 94

    Karl R 90: Spot on, as usual.
     
    I like to pursue, AND I like being pursued. It’s not as though liking the one prevents you from ever experiencing the other. And it’s not as though you can’t enjoy both! Not just talking about romance here - I’m talking about life. Pursuing a bigger life, whatever that means to you in work or activities or friendships or experiences – and letting them come to you as well.  But you have to put your foot out and take that first step, or the opportunities won’t come your way.
     
    It’s a waste of time to always be worrying about others’ approval: “If I’m too forward, he won’t like me,” etc. If you had hidden your true self around him, would he have 1) approached you, or 2) liked you any better? Some will like you for who you are; others won’t. You might as well be yourself. Your real self always be “right” to some and “wrong” to others, which is good, because you find the right company and the right experiences more easily. Water inevitably finds its own level.

95. marymary 95

    Alpha
    You want lifelong marriage and the benefits of being single?  I fear that this is the dilemma all of us have to come to terms with.  I’ve had to make the conscious decision that to continue my relationship I will have to give up my selfish, lazy, introverted lifestyle (that I love). Sex is the least of it for me!  if you want sex outside the marriage you’re basically saying that the other person is not enough.  Not many men or women can accept that.
    I also don’t think you can spring it on a man five years into your relationship when he trusts you (yeah I know there are exceptions but IN PRACTICE it tends to work that way. It has to mentioned upfront I’m afraid.
    You can’t have everything.  You can have one job, one house, one husband/wife. one citizenship one religion(yes, I know there are exceptions but I’m assuming you’re not a multimillionaire with dual citizenship living in a polygamous society with enough time to worship at several locations). Constantly looking around for other options doesn’t lead to  more happiness, it leads to less. 
    Yes, I do like my job more when I stopped wondering if I could do better. I like my home more when I stopped wondering if I could have bought better. I love my boyfriend more when I shut down other options. Of course, things may change but I can’t dither forever because of “ifs”. If we lived forever we could muddle along regardless. As it is, life is short. Limited time, limited options.

96. Ellen 96

     
    TomT: Can’t wait to get back to Galway. I LOVE Westport also. Very cool place.
    PS I’m a Henessey on my Dad’s side.
    PSS Hope you and Karmic get together.
     

97. Karmic Equation 97

    @Karl R 90
     
    How does this benefit men more than women?
    Before the sexual revolution, men had sex with “floozies” and other “loose women”. Now practically all women are having sex outside marriage, giving men an unlimited number of women to have sex with. Those floozies and loose women, who may have HOPED for relationships, pretty much knew they wouldn’t have one. Most of the “good women” now who have sex outside marriage want relationships (laments galore on this board about how men should tell women upfront they’re not looking for relationships prior to having sex). So who benefits from the sexual revolution? The man who now can theoretically have sex with every woman he meets without having to be their “beau” or “husband” or the women who have sex now hoping, as they did previously, that the sex would lead to a relationship? Who has the bounty? At least pre-sexual revolution
     
    Are you assuming that women only engage in sex in order to gain a relationship? (You don’t seem to be, based on your other statements.)
    You’re right, I don’t engage in sex for relationships. But funnily enough, I end up in relationships with the men that I engage in sex with. But that’s me. I’m relationship-gifted : ) — Other women on this board, yes, many of them HOPE that sex will get them a relationship; or condition sex on being in a relationship first.
     
    Are you assuming that men used to be willing to get married just to have sex?
    Yes. I do believe “respectable” men pre-sexual revolution were expected to get married and have children to be considered productive members of society. And marriage was the “easiest” way then to get “unlimited” sex (in theory and societal expecatations anyway).
     
    Are you assuming that more women than men want to get married? Within certain limited age ranges (i.e. under 30), that may be true. Overall, the difference (if any) is slight.
    I believe this is a broader range, the “never been married” and the “biological ticking-clock” women want to be married. Women, like me, who’ve already been married, not so much. I wonder why?
     
    I’m not sure where you’re seeing a greater benefit for women rather than men.
    while women are making gains on equality with men wage- and career-wise, as you’ve said yourself, that equality hasn’t been reached yet. However, RELATIONSHIP-wise, women have certainly lost. They give sex hoping for relationships that may never come to pass. Perhaps not new, but certainly in the past men knew that having sex with a “respectable girl” meant he would be expected to marry her someday. MEN now have a cornucopia of women to have sex with, because society no longer frowns on women having sex. But we can all agree that “having sex” is not the priority for women, whereas “having relationships” is — so yes, MEN benefitted from this. As well, whereas MEN were expected to be the breadwinners and women housewives and mothers before the sexual revolution, now most households are expected to be dual-earners…AND women are still expected to do the majority of the housework and childcare. The men are no longer solely responsible for bringing home the bacon YET they are not expected to shoulder at even half the housework and childcare. Who did this benefit? Women who now have to bust their butts in the workforce AND at home? Or men who can expect their wives to shoulder half the financial burden and continue to shoulder most, if not all, the household burden too?
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#86)
    “MEN can now have sex without relationships or marriage and without society frowning on them.”
     
    This is new?
     
    See response above
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#86)
    “Why do you think that women who get around are called “sluts” while men who get around are called ‘players.’”
     
    Because the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.
    I disagree. Women don’t have to “work” to get sex. They just have to acquiesce. Men have to work to get sex, whether it’s coming up with the right “line” or the right “gifts”, etc. Men have to work AND RISK REJECTION to get the sex they want. Women don’t have to risk anything for sex. I know that I can walk up to any guy and offer sex and he’d say yeah, let’s go. Can a man do that with any woman? Even the easy ones usually need a drink first.
     
    Either you’re a pessimist who focuses on the bad in every good situation, or men truly are the smarter sex. I’m betting on the former.
    No, I’m am pretty anti-establishment when it comes to society and quite Polyanna-ish when it comes to life and men. I would say I cut men more slack than they even they think they deserve : ) And I do believe that the sexual equality that women fought so hard for did us more a disservice as it pertains to RELATIONSHIPS (not sex per se). And just like anti-discrimination policies unintentionally send the message that minorities can’t succeed without help, aren’t as good as “white people” without a few extra points added to their scores, feminism devalued female power when it told us women should have the power and benefits that men have. Women HAD power. But that is now lost because women think having men’s power is the key to success. Perhaps in business, but not so in life/relationships with men.

98. Katrina 98

    Karmic..
     
    I completely disagree and agree with you! Wait that doesn’t make any sense!
    Like in any revolution it would seem like women are having the short end of the stick in the short term. But that is only because we are in an acquisition process where boundaries are only just beginning to take shape. Yes women are still expected to complete the brunt of housework, yes with more sexual freedom there is less relationship clarity, and yes this has affected women both negatively and positively.
    However as in any litigation the contract between men and women is not clearly defined and the details are slowly being ironed out. I know plenty of women who are benefiting from stay at home dads who do the majority of the housework. My next door neighbor once told me about coming home and her (now) husband scrubbing the floor of her flat within a month of meeting him. They have been together for a long time and I can tell you he does half the household chores plus all the traditional male ones of taking out the trash and being mr. fix it. We can see a new trend where families work together rather then laying everything on the shoulders of the submissive housewife.
    As for dating! My mother married her most recent husband (and she has had a few i’m afraid to say) with the no sex before marriage because she is jewish. She now found out he need viagra just to perform.
    Personally all of the men I have ever had sex with tend to stick with me. If they are marriage minded then they will go for more and if their not ready to settle down then they won’t. A friend (buddy of mine) is getting married in April and he loves sex with different women. But, like women, men also need to have a close connection and feel love with a women.  So i don’t see our sexual freedom affecting our ability to enter into a relationship.
     
     
     

99. Karl R 99

    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “Most of the ‘good women’ now who have sex outside marriage want relationships”
     
    They don’t always want relationships with the men they’re having sex with.
     
    At least half my sex partners were explicitly non-monogamous relationships. I told them that I didn’t want a monogamous relationship. They agreed that they didn’t want one either. And most had at least one other sex partner (that I knew of) during those flings. I don’t know whether these women wanted relationships, but they knew they wouldn’t have one with me.
     
    My relationship with my wife started off as a fling. She explicitly told me that she wasn’t interested in a serious relationship with me. She was interested in a serious relationship with someone else. (She implied that she was receptive to having “a bit of fun” which I interpreted to mean a casual sexual relationship.) For the first couple months we were dating, she didn’t take the relationship seriously because she was keeping her options open.
     
    Two of my sex partners in the years before my wife were women who were interested in getting married, but didn’t see me as a good potential father. (I don’t want kids.)
     
    These are all women who either didn’t want a relationship, or who weren’t going to let the current lack of a good relationship partner get in the way of having some sex for fun. The sexual revolution gave them that freedom.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “we can all agree that ‘having sex’ is not the priority for women, whereas ‘having relationships’ is”
    “women want to be married. Women, like me, who’ve already been married, not so much.”
     
    You think “we can all agree” that relationships are a priority for women, even though you don’t agree that it’s a priority for you and women like you.
     
    Apparently, you can’t  even agree with yourself about that point. What makes you think that “we” all agree with it?
     
    Your points will be slightly more believable if you agree with them.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “I know that I can walk up to any guy and offer sex and he’d say yeah, let’s go.”
     
    That’s your ego talking, not reality. I’ve turned down a few propositions like that. I turned down one because I was in an exclusive relationship. I also turned down a few (when I was single) because I didn’t find them attractive.
     
    In one case, I was drunk and stoned (having donated blood earlier in the day), and I still declined. My vision may have been blurry, but I wasn’t blind.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “So who benefits from the sexual revolution? The man who now can theoretically have sex with every woman he meets”
     
    I’ve never had theoretical sex.
     
    I can’t have actual sex with every woman I meet (nor would I want to have sex with most of them). Even if I was a drop-dead gorgeous celebrity, I still wouldn’t be able to have actual sex with every woman that I wanted to have sex with.
     
    Therefore, the “benefit” you describe is dependent upon some fantasy world that we don’t live in.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “in the past men knew that having sex with a ‘respectable girl’ meant he would be expected to marry her someday.”
     
    And a lot of horny teens and twenty-somethings ended up trapped in unhappy marriages that way.
     
    Do you see that as a “benefit” that women have lost?
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “So who benefits from the sexual revolution? [...] the women who have sex now hoping, as they did previously, that the sex would lead to a relationship?”
     
    Let’s try for a little consistency. Earlier you said:
    “Those floozies and loose women, who may have HOPED for relationships, pretty much knew they wouldn’t have one.”
     
    According to you, the floozies knew that sex wasn’t going to get them a relationship. Do you somehow think that the more sophisticated, post-sexual revolution women of today haven’t figured out the same thing?
     
    The women I hang out with have sex because they’re hoping for fun sex. But maybe I hang out with smarter women.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “I do believe ‘respectable’ men pre-sexual revolution were expected to get married and have children to be considered productive members of society.”
     
    According to studies conducted by the authors of “Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think About Marrying,” (written in 2011) 93% of college-aged men want to get married (primarily so they can start a family), but they want to do it later in life. 96% of college-aged women want to get married (primarily so they can start a family), but they also want to do it later in life.
     
    So instead of men and women doing this because they’re expected to (a they were pre-sexual revolution), men and women are doing the exact same thing (when they’re more mature) because they want to.
     
    How does this change put women at a disadvantage?
     
    You’d probably love this book. The authors conclusions seem to match your own opinions. Furthermore, they stick to those conclusions through convoluted explanations even though their own data contradicts their conclusions.
     
    I said: (#90)
    “the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.”
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “I disagree. Women don’t have to ‘work’ to get sex. They just have to acquiesce. Men have to work to get sex,”
     
    You just proved my point.
     
    Karmic Equation said: (#97)
    “Men have to work AND RISK REJECTION to get the sex they want.”
     
    If you think rejection is scary, then you haven’t been rejected enough.
     
    My wife and I will attend a major (annual) dance event next week. Men ask women to dance more often than women ask men, but it’s socially acceptable to do either.
     
    I will ask hundreds of women to dance, and a small percentage of women will turn me down. Dozens of women will ask me to dance, and I’ll turn a small percentage down. I will have lots of dances, and enjoy myself immensely.
     
    My wife prefers to be asked to dance, rather than doing the asking. If she does this exclusively for the entire weekend, she will not get turned down at all. However, at some point during the weekend, she will complain to me about how she’s not getting enough dances.
     
    If she decides to get up and do some of the asking, she will get turned down about as often as I do. She will have as many dances as she wants. And she will enjoy herself immensely. (This is an annual event, so my predictions are based on what has happened in previous years.)
     
    More rejection generally correlates to more dances (or more dates, or more sex, or more relationships).
     
    While the sexual revolution hasn’t given men and women full equality (yet), it seems that greater equality might give women the same benefits you claim it denies them.

100. Michelle 100

     I’m on board with Karmic & Tom10 on this thread when we’re talking in context of romance and romantic relationships (as opposed to dances as we apply their comments to the masses.

101. Karmic Equation 101

     @Karl 99
      
     “The sexual revolution gave them that freedom.”
     We agree on this point. The sexual revolution gave women the freedom to have as much sex as they want with as many men as they want.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “we can all agree that ‘having sex’ is not the priority for women, whereas ‘having relationships’ is”
     “women want to be married. Women, like me, who’ve already been married, not so much.”
     So we’re devolving to nitpicking word choices instead of the concept as a whole? Ok.

     Are you saying that marriage is the only form of “relationship”? Long-term partnerships without the piece of paper or dating exclusively are not considered relationships?

     “You think “we can all agree” that relationships are a priority for women, even though you don’t agree that it’s a priority for you and women like you.”
     I think it’s well established that I don’t think like most women, so I’ll concede and be more concise and change “women” to “most women”. Does that really change the concept I’m trying to convey?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “I know that I can walk up to any guy and offer sex and he’d say yeah, let’s go…That’s your ego talking, not reality.”
     Really? Wasn’t it you who wrote that men wouldn’t say no to sex because they were holding out for a relationship?

     Again, ok. I’ll be more concise. I can go up to “almost/practically any guy…who I can tell is attracted to me”…
      
     “I’ve never had theoretical sex.”
     That’s too bad. It’s fun. I’ve had theoretical sex with Shemar Moore, Jude Law, Pierce Brosnan…and a few less famous guys.

     “I can’t have actual sex with every woman I meet (nor would I want to have sex with most of them). Even if I was a drop-dead gorgeous celebrity, I still wouldn’t be able to have actual sex with every woman that I wanted to have sex with.”
     Again, nitpicking a single word to devalue the concept. I can go there too. Where did I mention celebrities? So you’re saying that if a drop dead gorgeous female celebrity wanted to have actual sex with you, you would have said no (when you were single…)?
      
     “And a lot of horny teens and twenty-somethings ended up trapped in unhappy marriages that way…Do you see that as a “benefit” that women have lost?”
     When did I mention unhappy marriages? People have unhappy marriages now, post-sexual revolution. So are you saying women benefited with more happy marriages post-sexual revolution?
      
     “The women I hang out with have sex because they’re hoping for fun sex. But maybe I hang out with smarter women.”
     Perhaps. Or perhaps you were hanging out with the minority of women, like myself, who are ok with having sex sans relationship. Lucky you.

     “So instead of men and women doing this because they’re expected to (as they were pre-sexual revolution), men and women are doing the exact same thing (when they’re more mature) because they want to…How does this change put women at a disadvantage?”
     It doesn’t put women at a disadvantage DIRECTLY but certainly indirectly. Take yourself, for example, pre-sexual revolution, if you didn’t want to have kids society would have looked at you askance. Perhaps labeled you a strange for not wanting children…would you even have gotten good jobs or promotions? Post sexual revolution, you have the choice to not have kids and still be considered a “normal” member of society. And the women who wanted relationships with you, but decided not to because you didn’t want kids?…Might you have married one of them had you felt obligated by societal expectations to marry and have kids? Wouldn’t one of those women have benefited from pre-sexual revolution societal expectations? Women were disadvantaged because an advantage was conferred to men–giving men the option to NOT marry and STILL be considered acceptable members of society while disadvantaging women by taking more marriageable men off the market.

     “You’d probably love this book. The authors conclusions seem to match your own opinions. Furthermore, they stick to those conclusions through convoluted explanations even though their own data contradicts their conclusions.”
     Hmmm…I don’t believe I contradicted myself. You say to-may-to; I say to-mah-to.
      
     I said: (#90)
     “the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.”
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “I disagree. Women don’t have to ‘work’ to get sex. They just have to acquiesce. Men have to work to get sex,” … You just proved my point.
     Ok. I must be as stupid as you’ve implied. I don’t know what point I’ve proven. Please enlighten.

     “If you think rejection is scary, then you haven’t been rejected enough.”
     Guilty! I choose the best among those who pursue me. Never having to risk rejection. That is a woman’s power and I’m proud and very happy to be able to wield that power with finesse.
      
     “More rejection generally correlates to more dances (or more dates, or more sex, or more relationships).”
     So dancing = relationships, but dating exclusively doesn’t equal relationships? Really? You are right. We don’t live in the same reality.
      
     “While the sexual revolution hasn’t given men and women full equality (yet), it seems that greater equality might give women the same benefits you claim it denies them.”
     I would agree with you if you agree with Katrina #98‘s post regarding the fact that we are in the “acquisition process”. We’ll have to come back and revisit this in what? Another 5 years? So another five years of men gaining more as women gain more? Never fully equalizing or even overtaking? I guess that is better than stagnating. However, I don’t buy that the sexual revolution was good for women when it comes to RELATIONSHIPS. When it comes to sex, I fully agree and rejoice

     @Tom10
     Stateside I’m on the East Coast. So you wouldn’t have to travel too far.

     @Michelle
     Thanks!

     @Alpha Girl
     Loved the video!

     @Katrina 98
     I can agree with what you’re saying and understand your point.

102. Fusee 102

     I also agree with Karmic Equation‘s comment @97, if we’re talking in general terms and not making it the ultimate truth. In general terms, back then it was easy for a woman to get married because of social pressure encouraging men to make the ultimate commitment in order to have sex with a decent woman and to have his homemaking needs covered. It was not just about sex but a great incentive and a powerful drive. Of course, not 100% of people did want it and did it, but it certainly was the norm for most respectable men and women, for better or worse. Gender roles were defined and each gender needed the other one to function in life and be socially accepted. Were these marriages happy? Of course not. But we’re not talking about happiness, only about the fact that a young woman did not have much struggle to secure a marriage at a younger age, even if she was not a “10″ in every area. Same for men. They did not have to be “10″, they just had to be able to house, feed, and clothe a woman to be a suitable propect.
      
     Now, am I longing for those times? Not at all. Yes, it’s now much harder to enter a marriage, but I would not want to go back in time when it was “easy”. I’d rather keep my freedom and face the modern difficulties. At this point I believe that the process is hard on both men and women because by not needing one another anymore we all became incredibly picky. It’s not enough to have a decent looking and hard-working companion, we now want the best looking, most ambitious, inspiring, communicative, yada yada person of the whole world. Both genders are guilty of this never ending yearning for the best and using it as an excuse to postpone commitment or to reject commitment-minded people who do not have enough “qualifications”. However, because ultimately more women are interested in marriage at an earlier age, they are the ones who struggle the most with this specific aspect of dating. It does not mean that men do not struggle with other aspects of the process, but a proposal for marriage is hard to get these days for a woman.
      
     Evan asked @60: “The real question is whether the changes in women over the past 40 years have negatively impacted their ability to find happy partnerships, and what, if anything can women do about it themselves (presuming that you can’t change men)?”
      
     If it was easier to secure a commitment in the past, I certainly believe that the changes have improved the ability of finding a happy commitment. With the ability to postpone marriage till a bit later in life thanks to birth control and the blurring of gender roles, women and men have greater chances to enter a marriage when they have a better understanding of what it takes to be a good partner and what compatibility really means. So it might be more difficult to find A commitment, but it’s easier to end up in a GOOD commitment. At least, if we listen to great advice such as Evan’s instead of falling into the trap of libido and unrealistic expectations.
      
     Now, what’s a woman to do? First off, feeling grateful to the freedom hardly won by the courageous women (and male allies) who fought for it! Secondly, not put the blame on men and instead realize that they have to adjust as well to the challenging changes. Then they need to sit down and think of what they want, and date with their goal in mind. Understanding the law of Karma helps: each thoughts and action has a consequence/reaction. Also we can talk in general terms as much as we want, and have a good understanding of the culture we’re dealing with, but at the end of the day, we date individuals. How about we simply try to find out who they are and what their dreams are rather than stereotyping them as “men”? When we find out, we can simply opt out or proceed accordingly. A traditional woman can still find a traditional man, and a very indepedant woman can certainly find a guy who will let her run around do her own thing. However I find more effective to try to adjust one’s personality somewhere in the middle of the spectrum because it does make oneself appealing to a wider pool of potential partners and because it makes life more interesting to challenge one’s usual patterns. So the smart, strong, successful woman can learn to be more accepting, receptive, and giving, while the traditional woman can learn to be a bit more assertive, ambitious, and goal-oriented. Outgrowing one’s personality is fulfilling one’s destiny after all.

103. starthrower68 103

     I think I’m going to have to have a slide rule and graphing paper to figure out what everyone is saying here now.

104. Alpha Girl 104

     marymary #95
     LOL I don’t think you get it.  I’m not saying that the other person isn’t enough at all silly.  That’s just silly.  He and I will of course meet that bridge if and when we get there.  Maybe a little swinging.  LOL

105. Nicole 105

     @Starthrower, well, for one, you have some people who actually believe that men in the past minded having casual sex with “floozies.”  I don’t think men mind a woman’s moral compass at all when it comes to sex.  
     And I don’t think that having regular sex with a frigid 50′s housewife was really a great prospect.  I’m pretty sure Mad Men is a really good portrayal of how life was for a certain group of Americans at a certain point in time.  Married men continued to enjoy good sex with women who knew what they were doing while they had the respectable family at home.
     But other than that, this has veered off topic again but perhaps closer to topic than the first time it happened.

106. marymary 106

     I’ve lost the plot here but re the dancing comments, partnered dancing is a  microcosm of male-female relationships.  It’s a lovely feeling of safety to be led by a confident man, whether or not he is a more skilled dancer than me.  He decides when we turn, which way, how to avoid other partners.  I trust him to do that, and I can feel which way he will go without words.  He doesn’t push me about, he leads.
     If anyone is having problems with this male-female energy thing, a few ballroom lessons might be educational, plus it’s fun, and you might meet someone.
     In the ballet pas de deux, men are men and women are women.  I love these tips from a male dancer to his fellow men:
     http://www.dance.net/topic/2090899/1/Pas-De-Deux/Basic-Guide-for-Pas-De-Deux.html
     Never take your hands off her until you know she can hold her own.
     If you drop a girl more than once she will never trust you again, so don’t drop them.
     If for some reason she does fall, go down too, let her land on you. Better you then the floor, at least you’re softer then the floor.
     If she does hit you with her knee [in the groin], finish the turns, THEN you can go off to the corner and cry.
     Ooh, it’s just so manly!

107. Tom10 107

     Ellen # 79
     “What is less clear to me is whether women and men ALL chase ONLY the top 10% of the meat market (another generalization maybe)”
      
     Yes you’re right – I plucked those (rather crass and exaggerated) figures out of thin air based on my own empirical observation of dating and reading comments on blogs, rather than from any peer-reviewed journal. 
      
     I suppose my point was there seem to be a few people who have fared badly and subsequently have given up, a few people who do quite well and are really happy and then everyone else in the middle. I think the biggest differences between those at either end are mindset, resilience and expectations, and by working on these characteristics anyone can go from one end to the other.
      
     I agree that “the smart person learns to stop being so choosy.”
      
     # 96
     I can’t wait to get back there either – it’s a great city. I might see you there this August for the races so
      
     Michelle
     Thanks too!
      
     Fusee # 102
     Great post – you really got to the nub of the issue.
      
     “We all became incredibly picky”
      
     and
      
     “Ultimately more women are interested in marriage at an earlier age.”
      
     I think the fact women look for marriage at an earlier age is linked primarily due to fertility – and this is the core issue which will affect dating for decades to come (until technology levels the playing field): i.e. women have to blink first!
      
     Were it not for this inequality in fertility then we would all continue our “never ending yearning for the best” searching for hypothetically better partners into our 40’s, 50’s etc. and the average age of first marriage would keep rising well beyond 30.
      
     Whether consciously or subconsciously I believe men know this and use it as leverage to secure their best possible deal, which forces women into a difficult position (I think some of the late 20’s / early 30’s women on this blog are feeling this pressure).
      
     I know from first-hand experience what silly criteria young men use to look for their ‘perfect woman’ and I acknowledge that if fertility was flipped the dating game would be vastly different and men would have to grow up a lot faster.
      
     What can women do about this? I think you answered this very well in your last paragraph so no need for me to expound further.

108. Frimmel 108

     KE in 101: “I said: (#90)
     “the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.”
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “I disagree. Women don’t have to ‘work’ to get sex. They just have to acquiesce. Men have to work to get sex,” … You just proved my point.
     Ok. I must be as stupid as you’ve implied. I don’t know what point I’ve proven. Please enlighten.”
      
     As I mentioned earlier men have not been freed from their traditional sex role so when you say men have to work to get sex you are agreeing that men need to perform their traditional sex role to get this sex without marriage. Judging from the comment threads here this sex without marriage is rarely as ‘strings free’ as advertised.
      
     Women can simply choose to have sex without being married without becoming a un-marry-able floozie and with or without a job.
      
     Therefore, the idea that men have achieved greater benefit from the sexual revolution rings false to most/many men or at least to Karl and myself.
      
     I do not have to marry to get sex with non-floozies but I still have to have a job and a place and disposable income and so on. And if I want this marriage free sex to be with not-unattractive, attractive, pretty, or hot women it had best be the right job and the right kind of place and a lot of disposable income and I’d best have the right attitude and the right things to say and the right ways of saying them and not be a dressed badly. And when it comes down to it (pardon the crassness) even the fat girls expect you to have a job and pay for drinks.
      
     And this marriage free sex comes with a number of risks outlining which is probably best left to another type of site.

109. hespeler 109

     I said: (#90)
     “the sexual revolution hasn’t reached the point of complete equality yet.”
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “I disagree. Women don’t have to ‘work’ to get sex. They just have to acquiesce. Men have to work to get sex,” … You just proved my point.
     Ok. I must be as stupid as you’ve implied. I don’t know what point I’ve proven. Please enlighten
     I’m sure Karl R. will reply but my interpretation is that if we take your theory to be true, then where is the equality if men STILL have to work to get sex and women merely have to acquiesce?  When all men have to do is acquiesce then we can talk about some sort of equality.
     “If you think rejection is scary, then you haven’t been rejected enough.”
     Guilty! I choose the best among those who pursue me. Never having to risk rejection. That is a woman’s power and I’m proud and very happy to be able to wield that power with finesse.
     That is absolutely fine.  More power to you.  
     When I date a girl and it begins to develop into a perceived relationship where some type of commitment is either implied or expected from the woman, I can choose to leave or still date her while keeping my options open despite the fact we do bf/gf things and are having sex.  That is a man’s power and I’m proud and very happy to be able to wield that power with finesse.
     Because you see, if you are wielding your power to pick from the best, I may not be the best to you but I may be the best to another girl though I was searching for someone like you.  So I will make a go of it while I search for someone like you and if I find that person and she acquiesces to borrow a term, I’ll drop the other girl and pursue you.

110. Karmic Equation 110

     @Frimmel and @Hespeler

     Thank you both for clarifying.

     However, you don’t seem to understand what equality means. The MEN in society have it good now…BETTER than women have. So WOMEN’s benefits need to REACH men’s current level before we can talk about how to make men equal to women.

     So men will HAVE TO continue to work for sex, this is the one of the few areas where WOMEN have the power. And if women are STUPID ENOUGH to cede that power, in addition to the “relationship-power” that they have already given up for “equality in business/careers” (which has yet to be achieved, btw, 40 yrs after the revolution. I work for a company where the leadership consists onf 8 white men and only one female, white of course), then men will ALWAYS have it better than women…and equality will NEVER be achieved for women. If both your premises were to happen, then women would have given up one of their last bastions of female power (simply acquiesce to sex) in addition to no longer easily (or ever) finding marriage partners. You think that is good for WOMEN?

     Look, I absolutely ADORE men. I understand them at some sort of primal level, so I’m NOT man-bashing here. I just want men to realize that equality means that men have it good already and should NOT REQUIRE women to give up any more women-only power so that MEN can be EQUAL…You guys have already gotten NEW bennies post-sexual revolution…More women to have sex with…No longer being required to be married in your late 20s/early 30s or at all…no longer having to SOLELY shoulder the financial burden of a family. If I were society incarnate, you can bet I would NOT EVER FOR AN INSTANT EVER going to give you guys “only-say-yes sex”.

     And those women who like hunting men, instead of being hunted, unfortunately are helping your premises come to pass. I think that sets women up to lose another womanly-right.

111. Fusee 111

     I find debating how who has benefitted most from the sexual revolution a bit pointless, because it depends on what we are looking at and who is talking. Women who want to get married young would feel like the big losers since the revolution has resulted in delaying marriage. Women who want the freedom of casual sex, or at least casual sex while they’re studying and building their career will feel like winners… Men might feel like winners because they can take their time and play around before marriage and kids, but the less lucky ones in looks and succes might feel like losers because they now need to bring much more to the table – even just for casual sex – than they had to back in the 50s.
      
     Dating is still unfair post-revolution because it favors 7s and 8s. Average and below average people – men AND women – do not fare well because there is always a perception of something “better” and since the sexual revolution has removed the time pressure, these can be passed over and over since there is always hope to find “better” by just taking a bit more time. Conversely 9s and 10s grow entitled to date within their niche and might struggle to find suitable “equivalent” partners that are too rare.
      
     Everyone became picky but I think that the biggest difference in how the sexual revolution affects genders is TIME. Thanks to birth control and women working, people now can take plenty of TIME before getting married. And time affects genders differently: in general terms past a certain age (maybe 27-28) having more time plays in men’s favor and in women’s disfavor. Tom10 @107 explains part of the reason by mentioning fertility, but it’s not the whole explanation. Even women like me who do not desire children know that men are visual and that we need to look good to pass men’s first level of selection. And time does NOT (still in general terms) improve a woman’s look. While time disfavor women in what men primarily seek, it increases the odds for a man to improve what a woman primarily like in a prospective partner: stability, success, communication, etc. Of course there are exceptions to this statement and gender preferences are also becoming less different but in general terms, regardless of biological clock there still is more pressure on women to secure marriage earlier rather than later, while men can improve their odds by using the time to become more successful. As long as they take minimal care of their appearance of course. So in terms of effect of time past one’s late twenties, I’d say MEN 1 – WOMEN 0 : )

112. hespeler 112

     Karmic Equation 110,
     You seem intent on proving that women are disadvantaged in the dating game when it’s apparent that it can be a struggle for everyone regardless of gender.
     I respectfully submit that Fusee is closer to the mark than you are.  Some will just have it easier and will have a lot of options because of their looks, their station in life, their wealth or some other factor.
     Also your premise is based upon an assumption that most men will gorge themselves as a result of the sexual revolution and never consider settling down.  I just don’t believe this to be true.  Again Frimmel is closer to the mark: more freedom = more options = more picky.  Both men and women are exercising their right to choose and this has made finding a lasting relationship difficult for BOTH sexes.
     Additionally, most folks will not be able to take advantage of all the free love because as has been mentioned (by Frimmel and others), they’re just not up to snuff in the eyes of the 7′s and ups.  Even if they are, the 7′s and ups will find a way to reject them because supposed options abound. 
     There is also a point you’re missing with the whole easy access to sex argument.  Yes I think a lot of men will take it when they can get it but the fantasy most men have is to have as many hot sexual partners as possible.  I think a common lament of most singles looking is that they can get dates but rarely get a date that they’re really into.  Let’s not BS; the “into” means physical attraction 9 times out of 10.  Therefore, if you’re the type of guy who doesn’t leave the hot part out of the equation then the possibility of limitless casual sex with marginally attractive women still isn’t getting you laid all that much.
     Finally I think you’re defining casual sex too ummm casually.  What does casual sex mean to you?  Guilt free sex on the first date, second date, third, a month but we have to do some bf/gf stuff too?  While you’ll get no argument from me that women certainly are more willing to have sex sans relationship than has been in the past, let’s not pretend that real life is like a porn shoot.  I can’t just go out and scrape a divorcee’s pool and she invites me in for lemonade and some red ass monkey sex (and I’m a good-looking guy).  Typically, getting to the casual sex point requires some amount of dating and work.  If you’re the type of guy looking for a relationship, and I’m here to tell you there are a lot of us out there, I may decide that even though I may get sex if I hang in there a little longer, my time and energy is better spent letting the girl go so I can find what I’m really looking for as well as her time isn’t wasted either.  What does the sexual revolution actually do for me?

113. Karmic Equation 113

     @Hespeler 112

     Some will just have it easier and will have a lot of options because of their looks, their station in life, their wealth or some other factor.
     So what? This existed pre-sexual revolution. And will continue as long as there’s a human race and the battle of the sexes takes place on a slanted playing field.

     Also your premise is based upon an assumption that most men will gorge themselves as a result of the sexual revolution and never consider settling down.
     No. That is not my premise. My premise is that men no longer have to promise to be a woman’s beau or husband to get a woman to have sex with him. You stated as much in your “man-power” post: “When I date a girl and it begins to develop into a perceived relationship where some type of commitment is either implied or expected from the woman, I can choose to leave or still date her while keeping my options open despite the fact we do bf/gf things and are having sex.” This is DIS-advantageous to MOST women who are still looking for relationships, which are MOST women on this board. (Gotta keep Karl R happy with conciseness and accuracy ). And which hasn’t changed post-sexual revolution: MOST women still want relationships. Even the young ‘uns like Jenna and Lucy are looking for relationships, even while they also rejoice in the free sex benefit conferred to women because of the sexual revolution, which I have never disputed.

     Again Frimmel is closer to the mark: more freedom = more options = more picky.
     Agreed.

     Both men and women are exercising their right to choose and this has made finding a lasting relationship difficult for BOTH sexes.
     No. Lasting relationships are BUILT, not FOUND. Meaning that BOTH parties need to WORK at the relationship to build it up and make it last. So being picky doesn’t mean you can’t build a lasting relationship. I would say that being picky LIMITS your actually BEING in a relationships which limits your DEVELOPMENT of relationship-building skills. So if you restate that being picky means you are less likely to have the skills required to be a good partner in a relationship, and thus precluding your chances of building a lasting relationship, I’d agree with you. Is this what you mean? If not, what do you really mean?

     Additionally, most folks will not be able to take advantage of all the free love because as has been mentioned (by Frimmel and others), they’re just not up to snuff in the eyes of the 7′s and ups. Even if they are, the 7′s and ups will find a way to reject them because supposed options abound.
     So are you saying that most folks = 7 and ups? That’s obviously false. 5′s are 5′s on the scale of 1-10 because they are “average”, right? Meaning that half the population is better looking than the 5′s and the other half is not. 5′s were never (or perhaps rarely) able to date 7′s and aboves pre-sexual revolution, and it’s not news that they aren’t able to date/have sex with 7′s and up post-sexual revolution. That has not changed. Do you really think all current 5′s and below are virgins? Or are they out there having sex with other 5′s and perhaps 4′s and 3′s?
      
     There is also a point you’re missing with the whole easy access to sex argument. Yes I think a lot of men will take it when they can get it but the fantasy most men have is to have as many hot sexual partners as possible.
     Hotness is empirical, obviously (i.e., supermodels or celebrities). Less obvious is that hotness is subjective on a continuum depending on where YOU fall in that continuum. Don’t you think that a 4-male might think a 6-female is hot?  While 7′s may not think you’re hot, you’re probably hot to those 5′s YOU refuse to date. When you factor in age, the continuum shifts yet again. I’d rate myself a 7, and I’m attracting good looking 30 yo’s. So when I play in my league of 40-50 yo’s…My rating goes up. Point is, looks are subjective in many ways for all ratings. So whatever “advantages” are conferred to the 7′s and ups are conferred equivalently to lesser ratings when you consider that the lesser ratings are considered hot to those who rate lower than them.

     Therefore, if you’re the type of guy who doesn’t leave the hot part out of the equation then the possibility of limitless casual sex with marginally attractive women still isn’t getting you laid all that much.
     At the risk of offending you, if you are finding that the women you find hot are not finding YOU hot, then maybe you’re trying to play too far out of your league…or maybe while YOU “look” hot, you don’t ACT hot. Read this: The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty.

     Finally I think you’re defining casual sex too ummm casually. What does casual sex mean to you?
     My definition of casual sex is relationship-free sex. Meaning having sex while not in an exclusive relationship.

     What does the sexual revolution actually do for me?
     You can have sex without being the girl’s BF or husband. If you’re not married, then you’ve taken advantage of the fact you can be at your age and not be married and still have sex and still be accepted by society. When you marry, very likely your wife will help with the financial burden of raising a family instead of depending on you to provide it all. That’s not enough?

114. Helen 114

     Karmic 110, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
      
     You wrote to Frimmel and hespeler: “If both your premises were to happen, then women would have given up one of their last bastions of female power (simply acquiesce to sex) in addition to no longer easily (or ever) finding marriage partners.”
      
     Even today, in the wake of the feminist revolution, women don’t simply acquisce to sex.  I’m a go-getting alpha woman.  I don’t simply acquiesce to sex, not even in my loving marriage of 15 years.
      
     And I don’t see that it is necessarily a good thing for women to “easily find marriage partners.”  It may have been easier in old days, because of matchmaking that took place among families or other factors, but that didn’t guarantee happy, healthy marriages.  I don’t usually quote conservatives, but James Dobson of Focus on the Family was absolutely right when he said: it’s much better to be single than to be in an unhappy marriage.
      
     Fusee and hespeler have the right ideas. It does no good to force men and women’s sexual beliefs, prefences, and behaviors into narrow niches on opposite sides of each other.  The reality is much more complex, even if you were to create a so-called “dream world” for men (or women). 
      

115. Fusee 115

     @Karmic Equation:
      
     Although I agree with some of your statements, I think that you’ve got way too attached to the concept that women are relationship-obsessed while men are sex-obsessed. Yes, 90% of men are driven by sex and end up (sometimes) in love, while 90% of women are driven by emotions and (sometimes) find a good lover… But at the end of the day it does not mean that most men are not hoping for a stable loving relationship and that most women would not reject some good sex while they’re waiting for Mr. Right. USA stats still show that most people, women AND men, end up married. How that’s going to evolve, who knows, but for now, most men still choose marriage.
      
     What has greatly changed is WHEN men choose to enter marriage, and what DRIVES them to go for it. In the 50s, it was the need for someone to replace mom, the drive for sex, and respectability, so it had to happen YOUNG. Now with easy access to sex and birth control, men learning how to cook, and women working, these needs have disappeared and have been replaced by the desire for kids, the need for a second income to buy a house, and the fear of aging all alone. Therefore men can afford postponing the ultimate commitment and can choose to enter marriage in their late thirties or early forties, while women still want and need to enter marriage younger. Not as young as before as their needs have also changed, but still much younger then late thirties/early forties. And that’s where the problem lies: the 28-32 old women want to marry a 28-32 guy but that guy has still plenty of time before feeling the need for kids, locking in a second income, and fear of old age. The problem is much more about timing than about different fundamental desires. Like everything else, having options and time is great, but it does complicate a decision-making process.
      
     Also, although I do not doubt that in the 50s people would also pair up within similar attraction/education/social status levels, I doubt they were as many options as now and that people would be so attached in marrying the “very best”. My step-father told me that when it was time for him to get a girl, he looked around in his small town and saw a few options. He picked one quite randomly, courted her, and married her. He did not spend years wondering about how he could trade up and who could possibly show up in town next year.
      
     You always talk about how sex is “female-power” but really, it’s not so much “power”. Choosing when to have sex in a new relationship is more about protection and wisdom than power, and anyway, after first-time sex, sex is just… sex. A great bonding activity. A man is going to need much more to consider his lady as a potential spouse since now he does not need to marry for sex and homemaking skills. Her other qualities and where he is at in life will be crucial. Real female power is about having developed within oneself a great balance between feminine and assertive qualities, negotiating with finesse the various stages of commitment while making sure that one’s prospect qualifies at all levels, and (and that one is from you, another thread I believe) having maintained the ability to walk away when what’s on offer does not match one’s ultimate goals. Timeline included.
      
     That’s how a women of 2013 can deal with all these changes. If she wants a marriage, he’s got to be over 30 and possibly over 35, she’s got to be the best woman he has met in his entire life, and she’s got to be clear that the dating/courtship is about deciding whether or not it will lead to marriage within whatever reasonnable timeline she feels comfortable with.

116. Helen 116

     One more thing: Karmic, you’ve mentioned more than once that it’s somehow supposed to be a disadvantage to women that we have to shoulder part of the financial burden of the household by working.
      
     Can’t speak for others, but I love work. Love, love, love it. I would go mad if I had to be a stay-at-home wife and/or mother. Not judging those who are SAHWs or SAHMs - that’s just not my cup of tea.  Being able to work instead of being kept out of the workforce is one of the best things that came out of the feminist revolution.  Not just because some of us crazies adore our work, but because it provided women a means of being financially independent.  This, in turn, opened a huge number of doors for us in every aspect of life and living.
      

117. Tracy 117

     I agree that men and women share the blame and neither gender should be angry at each other for dating and relationships gone wrong. But I take issue that we are the products of DNA. Okay, so men like to hunt and pursue and aren’t interested in women’s accomplishments, but how a woman makes them feel, and feminism hasn’t changed that need for men. But for eons women were told that their DNA made them nurturers and caregivers and they were the weaker sex and unable to compete in certain fields. Feminism taught women that they could do more than that. But, I think, it also taught men they could be more, too. Fathers now are probably more involved with their children and work as caregivers more than they ever have in history. 
     Maybe the goal now shouldn’t be arguing what feminism has destroyed but changing the discussion. What about changing what we teach our sons? Maybe we don’t tell them they there are two types of women: the kind you marry and the kind you have sex with only, based on superficial and judgemental criteria. I hate to think I have to tell my daughter that she has to play down her accomplishments to get a man and that she can’t be ambitious AND supportive of a partner’s goals at the same time. So why can’t we teach our sons the same thing? 
     I come at this from an interesting perspective. I am single and almost always get hit on by married men. Now, most of these men married women who aren’t career driven and likely support them in their own ambitions. But guess what? When these men hit on me here’s what they say: my wife is boring. Now, it could be the age (I am in my 40s as are most of these men and maybe they are having a midlife crisis). I turn them down, of course, because I am pretty certain I can do better than married men. But I also date men from all sorts of backgrounds  in terms of jobs and education and try to learn about them on their own individual merits and personalities. And I am fun and don’t put out too soon. But still I get pegged as the one good for sex only (why? I don’t know). Is it because we’ve taught men that driven, independent women only want sex? I do think this may be a problem with feminism; that such women get labeled easily, while less driven women are seen as the marrying kind.
     I believe I can have my own goals and accomplishments and be supportive of a man’s as well. Why can’t we teach both genders that concept instead of accepting that we are only products of our genetic programming?

118. hespeler 118

     Karmic,
      
     So we’re not talking in circles I think we are a bit more in agreement than I originally figured.  I think the larger point is that access to sex is just easier these days.  Even if you’re not taking advantage of it (for whatever reason) you have no reason to seek a relationship when you can go online and find someone in a few hours, few days, few weeks willing to have sex without a relationship.  Hence, there is no need to lock yourself in so to speak.  I think we agree on that.  I just maintain that if you are going to use a perceived advantage (picking from the best), I’ll use one too (exploring and investing time with no commitment).  I just don’t think that either is a real advantage.
      
     No offense taken.  I know who and what I am.  I have some of the superficial qualities mentioned a lot on here which = attractiveness.  Tall, very physically fit (compared to Ryan Gosling a lot), six-figure salary, intelligent and educated with lots of interests.  Am I overrating myself?  I’m sure of it because I agree with Evan that EVERYONE overrates themselves to an extent.
      
     I was picky in my 20′s.  The online dating phenomenon has made me even more picky (as it has a lot of women).  As far as guys go, I get a lot of attention and options online (this is relative to females of course).  Because I am in my late-30′s now, most of my dating is relegated to online.  I just don’t find too many attractive women online and if I do, I compete with the 500 other e-mails she’s getting.  Of the women I find most attractive, I gotten dates with a few or I don’t get a response.  Months and years later I STILL see them online searching so obviously they’re overrrating themselves too or their expectations are as out of whack as mine have been.  Or they’re playing out of their league (bc women can do that) hoping those guys will commit to them but they inevitable find themselves back online burned out and ignoring e-mails…

119. Andrew 119

     Things are certainly different know. The current state of relationships is that women have been effectively liberated from the authority of men in the context of a relationship.
     However, the unintended consequence is that men have been liberated from their responsibilities to women in the context of a relationship.
     Of course, this really isn’t working out well for anyone.

120. Anita 120

     Tracy@1117: I get hit on by married men, too. Or flirted with, or they bare their souls about their boring or awful marriages, whatever. It’s weird. But these are the same guys who have to be married and think women who are aren’t married have something wrong with them. Go figure.
     Andrew@119: Who says this isn’t working out? It’s kinda great, actually. Today if you want a traditional marriage you can find that. If you want a gay marriage you can find that. If you want to be a single parent you can find that. If you want to live single and play around you can find that. If you want to be single and be celibate you can find that. If you want to be single and have a live-in relationship or a long-distance one or just a regular boyfriend/girlfriend you can find that. And plenty of people who will support your choices, whatever they may be.

121. Jenna 121

     Yes, it is harder to find a relationship, but I’m still greatful to have been born in the 80s and take advantage of so many opportunities and choices as a woman today. I would be miserable getting married at 22 to some nice guy and buying a house and putting career ,travel and personal development on the bacK burner. Some womem have similar needs to men – wanting influence, experiences, intellectual stimulation, conquering great challenges and having bold adventures. If I’m single forever, which I doubt, so be it, I had a vivid and interesting life. No woman can count 100 percent on getting a man and having a great relationship, you have to create your own life. While no gal should think she has endless options with men, nor should she any longer feel she has to marry the first commitment minded dullard to come along. 

122. Cat5 122

     As much as I dislike David Letterman and thought his mea culpa over his sex scandal (I mean…duh…it was your fault), I was listening to his interview with Oprah, and I think he hit the nail on the head.
      
     Oprah asked if he was going to counseling and he said that he was because he had always thought he was a good guy and then he had an affair and he realized he wasn’t.  So he’s been going to counseling to work on his issues and become a good guy.  I thought, wow!!!, that’s very insightful.
      
     I think far too many people, male and female, suffer from the same thing that David Letterman does.  They want to believe they are good people, but they don’t behave that way.  And in the dating/relationship world…that means people get hurt.
      
     We can all, male and female, stand to take a look at ourselves and make sure that when we are dating/in a relationship, that we are acting as a good decent person, and acting with integrity.  It doesn’t mean that you still won’t have relationships end.  It does mean that you will feel better about yourself, and so will the other person, if you do the right thing.

123. Alpha Girl 123

     Found this article very interesting.  Including the last paragraphs.
     http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/fashion/the-end-of-courtship.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

124. Karl R 124

     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “The man who now can theoretically have sex with every woman he meets without having to be their ‘beau’ or ‘husband’ or the women who have sex now hoping, as they did previously, that the sex would lead to a relationship? Who has the bounty?”
     Karmic Equation said: (#101)
     “I’ve had theoretical sex with Shemar Moore, Jude Law, Pierce Brosnan…and a few less famous guys.”
      
     Can you explain to me how your complaint in (#97) is consistent with your statement in (#101)? The two comments seem completely inconsistent to me.
      
     What’s the “bounty” of “theoretical sex” that men are getting that you’re not? Did Jude Law mistakenly believe that your theoretical sex with him would lead to a relationship?
      
     Fusee said: (#102)
     “In general terms, back then it was easy for a woman to get married because of social pressure encouraging men to make the ultimate commitment in order to have sex with a decent woman and to have his homemaking needs covered. It was not just about sex but a great incentive and a powerful drive.”
      
     I agree with this statement, but more importantly, I agree with the remainder of your post, because you looked at the larger implications.
      
     While it was easier for a woman to get married back then, it was harder for her to stay single. Both her financial security and social status were dependent upon her husband. That same social pressure trapped her into the role of a homemaker if she married, and it derided her as a “spinster” or “old maid” if she did not.
      
     My grandfather’s aunt (1875-1974) believed that “A woman should go to the altar with unkissed lips.” Since she was never married, that’s how she went to her grave. To the best of our knowledge, she had one date in her life (which was chaperoned). When she was moved into a nursing home (in her 90s) she remarked that it was the nicest place that she had ever lived. Sadly, that was probably true.
      
     Karmic Equation,
     You’re trying to romanticize a societal structure which frequently forced unmarried women like my grandfather’s aunt to live impoverished, sexless and childless lives. (Or labeled them “fallen women” if they avoided the sexless and childless parts.)
      
     Have you notice that “old maid” and “spinster” are no longer normal parts of our vocabulary?
      
     Karmic Equation,
     I’m sure you’ve met men who were interested in having sex with you, but had no interest in you as a person. Would you want to marry that man, because society was pressuring both of you into getting married? Would you want that man to make every effort to pretend that he would make a good husband just because he was desperate for sex?
      
     I don’t care how badly a woman wants a relationship (or marriage). No woman in her right mind wants to be married to (or in a long-term relationship with) that man.
      
     38 months ago I was having sex a few times per week and spending 5 nights per at the house of a woman. Neither of us had mentioned dating exclusively. Now she’s my wife. I didn’t marry her because of social pressure. I didn’t marry her because it was the only way I could get sex. I didn’t marry her because it was the only way I could have sex with her. I married her because I love her and want to be married to her for the rest of our lives.
      
     Good relationships aren’t built on a foundation of external social pressure.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#101)
     “I must be as stupid as you’ve implied. I don’t know what point I’ve proven. Please enlighten.”
      
     I stated that the sexual revolution had not reached full equality. You disagreed, and then gave an additional example of sexual inequality which still persisted to the present.
      
     If that explanation isn’t sufficiently enlightening, I’m not sure how it could be explained more clearly.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#97)
     “Women don’t have to risk anything for sex. I know that I can walk up to any guy and offer sex and he’d say yeah, let’s go. Can a man do that with any woman?”
     Karmic Equation revised her statement: (#101)
     “I can go up to ‘almost/practically any guy…who I can tell is attracted to me’…”
      
     When I could tell that a single woman was attracted to me, that was risk-free. I wasn’t getting rejected.
      
     I’m going to explain this in a way that may apply to your own life. (Since you’ve already established that you don’t think like most women, it might not apply to you. If it doesn’t, ask some other women who are more normal to explain it to you.)
      
     Think back to a time when you were very attracted to a man. I’m not talking about a time when you found a man attractive, but you masked it so he wouldn’t realize it. I’m talking about a man whom you found attractive, and you deliberately telegraphed your interest so he would pick up on it. I’m not talking about a time when you gave some subtle hints to get him wondering. I’m talking about a time when you were so blatant that he would pick up on it, even if he happened to be a bit clueless.
      
     Think of a time when you telegraphed your interest that strongly -and- the man approached you and made a pass at you.
      
     Did you think of a time which meets those criteria?
      
     When the man made a pass at you, did you reject him? Why not?
      
     If you can tell that a single man is attracted to you, then you already know that he doesn’t want to reject you. The “risk of rejection” that you keep talking about (#86, 97 & 101) doesn’t exist for women or men under those circumstances.
      
     The “risk” occurs when you’re not sure whether the other person likes you (or you’re not sure whether they’re single).
      
     And it’s not that big of a risk. When I was rejected, I didn’t end up dating a woman whom I was interested in. That was the worst outcome. Let’s take another look at the possible outcomes:
     1. I don’t ask the woman out, so I don’t date her.
     2. I ask the woman out; she has a boyfriend, so I don’t date her.
     3. I ask the woman out; she’s not interested, so I don’t date her.
     4. I ask the woman out; she’s single and interested, so we date.
      
     If I don’t ask her out, I get the undesirable outcome. If I ask her out, the worst I can do is get the same undesirable outcome.
      
     The “female power” which you describe sounds unimpressive to me.

125. Karmic Equation 125

     @Karl R

     We’re going to point-countpoint ad nauseum, so I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the details.

     I’ve always enjoyed your points, more so when they are directed at others of course, but this has been fun

     My whole premise is that while women did make gains with the Sexual Revolution, MEN also made gains that women hadn’t counted on. Andrew 119 said it best “The current state of relationships is that women have been effectively liberated from the authority of men in the context of a relationship. However, the unintended consequence is that men have been liberated from their responsibilities to women in the context of a relationship.”

     And as Tom said, women are still the one-down because women are fertile for far fewer years than men.

     Therefore, if men gain whenever women make gains, then effectively, women will never reach par with men. That’s why I am so totally against your suggestion that women take on the male role of asking out/risking rejection up front. That brings women down while giving men yet ANOTHER gain. The rich keep getting richer in your scenario.

     You might want to read this (http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2012/06/get-used-to-rejection.html) about rejection. Women get rejected too, but typically AFTER sex, but men get rejected BEFORE sex. And by all accounts from the men on this blog, that is kind of a rite of passage for men (learning how to take rejection well). Since for most women being rejected after sex is traumatic, most don’t want this to be rite of passage into womanhood.

     On a personal note, I’ve never had problems with gaining relationships and keeping them going, so my argument that the sexual revolution did a disservice to women *in the context of relationships* is for the other women on this blog who have trouble gaining/maintaining relationships. Those are the women for whom the sexual revolution giveth then taketh away.

     One detail I just HAVE to point out is that while “spinster” and “old maid” are no longer terms, “man whore” now is. Why do you think that is? (Rhetorical question, NRN).

     *************
     @Jenna

     You were born into a culture where you can travel, have a great paying job, and do lots of things (due industrial progress not sexual revolution) – so you EXPECT those things to be available to you. If you had been born in the 50′s or before, you would have expected what was available THEN, unless you were prescient. Back then, if the culture was to be married by age 25, you probably would have been married by age 25. Back then the great jobs for women were being “stewardesses” or “nurses”, so that’s probably what you would have been happy with.

     To put it another way, I would not be happy GOING BACK to a time before tampons were invented because I know they exist. You probably don’t even know about the contraptions and special undergarments that existed prior to tampons (or even stick on pads) being invented. But if I grew up in a time before those were invented, I would have been ok with whatever was available because I wouldn’t know about the existence of better things.

     *************
     @Helen

     It doesn’t matter if we both love our jobs, that’s not the point. The point is Women worked back in 50′s and before, too, but they weren’t EXPECTED to work and help provide for the family. *MEN* were expected to provide for their families. That is no longer the case, so don’t you think that’s a +1 for men? Yet men are NOT YET EXPECTED to shoulder 50% of the household and childcare chores. Women still are…on top of putting in 40 hour weeks at work. You don’t think this is a double-whammy for women?

     On the surface, I would agree with you, Karl R, and Fusee that we now have the freedom to find happier, healthier relationships. However, that doesn’t mean that people prior to the sexual revolution NEVER found happy or healthy relationships. I would think that instead of looking for the HAPPIEST RELATIONSHIP EVER, like we do now, folks probably “settled” for “happy enough”. Was that really so wrong?

     ****************

     Look, I am taking full advantage of both the equal rights movement and sexual revolution. I’m not the one lamenting that there aren’t enough high-value men to have relationships/marriage with. My point was simply that men got gains that weren’t expected, while women took on losses they never expected, so there was really a zero-sum gain for women, if not a net loss. Women didn’t get the deal we thought we were getting. http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/12/02/hookinguprealities/have-women-been-screwed-by-the-sexual-revolution/

126. Karl R 126

     Karmic Equation said: (#125)
     “My whole premise is that while women did make gains with the Sexual Revolution, MEN also made gains that women hadn’t counted on.”
      
     Why does that matter?
      
     If I get a $3,000 bonus at work, that’s a benefit to me. The amount of benefit I receive from a $3,000 bonus remains unchanged even if my coworker gets a $1,000 or $3,000 or $5,000 bonus (or no bonus at all).
      
     The mere fact that men received a benefit does not reduce or eliminate the benefit that women received.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#125)
     “men are NOT YET EXPECTED to shoulder 50% of the household and childcare chores. Women still are…on top of putting in 40 hour weeks at work. You don’t think this is a double-whammy for women?”
      
     I’d call this a failure to find alternate solutions. In my household, with our combined incomes, we can easily afford to hire a maid. (No kids, so that doesn’t apply to us.) Not only do we have more money as a couple, but we can spend less time on housework than when we were both single.
      
     I consider it to be a “domestic tranquility” expense.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#125)
     “The point is Women worked back in 50′s and before, too, but they weren’t EXPECTED to work and help provide for the family. *MEN* were expected to provide for their families. That is no longer the case, so don’t you think that’s a +1 for men?”
      
     You’re ignoring the big benefit that women saw from this change. in the 50s (and before) many women were trapped in unhappy and even abusive marriages because they had no other way to provide for their families. Now the same women have the ability to leave bad marriages knowing that they can support themselves and their families.
      
     You’re going to distort your view of the relative benefits that women gained if you blatantly ignore some of the dark realities of the 50s.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#125)
     “Therefore, if men gain whenever women make gains, then effectively, women will never reach par with men.”
      
     That’s just poor math.
      
     You’re ignoring the magnitude of the gains. To give you a simple analogy, let’s say I have $100 and you have $50. Every time you gain $2, I gain $1. It doesn’t matter that I’m gaining whenever you gain. You will eventually surpass me because the magnitude was in your favor.
      
     Or to put it in terms of a karmic equation, that’s like claiming that you murdered someone, but you also helped an old lady across the street … so everything’s even.
      
     You are saying that authority and responsibility are equal. I disagree. In my early 20s, I had the option to move home (placing myself under my parents authority) in order to gain the benefit of them taking responsibility for my basic welfare. I was unemployed, broke and starving at the time, so it was not an easy decision. I eventually decided that I’d rather maintain my own autonomy (even knowing how high the price could be).
      
     Perhaps you’d be willing to accept someone’s absolute authority in order to gain them taking complete responsibility for your welfare. I would rather starve to death.
      
     And every one of the examples you gave includes the same flaw to the reasoning.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#125)
     “That’s why I am so totally against your suggestion that women take on the male role of asking out/risking rejection up front. That brings women down while giving men yet ANOTHER gain.”
      
     This is a perfect example.
      
     I’d never suggest that men and women swap roles. I’d lose too much if they did.
      
     You’re completely ignoring the benefit that comes with asking people out. You have the opportunity to seize the initiative. You’re not stuck passively waiting for something to happen. You’re out making something happen.
      
     If women also start asking men out, they will face rejection. But they’ll avoid being stuck in a passive role. It’s not an equal trade.

127. marymary 127

     Re 125/6
     Asking a man out is really not that big a deal.  Women give birth and can,t handle the “rejection” of a man saying no?  As for online, the man wouldn’t know you if he passed you in the street.  How can he reject you? Mind you, he said yes. If he.d said no I may be singing a different tune. I hope not, I find these days I,m quite Teflon coated.
     we no longer, thankfully, have the double standard that a woman has to be a virgin, or near enough, when she marries, while a man is expected to have had experience. I,m up on that deal.
     I get karmic,s point that being rejected before or after sex are different animals entirely.
     Re high value men, yep that tall, higher earning, committed, reliable yet exciting, good looking man, with off the charts chemistry and total faithfulness is hard to find. BECAUSE HE DOESN.T EXIST. And if he does he’s dating rosie huntingdon whitely…. I just googled him. He,s losing his hair so even  her boyfriend wouldn’t be good enough for some of us.

128. Karmic Equation 128

     @Karl R 126

     I really didn’t want to continue our point-by-point…but ok. Here we go!

     “If I get a $3,000 bonus at work, that’s a benefit to me. The amount of benefit I receive from a $3,000 bonus remains unchanged even if my coworker gets a $1,000 or $3,000 or $5,000 bonus (or no bonus at all).”

     So do you tell your coworkers what your bonus was? If yes, ok, then it doesn’t matter. But if not, why not? Because it’s not ok for you to make more than they, if you’re all doing the same work. So for true equality, they should get the same bonus or you should get less.

     “I’d call this a failure to find alternate solutions. In my household, with our combined incomes, we can easily afford to hire a maid. (No kids, so that doesn’t apply to us.) Not only do we have more money as a couple, but we can spend less time on housework than when we were both single.”

     Good solution. However, did you or your wife set up the screening of the housekeeping staff? Who made sure they got a key? Who called the references? Who checks around the house after they’re gone to make sure nothing is missing? Who calls when something wasn’t done right? Who calls for special cleaning days prior to parties, etc?

     We’re not talking about expenses, but the grunt work to either do the work or arrange the work.

     “Or to put it in terms of a karmic equation, that’s like claiming that you murdered someone, but you also helped an old lady across the street … so everything’s even.”

     Are you really equating marriage with murder? And sexual liberation with crossing the street? Or are you equating sexual liberation with murder and marriage with crossing the street? Either way, it’s not *my* math that’s bad.

     “You’re completely ignoring the benefit that comes with asking people out. You have the opportunity to seize the initiative. You’re not stuck passively waiting for something to happen. You’re out making something happen. If women also start asking men out, they will face rejection. But they’ll avoid being stuck in a passive role. It’s not an equal trade.”

     I think this is really the crux of our disagreement. A man’s power is to hunt; a woman’s power is to reap. As a woman, my job is to filter (sift) out men who are not good mates, not to hunt for him. And women should be gathering as many men to choose from as they can, so that she can *most efficiently* find the right one (i.e., circular dating a la Rori Raye). I have two easy filters to decide if a man is worth my time:

     1) Does a man like me enough to approach?
     2) Is he BRAVE/confident enough to approach?

     If a man doesn’t pass through both these two easy filters at the minimum, I don’t want him (and he doesn’t want me)…so why should I waste time on that man? We’re not suited.

     If I were to approach a man, I don’t obtain those two pieces of information. I’d be flying blind. Who in their right mind does that?

     “You’re not stuck passively waiting for something to happen.”

     In another thread you correctly changed the term “passive” to “reactive.” I completely agree with the term reactive. Being a woman you have to REACT astutely to a man you are interested in to ensure something more happens. When I’m looking my best, ensuring that I’m approachable, radiating all my goddessness (this term makes me laugh, it’s so OTT, but the message is clearer. Goddesses collect worshippers, she doesn’t hunt for them), I’m far from “passive” — I’m not even sure the word “reactive” is the right word as I’m actively and semi-consciously emitting good energies. When I’m doing all that radiating, the right men, as well as the wrong men, approach. Then I use other criteria to filter out the wrong men. And “wrong” is situational. A good man approaching me is the wrong man, if I’m not emotionally available. A “bad” man approaching me could be the right man if I’m only looking for a fling.

129. Mickey 129

     Karmic 128 said:
     1) Does a man like me enough to approach?
     2) Is he BRAVE/confident enough to approach?
     The problem with that is that it can lead to this rather vicious cycle:
     A) Many women claim to want confident men when it comes to dating;
     B) These same women get their rocks off destroying a guy’s confidence at every turn; then
     C) They complain that they cant find any confident men.
     Ironic, isn’t it???

130. Mickey 130

     @Karmic:
     You also mentioned that a man’s power is as a hunter. What if he’s an accountant instead?

131. Karl R 131

     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “it’s not ok for you to make more than they, if you’re all doing the same work. So for true equality, they should get the same bonus or you should get less.”
      
     If we’re all doing the same work, why is it true equality if I get less bonus?
      
     You don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word equality.
      
     Assuming I’ve done the same work as my coworker, under which circumstances is it true equality for me to get the same bonus as my coworker, and under which circumstances is it true equality for me to get less bonus than my coworker?
      
     What if I did more work? Is it equality if I do more work and my coworkers receive the same bonus as I do? Or should I receive a larger bonus if I do more work?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “A man’s power is to hunt; a woman’s power is to reap.”
      
     So you’re opposed to men and women doing the same work. Therefore, if equality is going to be considered, we should each receive a benefit comparable to our work.
      
     I find it interesting that you chose the words “hunt” and “reap”.
      
     Reap:
     1. to gather or take (a crop, harvest, etc.).
     2. to get as a return, recompense, or result: to reap large profits.
      
     According to Karmic Equation, the woman’s power is to gain a benefit without putting in an effort. (Sowing and tending are the verbs which describe putting in an effort. Reaping is the verb used to describe gaining the benefit of your own … or someone else’s … sowing and tending.)
      
     Hunt:
     1. to search for; seek; endeavor to obtain or find.
      
     According to Karmic Equation, the man’s power is to expend effort without necessarily recognizing a benefit for those efforts.
      
     Again, you don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word equality … but it makes more sense why you’re opposed to altering this system.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “And women should be gathering as many men to choose from as they can, so that she can *most efficiently* find the right one (i.e., circular dating a la Rori Raye).”
      
     I can see how it’s more efficient for you to have a dozen men pursuing you whom you can choose from. However, it seems considerably less efficient for the dozen men who are pursuing you.
      
     Your interest in equality seems to disappear any time you’re discussing a situation where you believe women have an advantage.
      
     Yet again, you don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word equality.
      
     Karmic Equation asked: (#128)
     “1) Does a man like me enough to approach?
     2) Is he BRAVE/confident enough to approach?
     If I were to approach a man, I don’t obtain those two pieces of information. I’d be flying blind. Who in their right mind does that?”
      
     Every man who approaches you goes in flying blind without those two pieces of information.
      
     Is it your contention that men aren’t in their right mind? Or do you think that men should be the only ones to take the risk of flying blind?
      
     Shall we say it in unison? You don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of the word equality.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “it’s not *my* math that’s bad.”
      
     Um … you seem to be having some difficulty grasping the fundamental concept of “equal.”
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “In another thread you correctly changed the term ‘passive’ to ‘reactive.’”
      
     I was referring to the concept of mirroring. If you’re sitting around passively waiting for someone to approach, what are your reacting to?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “I’m far from ‘passive’ — I’m not even sure the word ‘reactive’ is the right word as I’m actively and semi-consciously emitting good energies.”
      
     Yeah. Right. That sounds … um … active.
      
     Do me a favor. Look up the definition of “active.”
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#128)
     “I’m looking my best, ensuring that I’m approachable, radiating all my goddessness”
     “Goddesses collect worshippers,”
      
     You are truly batting .000 with this concept of equality.

132. Helen 132

     Oh Karl R.  I was going to write my own rejoinder, but then read yours and laughed and laughed.
      
     The only thing I have to add is that plenty of goddesses across cultures worldwide are hunters.  Look up Artemis/Diana.  Or Kali.  Or Durga.  Or the wonderful Ur-goddess Ishtar, from whom the more milk-soppish Aphrodite was derived.  I’d rather be this type of goddess anyday, than some poor fool stuck in an altar collecting worshippers.

133. Karmic Equation 133

     @Karl R

     I enjoy being a woman. You enjoy being a man. In none of my posts have I “treated you like an incompetent woman” (I think Evan quoted this from a book, Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus?) — Yet you continue to talk to me like an incompetent man. I resent that. I don’t want to be a man. I want to be a woman. I don’t NEED to hunt for dates, dates find me. So stop telling me I’m missing out. I’m not.

     If my objective is to get dates, and men approach me to ask me for them, I got what I wanted: dates. And I didn’t have to do anything DIRECTLY. I got them INDIRECTLY by being feminine and attractive (from dictionary.com, attract, v. – “to draw by appealing to the emotions or senses, by stimulating interest, or by exciting admiration; allure; invite: to attract attention; to attract admirers by one’s charm.”) — And yes, Karl R, being attractive in this sense is very, very ACTIVE but indirect, something as a man you are not a fan of. GREAT! I love that men love being direct. There’s something sexy about a man’s directness. As shown in the Bizarro-world video, a woman’s directness may not be so sexy.

     Equality is not women becoming more like men; and equality is not men becoming more like women — a la Bizarro-world video — Equality is giving both the masculine and feminine powers equal value, and celebrating both, without saying the other side has to give something up or give something more or whatever they have is not worth having. In this case, if I want to put my energies into being attractive prey, I’m just as active as you are at seeking prey. Your way is direct. My way is indirect. Why is your way right and my way wrong?

     @Helen

     And Helen you naturally exhibited indirectness — you slung an insult at me without mentioning me at all. Indirectness is one of the feminine powers. You wield it well. You got your point across without getting your hands dirty directly. That came naturally, right? You do know men are not good at indirectness (unless flirting), don’t you? Now extend that indirectness to dating and life. Men don’t understand the power of indirectness and they’re telling us to get rid of it, (Karmic, you’re not taking life by the horns if you don’t ASK men for a date, yada yada; you’re losing out, Karmic, if you don’t ask men out; or it’s no big deal to ask men out, why be wallflower). I hear the pro-action pep talk, but there is also the hidden message that men just want to shirk another responsibility and foist that onto women as well, in the name of “equality.”

     I’m not sitting around doing nothing but collecting worshippers. Worshippers fall at my feet wherever I go. I karaoke, I get dates. I shoot pool I get dates. I go drink with friends at bars, I get dates. And my objective at those places is NOT to get dates but to enjoy my life, to socialize, or build skills I can have fun with and be proud of. I love animals so I wouldn’t dream of hunting any of them. So while the idea of hunting sounds oh so powerful, the actual fact of hunting is not so fun. No offense to those hunting goddesses. To hunt men as a woman, you don’t ask them out. That’s like shooting fish in a barrel. To hunt men when you’re a woman you have to become irresistable prey. You bait the trap with yourself. It is fun, empowering, and motivating. No animals get hurt. what is wrong with that?

     @marymary

     I’ve never needed to ask men out (although I did proposition a man once when I was angry/jealous about a beau). Men I find attractive end up asking me out. I don’t know when or how it happened, but I don’t find men who don’t me attractive attractive. If I scan a room and see a good looking guy, and he doesn’t approach at some point, at some point he becomes less attractive. At the same time an average-looking man who does approach becomes more attractive. Guess it doesn’t work that way for most women.

134. Karmic Equation 134

     Sorry for the double post. Forgot to respond to Mickey.

     @Mickey 129

     Yes. It is ironic. Believe me, those aren’t the women who’ll make you happy.

     I’m not one of those. I always talk to men who approach me. But they’ll know by the end of the conversation whether or not I’m interested. Usually it’s no, and they know that without ever having to ask directly, so they actually don’t hear any outright rejection from me.

     I’ve caught a man’s eye as he’s approaching and with body language told him not to bother. Maybe a barely noticeable shake of my head. They weren’t offended by that. It saved them time.

     @Mickey 130

     Hmmm…Probably not for me then? LOL. I think men are at their best when they’re hunting. Now whether they’re at their most honest? Probably not. The fun is in figuring them out.

135. Karl R 135

     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “Equality is giving both the masculine and feminine powers equal value, and celebrating both,”
     “Your way is direct. My way is indirect. Why is your way right and my way wrong?”
      
     Why is my way the “masculine” way? Why is your way the “feminine” way?
      
     Why is your way wrong for men? Why is my way wrong for women?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “I don’t NEED to hunt for dates, dates find me.”
      
     Dates find the man who is a lead singer in a rock band. He doesn’t need to hunt for dates. He has a penis. Why do you label his way as the feminine way?
      
     How does this situation (which already exists in the real world) create a “Bizarro-world” situation? Why is his way wrong?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “I hear the pro-action pep talk, but there is also the hidden message that men just want to shirk another responsibility”
      
     As a kid, my mother continually told me, “With freedom comes responsibility.” If I wanted to move out of the house and get freedom from the family rules, I had to accept the responsibility of supporting myself. (I happily made that trade-off.)
      
     Are you saying that my parents were shirking their responsibility for supporting me?
      
     I had the freedom to choose where I lived. Do you think my parents had the responsibility for paying my rent? (If they had, I would have chosen to live in a much nicer apartment.)
      
     By the way, do you believe men have the “responsibility” to approach you? They don’t. They have the option to approach. They sometimes choose to exercise that option.
      
     Why do you believe that it’s their responsibility to approach you (or any other woman)? Isn’t the success of your own dating efforts your own responsibility?
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “Yet you continue to talk to me like an incompetent man. I resent that.”
      
     I’m not talking to you like an incompetent man. I’m talking to you like you’re an incompetent debater.
      
     If you resent it, step up your game.
      
     And if you offer the slightest suggestion that debate is somehow a masculine endeavor, I’m going to encourage Helen, A-L, Selena, Honey, Starthrower68 and Sayanta to tear you as many new ones as required to disabuse you of that notion.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “being attractive in this sense is very, very ACTIVE but indirect,”
      
     You stopped using dictionary.com one sentence too soon.
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “To hunt men when you’re a woman you have to become irresistable prey. You bait the trap with yourself. [...] No animals get hurt.”
      
      
     You know that you find rejection scary (#101). You know that you get hurt when you’re rejected (#125). You know that you’re trying to attract as many men as possible (#128), which means you’ll end up rejecting most of them. You have become aware that many men eventually learn to deal with rejection through repeated exposure (#101 & 133), though some don’t.
      
     You can’t even convince yourself that nobody gets hurt.
      
     Save us some time. Don’t bother trying to convince me with arguments that you don’t believe. You’re having a hard enough time when you’re using arguments that I don’t believe.
      
     And if you think traps don’t hurt animals (literal animals, not figurative animals), test out a rat trap with your finger. Use whichever finger you find least useful. (You’ll thank me for that last piece of advice.)
      
     Karmic Equation said: (#133)
     “Indirectness is one of the feminine powers.”
     “Men don’t understand the power of indirectness and they’re telling us to get rid of it,”
      
     Helen,
     I invite you to explain to Karmic Equation what I’ve been doing indirectly during this debate.

136. Helen 136

     Karl R: I would, but I’m being indirect. That’s one of my feminine powers. Remember?
      
     No, really, I would, but it is NOT my intention to insult Karmic or to make her feel bad.  If I laugh at your comments, it’s because I find them clever and funny, not as an indirect insult to her. 
      
     Instead I’ll speak directly to Karmic. If what you say is true, that you, too, get flocks of men attracted to you, then I’ll posit that there are at least two ways to achieve that. One is a proactive way. Another is, frankly, not a proactive way. So clearly it is not proactiveness or lack thereof that determines attractiveness. I would posit that it is happiness with oneself.
      
     For that reason, I would encourage women to do and to find the things that make them happy rather than to follow “The Rules” or be untrue to themselves. Without intending it, they will then attract enormously – both men and women, both would-be-lovers and friends.

137. Michelle 137

     Karmic, I’m coming in to support you.  I know exactly what you’re saying.  Men and women are built to court in person, so we’re going to take on line out of it because it’s backwards in the courtship process.  When out and about in the real world, women ALWAYS make the first move.  They smile and hold eye contact, if he’s interested, he approaches.  She lets him know she’s interested primarily with submission signals, playing with her hair, tilting her head, smiling, holding eye contact, etc. 
     I also agree with your hunter/reap definition, masculinity is about doing/aggressive, femininity is about feeling/receiving.  If a woman wants to take the male role, she’s does that at a bigger risk as she’ll never really know his attraction factor.  Sure, are there exceptions where is works out perfectly when she pursues (although there are some men who have a predominance of feminine energy and vice versa, nothing wrong with that, just not the norm), yes…like Evan says though, that doesn’t disprove the rule. 

     For the original argument, women have benefited from birth control/femininism by not having to marry just to survive, however, she also is in her masculine energy much more and with a house and kids, jobs & careers rarely gets to build her feminine energy–that leads to much unahppiness and stress for her.  She also cannot often cannot do what comes naturally, focus on taking care of her children.  Men benefited because now they get to enjoy their children and contribute more to their upbringing, but also they have access to more ‘free’ sex without responsibility than ever. 

     It’s not a perfect world!  Bottom line though is that reptilian brain, human instincts have been around for millions of years, and I don’t think they are going away any time soon–and neither do they change (even with technology!).  What does change is the mammalian and higher brains through societial influences and general maturing.

     Men and women are equal, and different.

138. starthrower68 138

     This one is such a toughie for me.  I’m still working through some early emotional bruises; the “inner child of the past” learned that she had to earn someone’s love therefore always had to be “doing” to keep it.  Because I was rejected at an early age, I haven’t learned yet how to take it well.  I mean, there have been instances that I have been ok with it because I was not interested in someone.  But the 3 or 4 times that I was really interested in someone, it touched those unresolved hurts.  I am and have been in therapy for it, and still wonder if I’ll ever overcome it.

139. marymary 139

     I agree with Helen, be true to yourself.  What I did do was exercise my judgement. I  will now only date a fellow Christian. The chances of meeting one in a bar is very small. I met my boyfriend at church. most men who grew up in church aren’t slick at hunting women.  Therefore, I had to be more proactive.
     after months of friendship I kicked it up and suggested we go out.   I was fully prepared to walk away with my head held high had he said no, or said yes out of politeness. true, I was happy with myself.  We went to a restaurant in the city and walked hand in hand along  the river.
     He,s confident, knows his  own mind, is unshakeable on his beliefs, manly, protective, likes to provide for me, loyal, competitive and physically fit.  It,s kinda laughable to me to suggest that I have the manly role.   I do know his attraction factor, he,s very attracted to me. It,s true he didn,t go into hot pursuit but revealed it slowly over weeks of dating. I find that a more reliable indicator than someone who,s all over me immediately.  that has failed me upteen times in the past.  I,ve learned not to trust that anymore. What does it prove that a man finds me sexually attractive within minutes?
      i,m glad i didn,t pass him up because of any Rules. If I had left him behind for someone more aggressive i could still be batting my eyelids and tossing my hair to no avail. and getting a lot of funny looks in church. 
     i get that my situation is somewhat unique but if the traditional roles have broken down take advantage of it! You really can be as unique as you want and still meet someone. Provided you make some effort. Present youself well and leave the house at least. That hasn,t changed.

140. Karmic Equation 140

     @Michelle 137

     Thank you! Your support is much appreciated. I was feeling a little lonely with my beliefs.

     What you said is exactly what I meant, plus you added a few more topics that I hadn’t considered, but certainly germane to my original point. Thank you.

     @Helen 136

     Thank you. I’ve appreciated both your directness and indirectness.

     I absolutely agree with you that “happiness with oneself” is what is attractive and to be true to oneself and not follow “The Rules.”

     Proactiveness or or Receptiveness are just two different ways to obtain the same objective: dates/mates.

     Just to be clear, I can be and have been proactive with men I’m proactive when I’m interested in sex and not relationships. I’ve approached men (admittedly only two of them in the last 18 years) whom I was attracted to and asked for sex – indirectly, of course, “You wanna get outta here?”

     However, if it’s not simply sex I’m interested in, I let the guy approach. What this means is that if the guy I find attractive and may want a relationship with doesn’t approach me, then I get neither the sex nor the relationship. I’m fine with that. But I feel I’m alone in thinking that asking a guy out diminishes rather enhances the potential of a relationship with said guy, particularly if he’s the alpha type. Of course a relationship CAN happen IN SPITE OF the proactiveness, but I feel that a happy relationship resulting from asking a guy out is IN SPITE OF the flip-flopping of the hunter/prey roles not BECAUSE OF it (http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2012/03/because-of-versus-in-spite-of.html). It *DOES* work for the beta or shy guys (http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2013/01/the-dynamics-of-dating-shy-men.html). But in this blog, most women aren’t interested in the beta/shy guys.

     @starthrower68

     I’m sorry to hear about how your past has harmed your present. Therapy will help, but may take a while. Be patient, but be proactive about changing your mindset.

     It’s never easy to get over rejection (http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2012/06/get-used-to-rejection.html). You will always be hurt if you get rejected, you wouldn’t be human if you weren’t. But rejection DOES build character. The important thing is to not give up and LEARN from the rejection. Did you pick the wrong kind of guy for you? If he was a jerk, were there warning signs you turned a blind eye to? Were you too needy? Too aloof? Figure out what YOU can do differently with the next guy. Have a plan. Maybe it’s as simple as picking a different type of guy. But change/adapt behaviors and mindsets YOU can control yourself. Don’t take it personally, but take it as a learning experience and make sure you APPLY what you learned from the rejection into your next relationship.

141. starthrower68 141

     @ Karmic, thank you.  Your points are well taken.  I maintain that men and women are good and bad from the standpoint that humans are neither all of one or the other.  We live in a  an age where egalitarianism is valued above all else, even to our detriment.  We are not teaching our boys to be men and we’re teaching our girls males are not necessary and gender lines are being increasingly blurred.  Our culture has become a huge social engineering project which has ill effects on society.  Men and women have *always* been equal in terms of value, but different in terms of what we bring to the table.  There is a reason God created two genders.

142. Paula 142

     the pay issue is also dependent on what the market pays for it. for example, admin jobs have a certain pay scale which is 20-36k. That’s not going to change much. Someone in sales may make more and get commission. HR or CEOs do not have the say, they look at what the industry standard is. here’s one site for reference http://www.payscale.com/
      
     As a feminist, I must say I love men and I love getting dick. I am not angry. Yes I’ve experienced anger towards men but it doesn’t last forever. Men have their pros and cons just like women. I object to any media person telling me how I feel. I decide how I feel and I don’t need anyone making assumptions that I am angry towards men.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply