Why Men Should Court Women Again

Why Men Should Court Women Again

Chivalry is not dead, but in some circles, it is on life support. While women lament the lack of effort men make in dating, most men are either clueless about chivalry or fighting against it. On this episode, I’m going to give you a compelling argument as to why courtship is good for men and what women can do to encourage better male behavior.


Watch: YouTube

Enjoy the podcast? Please leave a short review on iTunes by clicking “View in iTunes” and then “Ratings and Reviews.”

Join our conversation (329 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 31
    Karmic Equation

    Chance and SQ, let’s take “paying and providing” out of the equation in this male vs female roles.

    Most women tend to be afraid of mice. We see one. We scream. We jump on a chair and cry for our S.O. to get rid of it! — Typical female role/behavior. Both men and women accept that this is how women tend to behave. You can call this woman’s behavior socialization. Or you can call this biology. But regardless of the reason, this is how most women behave.

    What you and Chance are saying is that we need to accept men behaving this way. He sees a mouse. He jumps on a chair. And he cries for his S.O. to get rid of it. Because we can and should accept any behavior as gender neutral and not see his jumping-on-chair as masculine or feminine behavior.

    Intellectually, yes, that’s the way it SHOULD be.

    But, you know. I’m going find it difficult in perceiving and treating this jump-on-a-chair man as someone I want to have sex with because I view jumping on a chair screaming bloody murder as very female. And I don’t want to bang a woman.

    Maybe Chance would love his woman more for slaying that mouse for him when he jumps on a chair. And he’ll make sure that she’s well taken care of that night in bed. And maybe SQ would have no issue with a man screaming bloody murder when he sees a mouse and still perceive him as her sexy hero that night in bed.

    Fine. That is both your prerogatives. That doesn’t make you wrong.

    However, I really don’t want a man who jumps on chairs when he sees a mouse. That’s my prerogative. And I believe most women don’t want that guy. And I believe most men don’t want to be that guy.

    However, SQ and Chance, you’re both saying that a woman NOT accepting that jump-on-a-chair guy makes her “wrong”. More than that, you’re both saying that the woman SHOULD become the mouse slayer if her guy decides he wants to be the jump-on-chair guy.

    It’s insidious. What Chance proposes as equality is just another way of framing what MEN want as more important than what women want, socially.

    Let’s go back to my basic belief: Men control society and culture (through prominence in politics, business, and religions). Giving men “equality” in the few customs where men perceive women as having the edge erodes those customs for women. As I’ve written many times in this blog, until the underdog has equality, giving “equality” to the one already in power in those few areas they don’t have power, in the big picture, ensures that the underdog NEVER gets out from under.

    There’s more to being a man or a woman than their plumbing. So anyone who says both genders are the same, should behave the same, should want the same, are ignoring the “more than” part that makes each gender that gender we want to have a relationship with.

    If that were not the case, then there should be no such thing as homosexuality. Men should be able to have romantic relationships with feminine men; and women should be able to have romantic relationships with masculine women.

    That’s not how reality works. I’m not even sure that’s how Utopia is supposed to work.

    1. 31.1
      Karmic Equation

      Editor, please change this sentence and add masculine and feminine where indicated:

      If that were not the case, then there should be no such thing as homosexuality. <Masculine> men should be able to have romantic relationships with feminine men; and <feminine> women should be able to have romantic relationships with masculine women. 

    2. 31.2
      Chance

      KE,

      “However, SQ and Chance, you’re both saying that a woman NOT accepting that jump-on-a-chair guy makes her “wrong”. More than that, you’re both saying that the woman SHOULD become the mouse slayer if her guy decides he wants to be the jump-on-chair guy.”

       

      This is a straw-man example, at best, if not a faulty analogy altogether.  You are not wrong for not being attracted to a guy who jumps on a chair and screams when he sees a mouse.  However, it isn’t really appropriate to expect him to get it for you just because he’s a guy.  That said, most of us guys would probably get the mouse because it isn’t a big deal if the guy is already over there.  Back when I was single, I did have a female friend ask me to come over to her place and get a roach for her, which was an annoyance.  While I did it, I was irritated.  When we were out a few days later, I pointed out that she didn’t really need me for that.

       

      Some gender roles aren’t harmful (like this you mentioned, and very unlike how a man is often times expected to carry the financial burden in a relationship).  Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with being attracted/not attracted to certain characteristics in men/women, but it is not appropriate to expect them to do certain things for you just because of their gender – especially if it is going to be harmful.  However, if it isn’t going to be harmful or quite an inconvenience, he will probably do it for you anyway.

       

      “It’s insidious. What Chance proposes as equality is just another way of framing what MEN want as more important than what women want, socially.”

       

      Not at all.  Not even remotely.  Not sure how you could interpret the idea that people shouldn’t be expected to follow gender-based roles as framing what men want as being more important than what women want.  Pretty much all men love and are very attracted to a woman who can cook, and one who will cook for him on a regular basis (traditional female gender role).  However, most young women can’t even cook, and the ones who can don’t believe it is their role to do so.  They generally believe that if he wants a home-cooked meal, then he should make it for himself, or they can cook it together.  While men don’t find this trait and attitude to be attractive, and they are not wrong for not being attracted to it, do you believe that they have the right to expect a woman to cook for them every night even though it may be physically draining?  If the woman doesn’t feel it is fair for her to be expected to cook for him each night when he isn’t expected to do that for her, is she considering her wants to be more important than his wants?

       

      “Let’s go back to my basic belief: Men control society and culture (through prominence in politics, business, and religions). Giving men “equality” in the few customs where men perceive women as having the edge erodes those customs for women. As I’ve written many times in this blog, until the underdog has equality, giving “equality” to the one already in power in those few areas they don’t have power, in the big picture, ensures that the underdog NEVER gets out from under.”

       

      I’ve recently asked you once before, but you never provided me with an answer:  where is your evidence that men control women in American society?  What evidence do you have that women are being discriminated against, which is resulting in more men being in powerful positions  (never mind that this consists of a tiny percentage of men, anyways) in the States?  Finally, what rights do men have that women do not have here in the States?  Before you say it, just because more men are in power positions doesn’t mean women are being discriminated against.

       

      “There’s more to being a man or a woman than their plumbing. So anyone who says both genders are the same, should behave the same, should want the same, are ignoring the “more than” part that makes each gender that gender we want to have a relationship with.”

       

      Agree.  There is nothing wrong with wanting the opposite sex to adhere to traditional gender roles if one is willing to adhere to traditional gender roles his/herself.  However, it is not appropriate to expect it of others.  Finally, and this is big, it is completely unfair to pick and choose what gender roles that one wants to remain in place, while simultaneously discarding other gender roles, based whether such a role results in a benefit or obligation to that person.

      1. 31.2.2
        Karmic Equation

        Hi Chance,

        You probably don’t know this…or maybe you do, but you have a habit of changing the nuance of an argument to make your point, when the nuance changes the point altogether.

        1) How is jumping on a chair screaming bloody murder a “characteristic”? Jumping on a chair and screaming bloody murder are gender neutral behaviors that either gender can choose to indulge in or not. Exactly what you’re trying to convey “paying and providing” should be. Your premise: both genders can pay, so both genders should pay. My analogy was the same. Both genders can jump on a chair and scream bloody murder and both genders can “get rid of it”. The behavior I was comparing paying and providing to was the “jumping on a chair and screaming bloody murder” — you changed the focus to “getting rid of it”. That wasn’t my point at all.

        Oh yes, I brought up the point that you and SQ wanted the woman to become the mouse slayer. That’s why you made the jump.

        My point about the insidiousness of your so-called equality is not that we’re expecting the man to be the mouse slayer, but rather that if the MAN DECIDES he wants to be the one jumping on the chair, then the WOMAN THEN must become the mouse slayer, due to HIS DECISION FIRST. In other words, the inequality is that a woman should change based on what the man decides. He wants to be the hero, she should be the hero-worshipper. He wants to be the damsel in distress, she needs to be the dragon slayer. He doesn’t feel like courting, then the woman should court.

        Determining a woman’s ACTIONS based on a man’s DECISION is the inequality I’m against.

        If a man decides he doesn’t want to court. No problem. He’s not wrong. He takes a risk in not getting another date. Thus he is ineffective.

        If a woman wants another date. Paying does not guarantee her another date. Having sex does not guarantee a relationship. Living together does not guarantee a marriage. Doing any of those three things does not hedge her bets for getting what she wants. Yet women do these things every day. One could argue that all of those behaviors are harmful and ineffective for a woman, if she chooses the wrong man.

        Well, doh. A man courts the wrong woman, sure, he gets taken advantage of.

        Moral of the story: men need to think with both heads when dating, and women need to think. Period. Not just “feel”.

        It’s not the BEHAVIOR, nor is it even the EXPECTATION, it’s the choice. Choose well, you have good results (“You can’t do the wrong thing with the right guy/girl”). Choose poorly, you get bad ones (“You can do all things right, and the results will still be bad.”)

        2) Are men who don’t pay for dates “discriminated” against? I didn’t talk about discrimination, but rather who has the POWER. Why don’t you tell me where in society women make the rules?

        In fact, the rules for courting weren’t even made by women, but by men. Dowries, the original form of “courtship”, were created by fathers selling their daughters to the highest bidder for marriage. It was ok when MEN were the beneficiaries of “courting” — but now that courting has morphed into benefitting women, men are up in arms. “Why should SHE benefit and not me??” — Again, women didn’t create the custom of courting. The fact that some men in the past decided to right a wrong and start treating women as people instead of property has morphed a custom that only benefitted men to one that only benefits women is the pendulum swinging to the other side.

        As you’ve and Karl S have indicated, millenials seem to be finding the center. Probably in another generation, courting will be something else or disappear altogether.

        3) Do men court every night after a relationship begins? No. If you follow the complaints of women on this board, they complain that men don’t text, call, compliment, remember anniversaries or birthdays, etc., after a regular sexual relationship has been established. Which means men stop courting about the same time he starts taking her for granted. For some men, it happens right after sex. For others it’s after the honeymoon period. But most men stop courting at anywhere from 3 dates to 3 years.

        A man decides he doesn’t want to court anymore and the woman has to change her expectations and either accept or dump him. Again, a man’s decision about his own behavior forces the woman to adapt or lose what she has. How fair is this? Who benefits from the discontinued courting when there is an established committed relationship? Not the woman.

        Do men “pay and provide” every night? Most women, and even men, acknowledge that many women start chipping in as early as date 2. Once women start chipping in, they normally don’t stop. So if men are dating women who don’t intend to ever chip in, he’ll usually know by date 3 and a pattern will emerge by date 5. If he continues to date her after that, or start a relationship with her knowing she’s not a chipper-inner, then it’s on him, not her, that he’s being “harmed.” A man can stop this alleged “harm” to his wallet by date 3.

        Most women can’t tell if a man is dating her for sex or for a relationship for at least 2 months, because he normally won’t commit before 2 months. Pray tell how does a woman stop men from wasting her fertile years and “harming” HER because every day that a man doesn’t commit to her is a day she’s closer to menopause, if she’s not already there? How is this fair to a woman, whom most men agree, whose fertility ends faster than men’s?

        4) Both genders are free to choose their preferences in both characteristics and behavior. And mix and match whatever they desire. However, other than paying for date 1, maybe 2, when is the man expected to ante up first with no expectations of anything else? A kiss on date 2 doesn’t guarantee a date 3 for women. Sex on date 3 doesn’t guarantee a committed relationship. Sex and living together for 3-10 years for some women don’t guarantee marriage. All that living together time, the man can be getting cooking, cleaning, sex, AND chipping in or provisioning by women, and a woman still won’t be married unless the guy wants to be also.

        While there are many women on this board acknowledging that they are seeking men who make at least as much as she does, I have yet to hear any of them say they refuse to pay their fair share.

        Thus, I won’t agree with you that men shouldn’t court.

        However, I will agree that women shouldn’t automatically assume that they get to be stay at home moms once they have children. Just like finances and how to handle money need to be discussed before marriage, so too do children and parental expectations and lifestyle (stay at home mom/dad or not) need to be discussed prior to marriage.

        It all goes back to choosing wisely and treating each other well in a relationship to ensure either a long and prosperous relationship or at least an amicable end if things don’t work out.

        1. McLovin

          “Why don’t you tell me where in society women make the rules?”

          Women make the rules in relationships and sexual selection, which is the foundation of society.

          And while men have been forced out of power in the “outer” world (business, labor, work), women will never give up their control of the “inner” world (relationships, love, family and sex).

          As smart and engaging as you are, KE, you will never get that. Or at least won’t admit it. Women control sexual selection, and have not let up one bit in their expectations of gendered roles for men. In fact, they’ve significantly raised the bar.

          While most women scoff at the idea of being able to cook for a family, and even brag about their inability to do so, they expect men to still happily fulfill their own archaic role.

          So this is probably a gross oversimplification of what Chance, myself and other posters like AAORK try to get across here, but it boils down to this:

          Modern women demand more of men than they ever have at any time in history, while at the same time offering less to men than they ever have at any time in history.

          This is the simplest explanation for guys like me. The deal on offer is not good enough to put in the work. I am capable of achieving it, and doing it well, but the return is just not there.

          Look up the term ‘zeta male.’ That’s what I am. There are more of me being churned out of the manosphere every day. I owe society nothing, therefore I will give it nothing. I will only follow society’s rules enough to keep myself out of jail. I owe women nothing, therefore I will give them nothing until they’ve earned it. That’s equality. I am loyal to nobody except for myself and my close inner circle that includes lifelong friends and family.

          For the last 50 years, women, society and the left have openly declared war on everything male. This is the result.

        2. Karmic Equation

          And men make the relationship selections. Aren’t you the one out there bragging you don’t have to be in an exclusive relationship to get sex from a woman? You’re getting what you want, right? But why don’t you sound happy?

          That is what men forget. They want sex. And women can get sex more easily than men, so he resents her power to sexually select, while he conveniently forgets that HE has the power to relationship select.

          That is the problem. Men want what women want and don’t realize men are the ones who offer commitment. Women want commitment, but can’t get it just because she wants it. He holds that key. And, as you are well aware and take full advantage of, women who want relationships sometimes use sex to get it. And then men get the sex without the relationship. Yet men still complain? Women can rarely get relationships without giving sex.

          I’m a female. 5’0″ (actual 4’10.5″ ) – 152# – Obese on paper, but not IRL. I get hit on by men I consider way out of my league a surprising amount of time. I’ve dated 6-10s. Was married to a 9. Currently with an 8-minus, fit, handsome, just rough around the edges, owns his own business. I just had liposuction to get rid of the exercise-resistant fat in my belly. You know what he said to me? “You didn’t have to do that, you know. You looked fine.” He was the one who drove me to and from the surgery and watched over for the next 24 hours as required.

          The point is that as a 7 (prob a 5 or below if you just looked at my paper stats) – I had no business being in relationships with 8-10 men (granted the 10 relationship was a casual one lol).

          But the reason I was in them was that I did manage to pass their eye test, and then my personality and the way I treated my partners are what made/makes them stay in committed relationships with me.

          If what you want is a relationship with an attractive, quality woman who values you, being a non-c0mmittal guy isn’t going to get her. She may spend a little time trying to suss you out, but if she’s also SMART, she’s going to dump your ass once she sees that you’re afraid to be giving. And I don’t mean giving money, but in those intangible ways, time, effort, intimacy, commitment.

          Love and relationships is NOT about what you GET. It’s about what you GIVE.

          Women and men who choose to keep score on what they get and worry about what they’re giving are the ones who fail at relationships. They’re in relationships for the wrong reason.

          I’ve always given more in relationships than the men I’ve been in relationships with. More money, more nurturing, more understanding, more tolerance. However, “more” assumes that they give some of what I was giving. As long as they gave some, I didn’t worry about the “more”. I ended the relationships when the men took me for granted, as in they thought they could give NOTHING and still get something. I love giving, but if I get nothing, it’s time to end the relationship, no matter how much I still loved them or they professed to still love me.

          Those are called reasonable boundaries. As long as I was happy to give, they got. Once I felt taken advantage of, I got out.

          No bitterness. They didn’t “use” me. Sh*t happens. You move on and you find another “One”. There are more than just one One out there. Ass long you’re the kind of person that can make a person feel valued, almost anyone can be The One.

          And as long as you have the attitude you have, it’s impossible for you to make the other person feel valued for long. So even if you met The next One, she’d take a pass on you.

          Again, choose … and act … wisely. If you find the right person and treat them like crap, then is it any wonder they dumped you? If you choose wrongly, and you treat them like queens, why would you wonder why they dumped you. Foregone conclusion.

          As Evan has written many times, and in most relationship books, relationships work best when both parties are givers.

          If you’re not a giver, then is it any wonder why your relationships never work out?

        3. Karmic Equation

          This sentence:

          Men want what women want and don’t realize men are the ones who offer commitment. 

          Should read:

          Men want what women <get easily, e.g., sex> and don’t realize that men <easily get what women really want, e.g., relationships>.

        4. Chance

          KE,

          “You probably don’t know this…or maybe you do, but you have a habit of changing the nuance of an argument to make your point, when the nuance changes the point altogether.”

          My argument has not changed at all.  Not one bit.  My argument from the beginning is that one should not be expected to do something for someone else based on his/her gender.  However, you said that SQ and I are saying that you are wrong for not finding a man attractive if he is so scared of a mouse that he jumps on the chair and screams when he sees one.  I agreed with you when you changed the nuance of my argument (not saying you did it intentionally).  This is when I said that there is nothing wrong with being attracted/not attracted to certain characteristics in a person.
          “How is jumping on a chair screaming bloody murder a “characteristic”?”

          Everyone knows that women are not attracted to extremely weak or squeamish men.  A man who jumps on a chair and screams bloody murder, as you put it, at the sight of a mouse would be comically squeamish.  The reason that you don’t want to “bang” a man like this is because of the ridiculously weak and squeamish characteristics that he possesses.

           
          “My point about the insidiousness of your so-called equality is not that we’re expecting the man to be the mouse slayer, but rather that if the MAN DECIDES he wants to be the one jumping on the chair, then the WOMAN THEN must become the mouse slayer, due to HIS DECISION FIRST. In other words, the inequality is that a woman should change based on what the man decides. He wants to be the hero, she should be the hero-worshipper. He wants to be the damsel in distress, she needs to be the dragon slayer. He doesn’t feel like courting, then the woman should court.

          Determining a woman’s ACTIONS based on a man’s DECISION is the inequality I’m against.”
          Is it insidious, then, when a woman decides that she does not want to carry her weight, financially speaking, within a relationship?  If a man wants to be in a relationship, there’s a strong possibility that he will have to be the one who carries the financial burden, due to her decision.  Is this an inequality since the man should change based on what the woman has decided?  Are you against determining a man’s actions based on a woman’s decision?  Are you against that type of inequality as well?  If not, does that mean you consider a woman’s needs to be more important than a man’s needs?

          “I didn’t talk about discrimination, but rather who has the POWER.”
          You originally said: “Let’s go back to my basic belief: Men control society and culture (through prominence in politics, business, and religions). Giving men “equality” in the few customs where men perceive women as having the edge erodes those customs for women. As I’ve written many times in this blog, until the underdog has equality, giving “equality” to the one already in power in those few areas they don’t have power, in the big picture, ensures that the underdog NEVER gets out from under.” 
          Any reasonable person would interpret this statement – especially since it is being used to justify unfair social customs – as an implication that somehow society is rigged against women since men have the power.  If a system is rigged against a particular group of people, that is a form of discrimination.  However, I believe that everyone should have equal access to these positions, and I believe that women do have equal access.  If I am wrong, then I will ask one last time, please provide me with evidence that women do not have equal access to power (i.e., they are being discriminated against).

          If you believe that women have equal access to power, but you still think that unfair social customs are somehow justified because men have the power (despite women having equal access), then the only conclusion I can come to is that you are someone who believes that equal outcomes should be attained by ensuring that each gender receives a similar level of power.  I can’t think of any other possible explanation.  Do you believe in equal outcomes?  If so, let’s say that a prize is awarded to the top four students in a class of 30 who have the highest score on a test, and girls had the four highest scores.  Do you believe it is acceptable to award two of the prizes to the two highest-scoring boys even though they weren’t in the top four?

          “Why don’t you tell me where in society women make the rules?”

          I’m guessing you are talking about laws.  They make the rules with their vote.  It is a congressperson’s job to represent his/her constituency.  Laws are in place that hurt men/help women because women want these laws to be in place.  If women didn’t want these laws to be in place, they wouldn’t be.  If you are talking about social customs, I think it’s pretty obvious that women set the tone for many social customs throughout our society.  That’s what we’re talking about right now.

          “In fact, the rules for courting weren’t even made by women, but by men. Dowries, the original form of “courtship”, were created by fathers selling their daughters to the highest bidder for marriage. It was ok when MEN were the beneficiaries of “courting” — but now that courting has morphed into benefitting women, men are up in arms. “Why should SHE benefit and not me??” — Again, women didn’t create the custom of courting. The fact that some men in the past decided to right a wrong and start treating women as people instead of property has morphed a custom that only benefitted men to one that only benefits women is the pendulum swinging to the other side.”

          Red herring.  Completely irrelvant to my argument.

          “Do men “pay and provide” every night? Most women, and even men, acknowledge that many women start chipping in as early as date 2.”

          It is very common for women to not carry their financial weight once a relationship is established.  Certainly not all women.  However, many women generally expect to be, at least, financially supplemented by being in a relationship with a man.  I agree with your conclusion about how a man should handle this situation.  That said, a lot of men are scared to speak up against this expectation.  That is their own fault, of course.  However, the idea is for men to become more comfortable speaking up against this unfair expectation, and as more men are comfortable in doing so, women will no longer have the option of taking advantage of this (similar to how women have rejected cooking/cleaning for men and now men must do this for themselves).

          “Most women can’t tell if a man is dating her for sex or for a relationship for at least 2 months, because he normally won’t commit before 2 months. Pray tell how does a woman stop men from wasting her fertile years and “harming” HER because every day that a man doesn’t commit to her is a day she’s closer to menopause, if she’s not already there? How is this fair to a woman, whom most men agree, whose fertility ends faster than men’s?”

          Red herring.  Completely irrelevant to my argument.

           

          KE, virtually all of my conversation with you here has been in response to you taking issue with my posts, and that is fine.  While it may not seem like it, I don’t really care about winning an argument with you.  I am under no illusion that you will ever concede that I have a point.  That said, I feel like I have to respond when you present arguments that are based on a false premise or are not otherwise rooted in sound logic.  Seriously, if you simply make a case that addresses my argument, is logically sound, and doesn’t contain accusations or flawed assumptions, then you “win”.  I don’t even have to agree with it.

        5. CaliforniaGirl

          @McLovin,

          I don’t know how old you are and maybe younger women are all that you describe. I don’t know. All my girlfriends are in their middle-late thirties, most of them married for a long time and with kids. All of them work full time and make good money, all of them do the majority of house work, including cooking and cleaning and taking care of children. Their husbands all think that their jobs are more important or stressful or whatever and complain how overworked and tired they are, some of them cheat, some of them spend obscene amounts of money on their new hobbies, like bikes and ski gear. My gf is getting divorced right now and the court had a lecture for parents how to behave and communicate with children during the divorce time. She said that only women came to this lecture, not even one man was there. Most of the women worked as well but they somehow prioritize their children while men prioritized their work even though most of them can’t even support their families anymore and need second income. None of my divorced girlfriends including me wants to get married or live with a man again. When my last boyfriend started to talk about marriage, I had anxiety attack. It is not for everyone and women do not benefit from marriage anymore. I am just thinking that all those hours of cooking, cleaning, laundry and dealing with BS I could have spent on me, making new friends, hobbies, exercise, career, travel..

        6. Caroline

          Hi Chance-somehow I feel you’ve lost perception about what relationships should be/look like. They’re partnerships. I was married (2nd time)  for 23 years. We started out both working and each trying to fulfill “traditional” roles. Eventually my now ex husband took over the cooking because he is better at and loves it! He usually got home earlier than I did and g we started dinner while I picked up the kids from daycare/school/sports. I’d help th e m with homework,start a load of laundry or some other chore while he cooked. The kids and I would do the dishes. Unfortunately, I eventually had to take over the cooking again because he couldn’t get a meal on the table before 9pm due to his drinking during i ng the process. I really gotta wonder why you’re as o cynical toward women. I truly wonder if youve never seen a successful relationship and what the family dynamic was like growing up. The last 7 years of my marriage were pure hell but I’ve never been as cynical or bitter toward the opposite sex. I’m truly sorry the warmth, caring, and love of a true partnership seems to have eluded you.

        7. SQ

          California girl:

          All my girlfriends are in their middle-late thirties, most of them married for a long time and with kids. All of them work full time and make good money, all of them do the majority of house work, including cooking and cleaning and taking care of children. 

          I wonder how many of them had the conversation with their husbands-to-be before the wedding about their expectations of equal responsibilities in the home.

          I wonder how many of them don’t ask their husbands to help and when they do they criticize the way he does it.

          Just saying…

          I don’t know your friends, obviously, so I take your word for it. But I know quite a few women who bring much of the “I have to do it all” stress on themselves.

        8. Chance

          Hi Caroline,

           

          I agree with you that relationships should be partnerships.  I especially liked your comment elsewhere about how workloads shift throughout a relationship/marriage, which is certainly the case.  The rest of your comment here seems to be just insults disguised as concern so I’ll largely ignore it except to remind you to be consistent with your own feedback regarding how we should interact with one another around here.  If you are sincerely concerned, then I rescind.

        9. Caroline

          Hello sq-in regards to your remark to caligirl about some women lamenting they “have to do it all”. I think you’re right. Communication definitely breaks down in marriages. Especially if one is feeling taken advantage of /not respected. BUT I would also point out it is just as much an obligation of his to have told her what HE expected their marriage to look like. It was also HIS responsibility to voice any concerns and come up with resolutions as it is hers. It really does “take two to tango”.

          Lack of communication is usually a sign of a relationship on the skids.

        10. Caroline

          Chance-I re-read my comment to you several times. I am not sure why you feel I’m being insulting. But if you feel I was; again it wasn’t intentional. In a comment to KE you mentioned how women even brag about not cooking anymore. Which is a very traditional role. My point was that in a good relationship each person uses their strengths. My parents were a great example of this. They are still a great team. My mother is in rather poor health and he does all the errands, shopping, etc. He even washes her hair (she can’t lift her arms high enough). He doesn’t bump her to the curb or put her in a home because well “she should reciprocate. And I doubt he’s keeping score from his last kidney stone bout where she took care of him. They LOVE each other. Love doesn’t keep tit for tat scores on who does what. That’s why I asked about your family dynamic. Maybe you didn’t have parents who were like mine. Or maybe you weren’t privy to really what was going on. Maybe you didn’t have good examples from parents, aunts and unckes, friends o parents. Great examples are all around. My ex is an alcoholic. I certainly don’t think all men are alcoholics. It does certainly appear that you have an agenda. One of promoting “mens rights”.. It’s very disingenuous to come onto a woman’s blog where they are looking to improve, change their lives to be successful and happy with a man while pretending to be a man with similarcrelationship goals. All you’ve done is cement in women’s minds why mgtow guys really should go their own way.

        11. SQ

          BUT I would also point out it is just as much an obligation of his to have told her what HE expected their marriage to look like. It was also HIS responsibility to voice any concerns and come up with resolutions as it is hers.

          You are absolutely right, Caroline.

        12. Caroline

          Oh and Chance I do feel badly for anyone who’s stuck in a rut of bitterness. I’ve been there-after mydivorce. But at one point I had to stop all the finger pointing, own up to my part in it and move on for the better. I probably was tough on you in this aspect cause..well doesn’t one usually despise in others whst they hate in themselves?

          anywhoo…it really is true. You gotta choose to be happy

        13. Chance

          Hi Caroline, I said that if you didn’t mean to insult, then I rescind.  I couldn’t really tell.  However, you definitely are being insulting now (with the mgtow bit).  I haven’t been hateful here.  I think you are conflating someone who openly challenges customs with that of someone who hates women.  I’m not a mgtow, and I don’t spew the same hateful speech that they do on their boards.

        14. Caroline

          Chance- I very well could have merged your opinions with those of Mclovin. Who by the way included you and Aaork along in his group. Where he claims he owes society nothing and that numerous ‘zeta males” like himself are being churned out of the magnosphere.

          I understand the premise of the original argument where nobody is indebted to do anything for the other sex just because of their gender. I absolutely agree. But my point all along has been that if you desire a relationship (doesn’t matter if it’s friendship or not)there will be compromise. You do things for them because you want to, care about them and want them to be happy. Courting is about being well intentioned. It shouldn’t cost $300 a week?! When you first meet a gal; keep it simple. No fancy meals or expensive tickets. Get to know her. If after getting to know her better you’d like to treat her to something special..do! If she’s worth it she will reciprocate. Yeah, I know guys are the ones initially extending the “olive branch” but I’ve learned over my lifetime that I’ve never regretted being gracious and most often have been treated much more generously in return. I know it can seem archaic but it is a generous custom which men can use effectively to obtain a mutually giving relationship with a wonderful woman. Believe it or not , most of us ladies aren’t dating to supplement our incomes. That’s rather insulting. A man however does gain in ways which are exclusive to having a good woman love him. Best of luck on your journey. I am immeasurably glad I have a guy who isn’t keeping score. Good luck on your journey.

        15. SQ

          Chance- I very well could have merged your opinions with those of Mclovin.

          Caroline, with all due respect, that’s a bit of a stretch. McLovin dislikes women and thinks society shouldn’t expect a thing from him because being born with a penis makes him a super special being. I have not seen Chance post anything remotely like the misanthropic crap McLovin spews.

          I dislike red pillers /MRAs/ MGTOWs as much as the next rational objective person. But pointing out the ways in which men are disadvantaged in society does not automatically equal misogyny nor does it mean the ways in which women are disadvantaged are not important. It is not a zero sum game.

          Since you’ve felt my previous comments were argumentative and belittling, I feel compelled to say, please read this in a friendly tone. It is not my intent to insult you, only to state a differing opinion.

        16. Caroline

          Sq-I was sincere when I said I could have merged chance and m clovins comments. Rarely does anyone use an avatar to distinguish themselves. with over 300 comments just on this blog post; it looks like a sea of anonymous users quite frankly . Along with the rather long winded back and forth by many (including my last post) quite honestly they run together. In fact, I skip all together over O’s comments because they quite frankly definitely depress me and I don’t want to project his opinion onto what the other men say unfairly. He colors the comments into a negative running narrative.

      2. 31.2.3
        GoWiththeFlow

        Chance,

        Quick question:  Do you think it’s  possible that the general consensus that men find find both the ability and willingness to cook to be desireable qualities in women creates a “soft” expectation that women should take on that role, regardless of whether an individual man expects an individual woman to do it?

        A quick side note to any young person looking for a partner who cooks:  I am a foodie who loves to talk about, plan for, prepare, and eat good food.  Since my love language is acts of service, if I love you i will feed you!  Being a good home based cook is a skill that takes years to develop.  When you are in your teens and 20s you may be living in dorms or dinky apartments with several roomates that make it difficult to have a place to practice.  The ingredients and proper tools can be expensive.  Not only that, but if you are staying home several nights a week to work an recipes, that’s about as effective a dating strategy as watching Netflix alone in your pajamas.  Most hobby chefs will start htting their stride in their mid to late 30s into their 40s.  So if a young woman isnt a great cook when she’s 25, she msy develop into one gradually over time.  If you are her SO, encourage her,  appreciate her efforts, praise her when a recipe turns out right, and be kind when a dish doesn’t turn out quite right.

    3. 31.3
      SQ

      KE, “However, SQ and Chance, you’re both saying that a woman NOT accepting that jump-on-a-chair guy makes her “wrong”.”
      No, I’m not saying that at all.
      “More than that, you’re both saying that the woman SHOULD become the mouse slayer if her guy decides he wants to be the jump-on-chair guy.”
      if she wants to be the mouse slayer, she is supported in that choice and praised for being an independent woman who can do anything a man can. No one would claim she’s not “woman enough.” If he chooses not to, he is vilified as a sissy. That’s the difference and that’s all I was saying.
      The unfortunate result of women’s empowerment has been that women are now free to do and be whatever they, to choose whatever role they want –which is good– but men are not. Men do not have as much freedom to reject rigid gender roles without having their masculinity questioned.
      Chance, “Finally, and this is big, it is completely unfair to pick and choose what gender roles that one wants to remain in place, while simultaneously discarding other gender roles, based whether such a role results in a benefit or obligation to that person.”
      Exactly. I might be a little less rigid than you on this point (maybe) because, let’s be honest here, we all do it. Humans are self-preserving hypocrites by nature. But people should just own it, and not try to create some moral justification for their double standards. That was all I was ever saying.
      I’ll sit back and wait now for the 2×4 to slam me in the head. 😆

      1. 31.3.1
        Stacy2

        if she wants to be the mouse slayer, she is supported in that choice and praised for being an independent woman who can do anything a man can. No one would claim she’s not “woman enough.” If he chooses not to, he is vilified as a sissy. That’s the difference and that’s all I was saying.

        But that is not true at all. Women get judged for being too aggressive/bossy/pushy/non-feminine for engaging in dragon-slaying behavior all the time. Outside of the editors of the New York Times and some left-wings progressives, who are these people who would praise such women? They do not exist. There’s volumes of research on this very subject. In reality, each gender is penalized by the society for engaging in the “wrong” type of behavior for this gender.

        1. Karmic Equation

          “Outside of the editors of the New York Times and some left-wing progressives, who are these people who would praise such women?”

          Left wing progressive opinions are the only ones that matter, didn’t you know? The rest of the population’s opinions don’t count.

        2. Evan Marc Katz

          You’re closer to the truth than you might want to admit, KE. 😉

      2. 31.3.2
        Chance

        Hi SQ, I agree with you on all points.

  2. 32
    KK

    Hi Chance,

    I get where you’re coming from but it seems the equivalent, yet opposite extreme of the women’s movement, in a sense.

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but if you have a completely egalitarian relationship (in your mind, anyway) and your wife has a child, are you willing to take turns getting up every night with a crying baby, change the same amount of diapers, do the same number of feedings, go to the same number of appointments at the pediatrician, invest the same amount of time and energy interviewing sitters and kindergartens, planning play dates and birthday parties? OR…. would it be okay if your wife took care of all or maybe most of those things? And if so, what is your equal contribution?

    I think it’s just as detrimental to a relationship to keep a tit for tat scorecard as it is for one partner to feel they’re consistently contributing more or being taken advantage of.

    I can’t imagine a marriage where every time my husband mowed the yard, he needed me to edge and sweep. I know your premise is not to expect anything you aren’t willing to give, but that’s exactly what the result will be any time you do anything that isn’t immediately and equally (in your mind) reciprocated.

    1. 32.1
      Stacy2

      I have to point out, that waking up half the time and changing half the diapers still does not come close to equal contribution. The woman did 100pc of the work for 9months. To even it out the guy has to do more than a half for a while, if he wants to practice what he preaches in terms of what a truly egalitarian relationship is. Oh wait. It’s a “biological” fact, tough luck, we should just suck it up.

    2. 32.2
      Chance

      KK, your argument seems to be based on the idea that a man is completely unwilling and incapable of doing what some women do.  I’ve already answered your question in 31.2.  You are now just basically asking me “Are you really sure?  I just don’t think you’re willing and capable”.

  3. 33
    Stacy

    Here is the issue:

    I actually agree that men should not spend a bunch of money on every woman that he meets.  I mean, that won’t be too wise for obvious reasons.  And, IMO, if a woman is expecting you to do so when you first start dating, you should know what THAT’S about.

    However, the ONUS is on a man to still court. And this onus is on men to get creative.  The first few dates do not have to be expensive at ALL.  There are so many things I could think of off the top of my head that a man can engage a woman to do on at least the first 3 dates that are either cost effective or darn near free…guys, more often than not, it’s not about the money, it’s about the effort.  No one is asking you to invest your money in a bunch of online dates (for example) where you may not see the person again.  Meeting for coffee is cheap. In fact, I will go so far as to say, you can ask to meet to see if there is any physical attraction before even going for coffee. And if you can’t afford a few cents for coffee, then your priority should not be to go on dates.  In the past, I have suggested just meeting (at least the first time)…because I don’t want a man spending dinner on me when I know I won’t see him again. In fact, I used to suggest the cheap route even when men appeared so sure of me. Why? Because I wasn’t so sure I would be sure about them.

    My point is, a woman who is looking for something beyond a cheap thrill will not mind you not splurging on her until he gets the vibe that there is at least some valid interest on the woman’s part. But this does not alleviate the effectiveness of courting a woman you are interested in because it gives the best results (Evan and Karmic Equation explained it best I believe).

  4. 34
    McLovin

    Here is a perfect example for you, KE. This is the double standard in dating today that men face, and exactly the reason “courting” is 100% for suckers.

    Full disclosure, this is not my work, but it is unpublished on a public site:
    In 2013, a guy named Jared Rutledge had a blog titled Holistic Game in which he posted details of his dating life and descriptions of women (with no personally identifiable information). Some of the negative ways he described women included, “damaged goods”; “headed towards cat lady status”; “not very hot.”
    Jared published all of this under a pseudonym, but one of the women he dated found his blog, and found this description of her own date: “Frisky little redhead, early twenties. Not very hot and talked too much … I bailed on her because I wasn’t that into it. I see her from time to time, and she’s letting herself go a little.”
    Insulted by that, she doxed Jared. Protesters picketed his business, forcing it to close down. NY Mag devoted an article to him.
    In 2016, a woman named Cathy Smith is performing a “social experiment” where she’ll date 31 guys in 31 days. Her goal is to for all 31 guys to pay for the dates. She keeps track of how much money is spent on her – that’s her score (because getting the dates is the easy part). She has a blog too.
    Some of the negative ways she describes men include: “pretentious frat boy”; “ethnic” (which she prefaces with, “not to sound racist, but”); “loser” (because when she showed up 15 minutes late, he sat down and had a drink by himself); “shorter than me. Too short” (which I include here as a parallel to Jared’s “not very hot”)
    Cathy doesn’t publish any of this under a pseudonym. She has no need to hide. Her professional life will not be threatened by any of this. Nobody is going to protest outside her place of business. There will be no mainstream press criticism of her. Indeed, coverage is positive and oh so typically sympathetic, letting us know how “annoying” it is that, “some men seem to want to keep messaging her back and forth for days before they ask her to dinner” (a free dinner, keep in mind – it’s annoying to have to wait days for that free dinner) and “no matter how many times the man might reach out to her to talk, the fact that it’s through online dating just makes it all seem lazy.”

    1. 34.1
      Karmic Equation

      And you deem these women bloggers “quality” women based on what? Her looks? Obviously the guys who were lining up to give her free dinners based it on that.

      “Beauty is skin deep; ugly <character> goes right to the bone.”

      Men shouldn’t be so willing to give JUST BECAUSE she’s beautiful. Maybe look a little beyond that. If she texts, “Let’s have dinner Tuesday” and he texts “Yes” with no attempt, e.g., telephone screen, to figure out if she’s a good person. He pays the price cuz he’s thinking with the head below his waist, not the one above it.

      Courting is not for suckers.

      Men who court a woman based only on her looks are suckers.

      There’s a difference.

      It’s the choice. Not the behavior.

      1. 34.1.1
        Stacy2

        I read that woman’s blog and it wasn’t mean spirited like the other one. It’s easy to see why she is getting positive coverage and doesn’t need to hide. She discusses behaviors and pays compliments to her dates when they are due, while the POU guys discussed people (in an extremely negative, objectifying ways). I am going to say this accounts for 90pc of the difference in perception.

        1. Henriette

          Yeah, I felt the guys’ blog crossed the line bc they were so mean-spirited and also because they had sex with these women whom they obviously disdained.  “Nothing wrong with fucking a fat chick (body fat > 25%) once in a while, but they’re catch and release.”

        2. McLovin

          Stacy2 is on team woman. Excuses the female’s behavior while excoriating the male’s.

          Shocking, indeed.

    2. 34.2
      SMC

      Here is a perfect example for you, KE. This is the double standard in dating today that men face, and exactly the reason “courting” is 100% for suckers.

      Well give me a “sucker” any day and he’ll be treated like a king.  Thank God there are still plenty of them around. If there is a possibility of compatibility and he wants to court me, he’ll get me.  He doesn’t?  He won’t.  And if I’m not important enough for a guy to at least make a modicum of effort for (which doesn’t include paying big bucks), then fine and good, and thank you for weeding yourself out and saving me the trouble.  You “enlightened gentlemen” can talk until you’re blue in the face, but women, by and large, still want to be courted, even if it’s on a penny and not a dollar.  Those who insist on a dollar will weed THEMSELVES out pretty quickly too.  Thank God for the decent people in the middle, men and women.

      1. 34.2.1
        McLovin

        “Thank God there are still plenty of them around.”

        Who are you trying to kid, SMC? No there aren’t. This blog entry, and hell, this blog period wouldn’t exist if that were the case.

        1. SMC

          McLovin, WHY do you visit this blog if you think all the good, kind, decent people are gone (or taken)?  This blog exists to help women find love.  It has done that many, many times.  There are more women out there (like me) who need the guidance and direction and know-how to find it since some of us aren’t good at doing it on our own.  Evan’s results, the many testimonials, speak for themselves.  There are plenty of good men out there.  (Good women , too.)  Glass half full.  You need to go fill your empty glass a little bit and stop trying to convince us that you’re right.  Because you’re not.

        2. Karmic Equation

          “Like attracts like,” McLovin.

          Have you considered that good men and women don’t exist in your world because they don’t want to hang around you?

          If you change your mindset and look for the good in people instead of the bad, you’ll actually find good people out there.

  5. 35
    MilkyMae

    In the old days, men courted women?.  Is this really true?  In my opinion, there was less courtship generations ago.  People married their highschool sweethearts or they married the person the dated in their senior year of college.  I also think when there was courtship, women played a larger role.  Has anyone seen the movie Its a Wonderful Life?  Donna Reed courted Jimmy Stewart.  Societal and economic forces made marriage a goal for women in the past.  No so much today.  I have girlfriends who make 100k a year.  For them, men need to do the courtship( aka convincing) even if they haven’t kissed a man in 10 years.

  6. 36
    Karmic Equation

    @Chance, in response to your last answer under 31.2.2

    “Is it insidious, then, when a woman decides that she does not want to carry her weight, financially speaking, within a relationship?”

    If she can afford to and refuses to do so, then yes, it is insidious.

    However, if she cannot afford to do so, and you marry her, and then expect her to get work in order to carry her financial weight after marriage, then no, it is not insidious. You changed the rules.

    However, the answer would be yes again, if before marriage you had the discussion about her getting work, and she agrees, then reneges after marriage.

    See, it’s the choice, not the behavior. You choose a good woman who has integrity, she keeps her word. You choose a no-integrity woman, you get screwed, in the bad way.

    If by your question, you mean if the guy can’t afford to pay for a date, should he be required to? Not if he didn’t do the asking. If he did, then he needs to be able to afford it. Or don’t date until he can afford to.

    The rest of your questions in that paragraph are red herrings and strawman and putting words in my mouth. So I won’t address.

    “However, I believe that everyone should have equal access to these positions, and I believe that women do have equal access.  If I am wrong, then I will ask one last time, please provide me with evidence that women do not have equal access to power (i.e., they are being discriminated against).”

    Again, you have not answered my question. Where in society do women MAKE THE RULES? You whole argument about “courtship” is that men are EXPECTED to court. Men are FORCED BY CUSTOMS to court. Nothing from your arguments are about courting is about equal “access.”

    Who created these expectations? Society – Run by men. Most of the World’s Nations have never had a female leader.

    Who created the customs? Religion. Headed by men.

    “Discrimination in many faith traditions is still bolstered by theological arguments. In my own Roman Catholic Church, where ordained ministry is a necessary prerequisite for institutional leadership, women cannot even be ordained as deacons, much less priests or bishops. The Southern Baptist tradition, relying on a literal reading of scripture, has backtracked on its earlier practice of allowing women pastors; they are no longer ordained. Many right-wing evangelicals in non-denominational churches often preach the “headship” of men and refuse to allow women pastors. Even in mainline Protestant denominations, where women ministers have been around for decades, there remain pockets of resistance.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-fiedler/women-religious-leaders_b_766006.html

    “We looked at nine major religious organizations in the U.S. that both ordain women and allow them to hold top leadership slots. Of those organizations, four have had a woman in the top leadership position. And, so far, each of these four has had only one woman in the top position.” – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/02/women-relatively-rare-in-top-positions-of-religious-leadership/

    Who create the laws? Legislatures and parliaments. Headed by men. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2015+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

    So we can even go further and say that men ENFORCE the laws (only 27% of law enforcement are female). And most interpretations of laws are by men – as the judiciary is comprised mostly of, you guessed it, men:

    “Of the active U.S. circuit court judges, 51.2% are white men, 25.3% are white women, 16.7% are non-white men, and 6.8% are non-white women. Altogether, 48.8% of active circuit court judges are nontraditional judges. In contrast, of senior circuit court judges, 80.7% are white men, 9.6% are white women, 8.8% are non-white men, and less than 1.0% are non-white women. Altogether, 19.3% of senior circuit court judges are nontraditional judges.”https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43426.pdf

    The rest of your questions in this vein are, again, strawman or red herrings. So, again, I won’t address.

    “Laws are in place that hurt men/help women because women want these laws to be in place.  If women didn’t want these laws to be in place, they wouldn’t be. “

    Dude, I never voted for congress to vote their own pay raises. That law was one which no one voted on. But that law is in the books. Once in office, politicians do what is best for themselves or their donors.

    Men lead countries, write, interpret, and enforce the laws in those countries. If men want to change the laws, they have ALWAYS had the power to do so. Not women. So stop blaming women and start blaming the men in your legislature in your country for not enacting laws that would create the equality you want.

    “However, many women generally expect to be, at least, financially supplemented by being in a relationship with a man.”

    I believe this depends on the job the woman in question has. I can see waitresses and women working other low-income jobs expecting financial supplementation from her boyfriend.

    And I agree that most women in higher income brackets want to date men who make close to or exceeds what she makes. This does not necessarily mean that women want men to supplement her income. It more likely means that women don’t want to supplement the man’s. There is a difference.

    That said, I don’t agree with that. I date based on attraction. I have relationships based on character. In a relationship, if he happens to make less than I do, then I pay more often or more percentage-wise, depending on what the expense it, e.g., utilities or meals out. He has to pay for his own discretionary spending, hobbies, and toys (unless I purchase it as a gift). And for the last 15 years, this has been the case.

    So I walk my talk, Chance. Do you? Are you an active MRA crusading for men’s rights instead of just complaining about social inequality for men without any skin in the game?

    1. 36.1
      Chance

      “The rest of your questions in that paragraph are red herrings and strawman and putting words in my mouth. So I won’t address.”
      This is not the case at all.  The rest of my questions in that paragraph are as follows:  “Is this an inequality since the man should change based on what the woman has decided?  Are you against determining a man’s actions based on a woman’s decision?  Are you against that type of inequality as well?  If not, does that mean you consider a woman’s needs to be more important than a man’s needs?” 

      The first question above was in response to your comment (31.2.2) as follows:  “In other words, the inequality is that a woman should change based on what the man decides.”  The second question above was in response to your comment (31.2.2) as follows:  “Determining a woman’s ACTIONS based on a man’s DECISION is the inequality I’m against.”  The third question above was in response to your comment (31) as follows:  “It’s insidious. What Chance proposes as equality is just another way of framing what MEN want as more important than what women want, socially.”

      I cannot see any straw man arguments, red herrings, or instances where I put words in your mouth.  I was simply seeing if you apply your logic consistently when the roles are reversed.

      “Again, you have not answered my question. Where in society do women MAKE THE RULES? You whole argument about “courtship” is that men are EXPECTED to court. Men are FORCED BY CUSTOMS to court. Nothing from your arguments are about courting is about equal “access.””

      I did answer your question.  It’s fine if you don’t like my answer, but I answered it.  I’m confused by your last sentence in the quote above as I am not sure what you are saying.  When I talked about equal access, it was in response to your assertion that since men have the power in most areas of society, women should have power in other areas.  Your comments (again, to any reasonable person) heavily implied that the system is rigged against women, which is a form of discrimination.  I responded by saying that, while men hold most positions of power, I believe that women have equal access to those positions of power, and therefore, they are not being systematically discriminated against.  As a result, your justification didn’t make sense at the time, but you later said you weren’t talking about discrimination, and that was noted.

      “Who created these expectations? Society – Run by men. Most of the World’s Nations have never had a female leader.”

      What goes on around the world is not relevant as it relates to our customs here in the U.S.

      “Who created the customs? Religion. Headed by men.”

      I don’t think many people would agree that religious leaders have much power in our society.  Besides, there are plenty of customs today that were not created by religion, and they are eroding by the minute.

      “So we can even go further and say that men ENFORCE the laws (only 27% of law enforcement are female).”
      The only thing that this proves is that the majority of the people who are willing to put their lives at risk to keep you safe are men.

      “The rest of your questions in this vein are, again, strawman or red herrings. So, again, I won’t address.”
      There are no red herrings or straw man arguments at all.  I was (and am) trying to figure out the logic behind your assertion.  To recap:  you claim that men have almost all the power, so women should have some power in areas where men are perceived to not have the advantage.  Your comments heavily implied (and still do, by the way) that the reason men have most of the power is due to the system being rigged against women (which is, again, a form of discrimination).  I then said that I don’t believe women are being discriminated against because I think they have equal access to power.  Then, you said “who’s talking about discrimination”?  So, that led me to think that you don’t believe that women are being discriminated against in this regard.  I was then forced to speculate on why you would take such a stance on power distribution if you didn’t feel that women are discriminated against, and the only thing I could think of is that you believe in equal outcomes.  That is why I asked the question: “Do you believe in equal outcomes?”  If the answer happened to be ‘yes’, then the follow-up question for you was to test your ideological consistency.  If you don’t believe in equal outcomes, and you don’t believe that women are discriminated against, what is your justification for women retaining power by unfair means simply because the men have power in most areas of society, despite women having equal access to that power?

      “Men lead countries, write, interpret, and enforce the laws in those countries. If men want to change the laws, they have ALWAYS had the power to do so. Not women. So stop blaming women and start blaming the men in your legislature in your country for not enacting laws that would create the equality you want.”
      People in the legislature, undoubtedly, wade through a sea of grey and there is certainly a lot of give-and-take (to your point about legislators doing what’s best for themselves).  However, they want to get elected and re-elected.  To do that, they have to do their job to a large extent, which is represent their constituency.  Women want these laws in place, which is why they stay.  That said, I think men share a large share of the blame, no doubt.  Women have always been much better at voting for what’s best for women than men have been at voting for what’s best for men.  Women are much more organized.  If men voted the way women do, there wouldn’t be as much of a risk for politicians to put through more equitable laws.  Either way, I still don’t understand your point as to why women should retain power by unfair means just because laws are created by mostly men.

       

      Have a good weekend.

      1. 36.1.1
        Karmic Equation

        “Either way, I still don’t understand your point as to why women should retain power by unfair means just because laws are created by mostly men.”

        Red herring, Chance.

        Courtship is not legislated. You can choose to court or not without being thrown in jail. You may not get laid, but hey, that’s your decision.

        As for the “unfair laws” you keep harping about, women as a gender cannot unwrite laws. If you want the laws changed, lobby your legislature.

        Laws would change if men wanted them to change. They’d just have to organize and vote for what they want. But if men can’t be bothered to organize to better their own circumstances, why should women do it for them? If men as a voting bloc don’t feel strongly enough to organize and cooperate on voting out these “unfair laws”, why should women?

         

        1. Chance

          It’s not a red herring, KE.  It was in response to a justification you made.  Learn to remember what you say when you debate.

        2. Karmic Equation

          You’re the one who needs to learn how to debate, Chance. The sentence I quoted was definitely a red herring.

          From: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

          Description of Red Herring

          A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

          Topic A is under discussion.

          Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

          Topic A is abandoned.

          This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

          Examples of Red Herring

          “We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.”

          “Argument” for a tax cut:

          “You know, I’ve begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican’s tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants.”

          “Argument” for making grad school requirements stricter:

          “I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.”

          ————

          You changed the topic from “unfair laws <to men>” to “retaining power by unfair means <by women>”.

          Red herring, Chance.

        3. Chance

          KE said (31):

           

          “Let’s go back to my basic belief: Men control society and culture (through prominence in politics, business, and religions). Giving men “equality” in the few customs where men perceive women as having the edge erodes those customs for women. As I’ve written many times in this blog, until the underdog has equality, giving “equality” to the one already in power in those few areas they don’t have power, in the big picture, ensures that the underdog NEVER gets out from under.”

           

           

          While further attempting to illustrate her point, KE said (36):

           

          “Who create the laws? Legislatures and parliaments. Headed by men.”

           

           

          In response to your overall stance (as indicated in the first quote above), I said in direct response to the second quote above:

           

          “Either way, I still don’t understand your point as to why women should retain power by unfair means just because laws are created by mostly men.”

           

          To refresh your memory, the power retained by unfair means is in the form of dating customs that are unfair to men.  You never really disagreed with the idea that courtship is unfair, but feel it’s somehow justified because men have most of the power in society.  How have I changed the subject?  How have I directed attention to something else?

  7. 37
    Chance

    On a side note, KE.  I suspect that many readers have lost brain cells by reading our back-and-forth.  I can only hope, for their sake, that they are ignoring this altogether.  That said, I will continue to respond to you as long as you make false claims or otherwise cause misdirection from the subject at-hand – especially if you frame it as me being the one who is causing the misdirection.  I’ll stay right here:  on point.

  8. 38
    Belina Villanueva

    I really enjoyed your topic on courtship. Maybe I should attempt to go out there and meet these chivalrous men. This is the first podcast from Love U. Thanks, Evan.

  9. 39
    Eo

    Thank you for the generous insight on why men should court women and how and why to do so.

    I thought the podcast presentation improved as you went on. Initially, it was difficult to follow who you were advising… Smart strong successful women or men, in general. I do believe this is useful advise for men. The money card should not be on the table initially, in the first couple of dates.

    I’ve been courted properly and I think your advise is sound. Yes, chemistry can throw one off there game as you pointed out in same actions two different results. So after the first two dates, how do you keep the interest consistent?

  10. 40
    Mel

    Thank you so much for your pod caste on Men Courting. It was so informative to see it from a man’s point of view. And you are so right about doing right. Can you believe that I would complement a man and tell him I appreciated what he did and it upset him. I have stepped back and thought maybe I was in another reality.

    Thanks for letting me be able to not feel weird about saying thanks.

  11. 41
    Connie

    WOW! Kudos to you, Evan, for generating such lively discussion between the sexes. I think this is what needs to happen. I really appreciated your most recent podcast that was mostly addressed to men. It would be wonderful if all your podcasts were inclusive, because I think it would help the dialogue, promote understanding, etc. As a woman, I am really sick of being expected to do all of the changing, all of the listening, all of the giving. Hanna Rosin, in her recent book about “The End of Men,” coined the term, “cardboard men, plastic women,” and I think this is absolutely true. Sad, but true. Women are the ones doing the listening because we want things to work.  Evan, you have the power to influence men. Do it! I loved what you said, “Men show very little interest in self-improvement, understanding women, or being told what to do.” This is because our society has enabled men to be this way. Unfortunately, I am divorced because of this. My children were traumatized, scarred for life, and our family was fragmented — from the nucleus all the way to the outer edges of distant cousins who no longer have contact. What a tragedy! and all because men are not asked by society to “try a little kindness.” Think about something beyond the end of your penis, guys.

    My ex-husband expected me to do all the changing — first, he wanted me to stay at home with the kids; then, when the kids were teens, he told me I had to get a job to pay for the private school he insisted they attend. And, when I did go out to work, he refused to help me with my first job — cooking, cleaning, laundry, taking the kids to school, etc — and this was an impossible demand. When I told him we needed counseling to help us grow in our marriage, he refused to listen ro the female therapists who understood– instead, he found his own male therapist and told him, “FIX MY WIFE!”  This sounds absurd, but it is actually a very typical situation.  I hope you can use your influence to help men understand women and make the world a better, not a worse, place.

  12. 42
    McLovin

    Today on The Irony Report….women want children far more than men do, then complain how much work it is. Details at 9.

    1. 42.1
      SQ

      Because only women have responsibility for the children, right? Their fathers are exempt from any day to day parental responsibilities?

      What women are complaining about, McLovin, is having to do EVERYTHING themselves.

      Unless one parent stays at home, why should one parent work a full time job and come home and do all the work at home too while the other working parent does little to nothing?

      As far as your little “see…women aren’t rational!” anecdote, it makes about as much sense as men who want a woman who doesn’t work and is dependent and then complains that he has to support her. Or a man who wants to marry the inexperienced good girl and then complains about boring sex (or no sex).

      I guess men aren’t very rational either.

      1. 42.1.1
        McLovin

        Then don’t have children. Most men would be fine with that.

        It’s called ‘owning your *#$&’

        1. SQ

          Owning your s**t you call it?

          Then marry the slut, pay the alimony and STFU.

  13. 43
    loubelle

    i dont think chivalry is dead however its on a sharp decline. Not that i want treating like a princess however i do want treating with respect. i am a woman and like the door opened for me and let me go first if with a man. i would never date a man who didnt do this nor be friends with a woman who wouldnt do it. see i do it for my man or anyone if im there before them, i open doors etc, its just common courtesy. any man who says blah blah feminist movement equality shizzle is a goodbye from me. thats just pure laziness and disrespect. as for paying for things like dates, i think first date the man should pay, i am old fashioned and only 45. after that take in turns if its a gd thing, but just treat each other now and again when they least expect it, as long as its mutual and not taken for granted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *