How Can I Turn Drinks into Dinner Without Scaring Guys Off?

How Can I Turn Drinks into Dinner Without Scaring Guys Off

I’ve been reading your blog for about two years now and your book ‘Why He Disappeared‘ really helped me get over a failed relationship. Thank you! I have been dating in London for over a year now and I don’t understand something…

When you talk about dates, you usually talk about meeting a man for dinner, him planning the date, etc. I’d like to go on that kind of date, but what I usually get is invitations for drinks, a popular phrase is ‘something casual’. I said yes to several of those and they were mostly disappointing. They either invite me to go to a pub, or have no idea where to go at all and leave it to me to decide on the place. After a drink or two, if it’s going alright, I suggest having dinner – they never do – but it’s usually about 8pm and I’m hungry, and again, they have no idea where to go.

I thought it was the fault of dating apps – that’s what I’ve been using to meet men, so I signed up for e-Harmony, still the same result. So my question to you is, what should I do in this situation? I realize I hate drinks dates. I don’t think it gives anyone a chance to impress anyone; I’m not going to wear heels to go to a pub.

A couple of people suggested meeting for a coffee. If they don’t know me well enough to risk spending two hours having dinner with me, we could chat a bit more, or talk on the phone. I personally don’t mind spending a couple of hours getting to know a new person over dinner; I do not see anything threatening in a dinner date situation.

Am I missing something? I tried telling one guy I was talking to online that I don’t know what to make of drinks dates… he never wrote back. How do I explain to people that I don’t think drinks are a good idea without putting them off? Or do I meet them, have one drink and then say ‘sorry, I have to go’? I would really appreciate your help with this!

Katerina

I feel for you, Katerina.

But the greatest gift I can give you right now is not sympathy; it’s actually teaching you to understand the male point of view regarding your common situation.

Have you ever talked with a man about his dating experience? Have you ever read the male commenters on this blog? It’s not that you’re “wrong” to hope to have dinner on a first date; it’s that you seem to have no empathy for the male dating experience. It’s not even that you’re callous about it; it’s that you’re clueless — the same way men are clueless when they ask you out on a date without a plan. So…

If you’re a quality man with an average profile, you write 100 generic emails to the 100 most attractive women on the website.

If you’re lucky, 20 will write back.
If you’re unlucky, 10 will write back.
If you’re delusional about the kind of women you can get online, 0 will write back.

Now, when this man finally does get responses, they’re not unlike the responses you get from men: short, awkward, stilted, poorly spelled, incurious.

Out of those 20 emails, only 10 may be worth a second response.

Of those 10 emails, only 5 might get to the point of exchanging phone numbers.

Yes, you were missing something: an understanding of the male dating experience.

Of those 5, only 3 might end up on a first date.

Of those 3 first dates, one might be in a bad place in life, one might not find him attractive, and one might have lied about her weight and age. So…

How do you feel if you’re this man?
How do you feel about dating?
How do you feel about yourself?
How do you feel about women?

Probably pretty shitty.

Make no mistake: most men expend a LOT of energy for very little reward.

But it doesn’t end there.

It seems to men that no matter what they do, they’re doing it wrong.

    – Push too fast to meet? You’re a stalker.
    – Take too long to meet? You’re a player with too many options.
    – Spend a lot of money on a first date? Too intimate. Too much pressure to put out.
    – Spend too little money on a first date? He’s cheap. Selfish. A serial dater.

What do most guys do in light of all of this? Exactly what you described

    a. Choose a casual, low-stakes place for coffee or drinks, so he doesn’t have to spend too much time or money on a woman who, 75% of the time, will not become a second date. (Presuming there’s a 50% chance you don’t like him and a 50% chance he doesn’t like you.)

    b. Ask “What do YOU want to do?” He figures if he asks you, he can’t get it wrong. (Which is, of course, the wrong answer. You don’t want him to ask you where to go. You want him to make the decision YOU would, picking anything – except a coffee shop, bar, pub, chain restaurant, or fancy restaurant, as long as it’s well-reviewed, local, and you haven’t eaten there recently. How could he go wrong?)

None of those is to suggest that your desire to have a better first date connection is a foolish one. If anything, I completely agree with you and have written extensively about the value of building up trust, rapport and anticipation BEFORE the first date to ensure that you go on better first dates.

Most guys don’t like the odds of splurging on dinner with a stranger, so the trick is in making him invest in you PRIOR to your first date.

To answer your question more pointedly, Katerina, yes, you were missing something: an understanding of the male dating experience.

Now that you know that:

    A) Men face more rejection in a month than you’ve likely faced in your lifetime.
    B) Men get stuck paying for a new woman each week who doesn’t come as advertised or doesn’t like him in return, and…
    C) Men don’t know (or care) what you want out of a date — they’re just trying to see if there’s chemistry before investing a lot of money…

Perhaps that will help you have more empathy for these poor clueless schmucks.

Now that you do, your best bet to get a guy to WANT to take you out to dinner?

Follow my 2/2/2 rule as outlined in my TED talk and Finding the One Online — and watch as men step up to the plate like never before.

In summation, most guys don’t like the odds of splurging on dinner with a stranger, so the trick is in making him invest in you PRIOR to your first date. Not by demanding dinner after your first eHarmony email, but by flirting and leading him from email to the phone to a date over the course of a week.

My Love U clients SWEAR that this is the most life-changing thing they’ve ever learned about online dating, so please, don’t knock it until you’ve taken my course and tried it yourself.

Join our conversation (515 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 41
    Shaukat

    she has the right to speak her POV, however distasteful, as long as she’s not attacking you. That’s how adults argue.

    I would agree with that, and I agree that Kanga’s remarks about snorting coke and wealth inheritance were baseless. However, I’d also point out that this was the  closing  sentence of Stacy2’s last response to me:

    You are either dumb as a box of hammers (if you think it’s possible) or, more likely, you’re simply a toxic person who is in this to denigrate women. My money is on the latter.

    I don’t take it personally and I wouldn’t ever demand that any comment be censored, but for those who would say that Kanga’s comment was personal and went too far, in this particular context I would simply state the clichéd adage”you reap what you sow,” is particularly apt.

    1. 41.1
      Stacy2

      @Shaukat:

      Just so it is clear. I stated that I spend a lot of money on staying fit (ie gym/personal trainers). Somehow, that translated into you saying that my standard of beauty are coked up models. Next thing I know, your buddy Kanga says it’s not surprising I snort coke.

      This really is a perfect illustration of how rumors and bullying starts and progresses in real life. Obviously, not that I care what either you or her thinks. I have already formed very unfavorable opinions on both of your characters.

      I just find it amusing that you and Kanga actually think that you have any sort of moral high ground over me. You thought I was jaded? No. Experienced. With characters like these. Enough to snuff them out very quickly.

      1. 41.1.1
        Katie

        (Stacy2) Somehow, that translated into you saying that my standard of beauty are coked up models.

        You stated  that your aesthetic standard in the dating scene was models. No obscure translation necessary.

        (Stacy2)   Those are women who are already naturally blonde (or have another rich hair color —snip- who are naturally very skinny and stay that way without working out, who have genetically perfect skin and big full lips, and are otherwise blessed with all the other markers of attraction which the rest of us have to make up for. And guess what? These unique creatures are walking down fashion show runways and in between they’re dating tech industry billionaires whose idea of a first date is a private plane ride to the bahamas.

        1. Katie

          PS. I intentionally ignored the coke part cause that’s just silly.

        2. Stacy2

          Perhaps, Katie, you misunderstood but this is not my  standard. It is the society’s standard that has been imposed on all of us – and it is a standard because most men want exactly that. So for a guy to salivate over an issue of sports illustrated filled with D-cupped 24” waist models but then to bash other women for putting in effort to look like that as “vain” and other things is the top and the worst brand of hypocrisy. If it’s not their standard of beauty, then men should put their money where their mouth is – stop buying these magazines for starters, and then start dating women who are not conforming to these standards of beauty. Are you seeing them doing that? Nah. Me neither. Playboy, SI, etc. are firmly entrenched and studies done by OLD platforms like okcupid on bigdata (google it) show conventionally attractive women getting 4x as many emails as “average looking” and 25x more than women not conventionally attractive. So, i will say it again – all the guys slamming women for being “vain and shallow” need to simply shutup. Women will stop being shallow when men will stop being pigs. Which will be never.

        3. KK

          Stacy2 said, “Women will stop being shallow when men will stop being pigs. Which will be never”.

          Hmm. I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that being vain or shallow is anyone else’s fault; much less the fault of an entire gender. If someone is vain or shallow, that’s their own personal flaw and they need to own that. Personally, I think it’s healthy to always be the best version of ourselves for our own happiness. Having men find you attractive is not without it’s own set of potential problems. I have no idea what you think, but I don’t want to be with anyone solely because they find me attractive. I’d prefer it if they cared about me for who I am and not just what I look like.

      2. 41.1.2
        Shaukat

        Are you seeing them doing that?

        Yes, I am seeing men date women who don’t conform to that standard of beauty, just like I see women dating men who don’t conform to the standard set by Hugh Jackman in Wolverine or Pitt in Fight Club (extremely low body fat percentage, around 6-7%, and high muscle ratio).

        I think I understand where your anger and resentment come from now. You spend a great amount of time and energy trying to attain a certain standard of beauty in order to attract a very specific type of man, who you then conflate with all men, and as  a result you lash out at society for making women adhere to such standards to attract those type of men in the first place. You have no one but yourself to blame for that, and you certainly can’t claim it’s a quid pro quo for the man paying on dates. I’d say the same thing about a man who cycles through steroids and remains in a calorie deficit most of the year in order to attract a specific type of woman, and then whines and complains how unfair it all  is.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big believer in fitness and working out to look good, but I don’t blame an entire gender for that.

        1. Stacy2

          I am seeing men date women who don’t conform to that standard of beauty

          Yup. After they fail to get those most attractive, hot women they do indeed date whoever they can get, because, I presume, from a guy’s standpoint some sex is better than no sex. But make no mistake, those ones who can get that hot girl are not going for a chubby but sweet type. Doesn’t happen.

          in order to attract a very specific type of man

          And what “specific type” would that be? Are talking about, like, 2/3 of people on OKC? Because…

          “..2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women… Guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for these absolute best rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwrittem”  

          Hmm…

          Are women doing the same thing? Turns out, no, they’re not:

          “… ..the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes and messages them anyway”.

          The most attractive guys get 11x the messages the lowest-rated do. For women this ratio is 28x. Put differently, Female attractiveness is 2.8x more important in the dating process compared to male attractiveness.

          So… you were saying? “don’t blame an entire gender for that.” – really?

          Of course, these stats have simply confirmed what women have known for ages: yes, men are absolutely wired this way and they all want that hot girl.

          We simply cater to the target audience.

          So, i will say it again: men who call women “vain” for trying to be hot are full of shit, hypocrites and need to shut up (or please go to OKC and start messaging those non-hot gals already!!)

      3. 41.1.3
        Shaukat

        You’re drawing the wrong inference from that study. The male ratings for female attractiveness were normally distributed, the fact that the men wrote to the most attractive females in greater numbers at the beginning can be attributed to the fact that men are the approachers, in both real life and online. In an online setting where approach anxiety is minimal, it makes sense that men will try their luck with the most sought after females.

        Moreover, this fact says nothing about the preferences of women and whether females are any less superficial than men. If you go to a bar or a club and you observe large numbers of men approaching attractive females throughout the night but don’t observe the women making any approaches, does that necessarily say anything about the preferences of the most attractive females, or even females in general? Also, the same study stated that women may not write to the most attractive men as much die to feelings of inadequacy, which has to do with confidence and says nothing about tastes and preferences.

        1. Stacy2

          the fact that the men wrote to the most attractive females in greater numbers at the beginning can be attributed to the fact that men are the approachers, in both real life and online.

          This statement is such a radical assault on logic its not even funny. First: sure. It can be attributed to that, or to the fact that Saturn was in retrograde, or to the global warming… yeah. You can make up any explanation but it is not supported by the data. The cold fact when you look at the results of this study at face value remains: men judge attraction accurately but pass on “cute” to chase “hot”. Period.

          Second, this doesn’t even make any sense. Ok say it is attributable to the fact that men are “approachers”. So why are their approaches not normally distributed along the line of attractiveness as they judge it?? It should be, but it’s not. Because, see above — men chase hot women in high numbers.

          Now, lets look at other facts,  not conjectures, or what you think may explain various things, not some alternative facts, real cold facts.

          1. From OKC study we know that men tend to disproportionately target hot women, while passing on the ones they deem merely cute or good looking (let alone – ugly)

          2. Women on average still make less than men (see:

          3. Basic women’s products (not fancy stuff, we’re talking basic deodorants and such) cost 10-13% more than similarly formulated products for men (per government studies) with some items costing as much as . In fact this has been bad enough for some states like CA to consider legislation that would ban “gender pricing” in retail (gender pricing in services was banned in 1995) [collection of links:

          4. As some men posters correctly pointed out, men need and enjoy sex more than women, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we have about 20% “orgasm gap”:  http://www.healthline.com/health-news/women-have-fewer-orgasms-than-men-082114

          5.   ..and females are 5.3x more likely to be victims of an assault by a romantic partner compared to males [study:

          ===

          So what do these real facts add up to, in terms of a female experience? Basically, as an average woman, you make 20% less than an average guy, have to spend 10% more on the identical products; you must be in the top 1/3 of the hotness to generate some interest, and then assuming you managed that you get to go on a date – where a guy will decide whether or not he wants to have sex with you, and if you do end up having sex you’re 20% less likely to orgasm but 5x more likely to get assaulted. Whew! What a fucking treat!! And you’d like to go dutch while she’s sitting there and you’re deciding whether or not you’d like to fuck her?

          This is a female perspective for you. These are facts, of what it is to be a woman today. Not that I am complaining. Heck, 100 years ago men wouldn’t let us vote and have checking accounts. But in case you’re wondering – yes, there absolutely is something wrong with your gender as a whole, and the best thing you can do is to be a decent human being and freaking pay for her glass of wine. It’s not her problem that you want to audition 30 women per month to maximize your getting laid and it gets expensive. Really.

        2. Chance

          Stacy2, there’s something wrong with women as a whole, too.   There’s something wrong with humanity as a whole, but we do the best we can, and continually strive to improve.   However, it’s BS to attempt to justify unfair social customs with this kind of reasoning.

           

          Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women.   Until then, we are just going to have to assume that the pay gap is due to women choosing the wrong careers and/or not working hard enough.

        3. Stacy2

          @Chance:
          there’s something wrong with women as a whole, too.
          Fair enough. I am sure through centuries of mistreatment women have developed social compensation mechanisms that may look “unfair” or “wrong” to you against the modern reality. Just remember cause and effect.

          Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women.   Until then, we are just going to have to assume that the pay gap is due to women choosing the wrong careers and/or not working hard enough.
          FYI these comparisons are done by profession. They are not comparing surgeons to maids. They compare surgeons to surgeons and find that female surgeons still make less. Perhaps they are not pushing their scalpels “hard enough”. Sure.
          Heck, Yahoo’s new (male) CEO will run a company a fraction of a size of former Yahoo and yet will make a double of what its previous (female) CEO made. Hollywood actresses are getting paid less than their male co-leads in movies. Are you shitting me? This goes all the way to the top. Sometimes they’re even honest (or stupid) enough to admit it. In their own words:
          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-22/tech-start-up-founder-says-women-are-like-men-only-cheaper

        4. Chance

          Stacy2, I can fully sympathize with you as penis envy seems to be a difficult condition to assuage.   However, you’ll need to do better than to cite studies that don’t get to the heart of the matter or parrot cherry-picked, second-hand anecdotes to support your case.   Please provide evidence that demonstrates that women are being discriminated against as it relates to pay.   Simply illustrating pay gaps does not count as providing evidence of discrimination or mistreatment.

           

          Until then, Stacy2, don’t wish that things were easier for women.   Wish that women were better.

        5. Stacy2

          @Chance

          Also, please provide evidence that the pay gap is due to unfair treatment of women.

          I think for an internet forum, a public confession of a company owner that he pays more qualified women less than un-qualified men, will do.

          You want more “evidence”? Go on LexisNexis in your local library and read through court cases on pay discrimination. They will have court-accepted “evidence” from depositions, documents and the like. Like the one of   Heidi Wilson:
          Wilson was paid $75,329 when she was promoted to manage a Tampa service center. However, her male predecessor was paid more than $129,000 the year before, according to a report in the  Tampa Bay Times. In 2011, she was bypassed for another raise and objected. Shortly thereafter she was fired without severance and took the case to court. In 2012, Wilson won the case–and was awarded nearly $340,000 in back pay.
          And “penis envy”? LOL Come’on now.

        6. Chance

          Stacy2, by all appearances, the guy in the article you referenced was engaging in a total PR ploy, and ironically, it backfired (and, predictably, he back-tracked from his initial claim).   I also noticed that he didn’t provide an ounce of evidence to support his claim.   Since it’s executive management’s job to maximize shareholder wealth, virtually everyone would be hiring more women if they were, in fact, cheaper.   That’s why, statistically and pragmatically, the claim that women are cheaper for no other reason than that they are women is ridiculous.   Also, cherry-picking lawsuits doesn’t prove much, either.   One would need to provide a study that shows that women are being systematically discriminated against, while controlling for as many other factors as possible.

      4. 41.1.4
        Shaukat

        Stacy, the OkCupid study was a snapshot of a particular period of time, it was not a longitudinal study. In other words, yes, men messaged the most attractive women, but that says nothing about which people eventually pair up, nor does it say anything about the preferences and tastes of women, conventionally attractive or not. The same study stated that the  female attractiveness ratings of men were skewed, and that women likely weren’t messaging the most attractive men due to a lack of confidence (which doesn’t at all support your theory that women are more forgiving of looks or less selective).

        You seem to begrudge men for approaching conventionally attractive women. Why? In your bizarre world, man-sees-attractive-woman,-man-approaches-man-gets-date. In your world, you make no room for the fact that many men have to invest massive amounts of time in marketing themselves as well, by packing on muscle, losing fat, buying nice clothes, getting their hair styled well, cold approaching dozens of women at bars, during the day, or online, facing multiple rejections, before getting a return on their investment. And yes, many men might have to adjust their preferences downward, but women also can only select from the group of men who are interested in them. However, using your own logic, the effort men put into marketing themselves to specific types of women should cancel out the effort women have to put into their appearance. This is what several commenters have said, but you simply dismiss it.

        Your points 2-5, while important issues, are irrelevant to the topic of dating. and so I see no reason to address them. It might surprise you, however, to learn that you and I would likely agree on several of those points you raised.

        1. Emily, the original

          Shakut

          You make no room for the fact that many men have to invest massive amounts of time in marketing themselves as well … by   cold approaching dozens of women at bars, during the day, or online, facing multiple rejections, before getting a return on their investment.

          I am not a man and I am not asking in a sarcastic way, but do you think that men have a tendency to approach women out of their league? If you look around at married couples, for the most part, the man and woman are fairly well matched in terms of attractiveness. For a man who is average looking, is it a good investment to only message/approach the most attractive women?

           

        2. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat,

          “In other words, yes, men messaged the most attractive women, but that says nothing about which people eventually pair up, nor does it say anything about the preferences and tastes of women, conventionally attractive or not.”

          What it does say, however, is that a woman making herself as attractive as possible is an effective dating strategy since the most attractive women get the most attention and the most opportunities.   Yes the men may eventually wind up with women who are in the mere mortal range of the SMV scale.   But that’s AFTER they’ve taken a crack at the hottest women.

        3. Shaukat

          I am not a man and I am not asking in a sarcastic way, but do you think that men have a tendency to approach women out of their league?

          Hi Emily, there are a couple of points I  would make in response to this question. First, the process of discovering one’s own ‘league’ is itself  the result  of trial and error, which involves approaching and getting rejected, altering techniques/strategies, and eventually adjusting preferences and goals.

          Second, you seem to be suggesting that men should just be content with their SMV and approach within their league if they don’t like rejection.  However, the entire argument you and some other female posters have been making is that it takes a lot of effort for women to beauty themselves up to attract high quality men. If I said that you should  just give up on the blowouts, the pedis/manicures, the waxing, the makeup, and everything else, and then just focus on the men who are attracted to you in your natural state, would you think that’s reasonable? Point being, men who want to attract a certain type of woman also have to put a lot of effort into raising their SMV, and its not as effortless as some posters here seem to think. Spending months at the gym to gain 2olbs of muscle and reduce body fat to 12%, for example,  to say nothing  of the investment in stylish  clothes,  shouldn’t be scoffed at. And I’m not even talking about the effort men have to put into improving their game, banter, building their confidence to approach, etc.

          @GWTF,

          I would never begrudge you the effort you put into improving your SMV to attract as many desirable men as possible. The only points I’ve been making is that females posters are underestimating the effort that men have to put into improving their own SMV, and that neither gender should try and leverage the decision to invest in their appearance in order to justify some other custom.

           

        4. Buck25

          @ GWTF,

          “Yes the men may eventually wind up with women who are in the mere mortal range of the SMV scale. But that’s AFTER they’ve taken a crack at the hottest women.”

          Precisely. Especially online, most guys will at least try messaging the hottest women, and why not? No approach anxiety, no risk of public rejection; little chance of success but a slight chance is better than NO chance at all. I can make a case that it’s far from stupid for any guy to do this (low-effort, low-risk, potentially high reward) so long as those aren’t the only women he messages (and we don’t know that from the infamous OK Cupid study), and/or dates   IRL, “in his own league”. It’s really no different from the PUA tactic of simply making approach after approach to the hottest women first, both becoming more skilled (we hope) as well as making it a numbers game. If (and a lot of guys are), he’s primarily satisfied with hookups as opposed to finding a long-term girlfriend, it’s a pretty effective strategy. Once a guy decides to settle down, he’ll most likely do it with someone other than that 9 or 10, either because he can’t consistently pull those women, or he can, but finds the hot women he dates are not necessarily relationship material themselves. So, despite how that study looks, the “mere mortal women” usually do get their man in the end (they have to, really; there aren’t enough hot women to take them all, though they might get more of the hotter guys). They just have to work a little harder, just like the guys who aren’t 9s and 10s themselves. I’d guess that’s true for most age groups, but especially the 21 t0 40 set.

        5. Emily, the original

          Shaukat,

          I am not begrudging anyone the efforts he/she makes in ratcheting up his/her SMV. If those efforts place him/her in the top 20%, then he/she can reasonably expect to land a partner in the same top percentage. People, for the most part, mate assortatively and partner up with people with similar levels of attractiveness, education and income. In terms of a man below that 20% thinking he can land a top-tier woman with enough attempts, I would have know way of knowing if that’s possible, but I’m guessing a hot partner is something one earns with repeated requests.

        6. Emily, the original

          Sorry, I meant to type a hot partner is NOT something one earns with repeated requests.

        7. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat, Buck, Emily,

          I have mentioned at least twice in other comments that the extra time and money that women in general and an individual woman specifically spend on appearance DOES NOT entitle her to paid dates.   It seems as if some of the men commenters are diminishing the pressure, both  internal and societal, that women feel to be as attractive as possible, and the resultant effort they put into it, because “conceding” on this point would weaken the case that men see planning and paying for dates as a burden that they sometimes resent.

          What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates.   Both are effective strategies.   Both men and women, at times, may truly get pleasure out of doing it.   Both men and women may sometimes resent “having” to do it.   Both men and women at times wish that society and the opposite sex would change so that it’s not an effective strategy.   Both get bashed if they publicly say “this sucks”.

        8. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow,

          What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates.   Both are effective strategies.

          I completely agree with you. That’s all I was ever trying to say. Both strategies are effective at attracting the opposite sex. It became, however, a protracted debate about how one side pays more and how the issues were being conflated. Or that I have no idea how much time/effort men spend on their appearance.

        9. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow

          And all I was saying to Shaukat was that all of us have to be reasonable as to who we expect to attract.

        10. GoWiththeFlow

          Hey Emily,

          Just reread my comment, and it absolutely sounds like criticism.   That wasn’t my intent and I’m sorry.   I think we share the same frustration that the bigger picture doesn’t get discussed because we are so far down in the weeds looking at individual dandelions that we miss the whole meadow.

        11. KK

          GWTF and Emily,

          I agree with both of you. It costs more and takes more time and effort for a woman to get ready to go out than the time and effort it takes for a man. I also agree that this fact doesn’t mean the man should pay for the date. (In my opinion, he should only pay for the date if he wants a second date).

          I think what Shaukat was getting at (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood), is that most women aren’t spending more or putting more effort into getting ready for a date than they do regularly. If that’s what he meant, I agree with him.

        12. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow,

          Just reread my comment, and it absolutely sounds like criticism.   That wasn’t my intent and I’m sorry.   

          No problem. I didn’t read your comment as criticism.

          I think we share the same frustration that the bigger picture doesn’t get discussed because we are so far down in the weeds looking at individual dandelions that we miss the whole meadow.

          Exactly. I’ve been guilty of it myself. Going round in round with other posters about small details. One thing I have learned is how much is expected of men as those who have to approach, plan, pay, move things forward, etc. I was reading a post on Hooking Up Smart and a guy was saying he sometimes feels that if he makes one wrong move in these early stages, however small, the girl is gone. Poof. And often he doesn’t even know he made that wrong move until she disappears. (I would assume women can feel this way as well: What did I do? What just happened?)

        13. Emily, the original

          KK,

          I think what Shaukat was getting at (and I apologize in advance if I misunderstood), is that most women aren’t spending more or putting more effort into getting ready for a date than they do regularly.

          Actually, I will spend more time if I really like the guy. I don’t shave everyday. Why should I? It’s long pants weather where I live, and it’s not like Richard Gere is going to show up where I work and carry me off! 🙂     But if I like the guy, I’ll shave. That adds 10 minutes. My hair is naturally wavy. For work, I let it air dry and then bump it up with a curling iron for 10 minutes. But if I like the guy, I’ll beat it down/straighten it and recurl/reset   it. Takes about 30 minutes. So that’s an extra half hour right there. If, however, I’m on the fence about the date, it’s natural hair and full-on Sasquatch.

          But that’s me. YMMV

        14. KK

          Emily,

          Gotcha. 😊   It’s all about different perspectives I suppose. I don’t put any extra effort into my date night appearance than I would a night out with girlfriends and I shave daily simply out of habit, but that’s just me. I do know women who absolutely hate to shave, though. A friend of mine once commented about how much she loves wearing Capri pants in the summer because she only had to shave a few inches above her ankles. LOL. She’s had laser hair removal done since then and absolutely loves it. I also know people on the other extreme who refuse to leave their house without a 2 to 3 hour beautifying session just to stop by the grocery store. LOL.

        15. Emily, the original

          KK,

          She’s had laser hair removal done since then and absolutely loves it.

          I tried to do that, but I’m a blonde and the lasers don’t work on light hair.

          I used to put in a lot more effort even for an every day look, but I just don’t see the point anymore. There is no one to impress where I work.

        16. Shaukat

          @Emily,

          kk is right, I was partially alluding to the notion that women generally spend time on their appearance anyway. However, my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.

        17. GoWiththeFlow

          KK & Emily,

          As far as date nights go, I do put in time on my appearance, especially if it takes place after work.   I’m in an OR all day under one of those surgical caps that does wonders for the hair–not!   So a shower, shampoo, and hairstyle is needed.   Plus at work, wearing strong scents or perfumes is discouraged.   So I like to be able to kick that up a notch before I go out with scented lotion and perfume.   But that’s just me.

          I don’t expect men to really get what a day in the life of a woman is like.   What really bugs me is the amount of criticism a few women commenters are willing to  heap on other women who will do outrageous things like, GASP!, get a facial once a month, or remove hair with wax versus Nair.

          Since my two younger kids are Disney move age, one theme that has struck me in recent years (and that goes along with Buck’s observations of female jealousy and competition with other women mentioned above) is that of women envying other women for their beauty and youth.   Snow White, Rapunzel, Cinderella all have this as a central theme.   Also attributing beauty to magic or a trick as well.   Heck, in Game of Thrones, the character Cersei fears a prophecy that says she will be replaced by a younger, more beautiful queen.

          As a society and as individuals, we seem to have deep conflicts within as to the role of female beauty in life and society.   How much accentuating of beauty is acceptable?   How much until it is a trick or a fraud?   Why should beauty matter at all? At the end of the day, what remains is that as far as gaining men’s sexual/romantic interest, a woman accentuating her beauty is an effective strategy.

        18. Emily, the original

          Shaukat,

          then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.

          I am guessing that women still spend a lot more time on their physical appearance, but that isn’t really the point. You’re getting mired in the details and missing the bigger picture, which GWTF alluded to.

        19. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow,

          As a society and as individuals, we seem to have deep conflicts within as to the role of female beauty in life and society.   How much accentuating of beauty is acceptable?  

          Yes. Do too much accentuating and it draws the ire of other women and the attention of men. But what does that attention mean? It’s based on something quite shallow. Do too little accentuating and you have no sexual currency. We are as conflicted about beauty as were are about sex.

          At the end of the day, what remains is that as far as gaining men’s sexual/romantic interest, a woman accentuating her beauty is an effective strategy.

          Yes, and it’s all about what’s effective, right?     🙂     IT!’S NOT ABOUT WHO’S RIGHT!

        20. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat,

          “However, my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.”

          It does not.   Overall women spend more money and time on their appearance than men do.

          Just the time factor, from 2014:

          Hours per week spent on appearance.   Tee

          Teen Girls 7.7 hours/week

          Teen Boys 4 hours/week

          Adult Women 6.4 hours/week

          Adult men 4.5 hours per week

          The survey also showed that women worry about their appliance more than men and have negative thought about their appearance more than men do.

          http://www.today.com/health/stop-obsessing-women-spend-2-weeks-year-their-appearance-today-2D12104866

          And on how women spend more money on appearance related items than men:

          http://www.businessinsider.com/women-vs-men-guess-who-spends-more-2011-11

          And a short article on why this is:   https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201612/why-women-spend-so-much-effort-their-appearance

        21. Chance

          GWTF and Emily – haven’t read the whole thread so my apologies up front if this has already been addressed, but it’s myopic (and convenient) for women to focus on how much time/effort/money each sex generally spends on their appearance because appearance is more heavily weighted towards determining overall attractiveness in women than it is for men.   So, naturally, women would likely spend more sweat and resources than men towards enhancing their appearance.   However, this ignores the areas where men likely spend more sweat and resources than women towards becoming more attractive to the opposite sex.   Examples could include building confidence and financial success in addition to appearance (The second example is a big one, and I have feeling that GWTF’s go-to response will be to point out that more women attend college than men these days…. just remember:   what you study in college is infinitely more important than simply going to college).

           

          There is just simply no way of knowing how much time/money/effort each sex spends – on average – towards making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex.   One thing is for sure, however, is that both sexes spend a lot of sweat and resources to become more attractive to the opposite sex.   This is why it is silly to attempt to justify the custom of men paying for women simply because women – on average – are likely to spend more sweat and resources on appearance alone than men.

           

          Also, women are obviously of varying degrees of physical attractiveness (often correlated to how much sweat and resources were spent on ensuring that they are physically attractive).   Likewise, men have obviously experienced varying degrees of financial success (again, often correlated to how much sweat and resources were spent to ensure financial success).   So, where does that leave us, then?   Should more homely or homey women be expected to pay their own way since they presumably don’t spend as much sweat and resources on their physical appearance?   Should less successful men actually be expected to pay for the woman, while more successful men should be relieved of this expectation because they presumably spent more sweat and resources to become successful?   It’s idiotic.

        22. Emily, the original

          Chance,

          AGAIN, for the 100th, time, this isn’t about who spends more time/money on their appearance or who puts in more time/money developing “other resources.” It’s about what is EFFECTIVE. It’s effective for a woman to put in a pretty big effort in her appearance. No one saying men don’t spend time on their appearance as well. It’s effective for the man to plan and pay for a date. Neither action is required. Neither action cancels the other out in terms of resources allocated/time spent. Nobody is entitled to anything. Everyone is trying to be as attractive to the opposite sex as possible. You can cherry pick what strategies you personally use. It’s all up to you.

          As GWTF put it:

          What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates.   Both are effective strategies.

          And I’m sure the 30 minutes you spend on your hair every morning mean one thing: YOU LOOK MARVELOUS!     🙂

           

        23. GoWiththeFlow

          Chance,

          “What I’m interested in exploring is how women spending time and money trying to make themselves as physically attractive as possible to men is a similar experience to how men ask for, plan for, and pay for dates.   Both are effective strategies.   Both men and women, at times, may truly get pleasure out of doing it.   Both men and women may sometimes resent “having” to do it.   Both men and women at times wish that society and the opposite sex would change so that it’s not an effective strategy.   Both get bashed if they publicly say ‘this sucks.'”

          This is what Emily and I are pointing out.

          Shaukat’s contention is that men spend just as much effort  as women do on their physical appearance to attract women

          “. . . my other point, which you and GWTF seem to not want to grapple with at all, is that if you include the time that men have to invest in their appearance and physique in order to attract the women who meet their looks threshold, then the alleged discrepancy between the preparation time men and women go through as part of the mating game vanishes.”

          This is demonstrably not true.   As a group women spend more time and money on appearance than men do.   This is behavior that is deeply ingrained in humankind, whether due to social construct or an evolutionary survival tactic or both.

          Chance, you said:   “This is why it is silly to attempt to justify the custom of men paying for women simply because women — on average — are likely to spend more sweat and resources on appearance alone than men.”

          Emily and I have repeatedly stated in the comments on this post that women spending more time and money on their appearance DOES NOT entitle them to paid dates.    But it seems that   some of the men commenters want to keep bringing this up, and are dismissing the fact that women put more time and effort into their appearance to “win” the women-aren’t-entitled-to-paid-dates argument that  Emily and I (and the majority of the women commenters) have already agreed with you on.

          Chance, you said:   “However, this ignores the areas where men likely spend more sweat and resources than women towards becoming more attractive to the opposite sex.   Examples could include building confidence and financial success in addition to appearance”

          Emily and I were pointing out that women investing in their appearance is an effective mate attracting strategy and that men don’t often realize the extent to which we do this.   Of course men have their strategies as well.   We never said they didn’t or that they did not spend considerable amount of time and energy enacting their strategies.

          As far as going to college, that you mentioned as a specific strategy, is getting women the top reason men do this, or do they do it for themselves?   Because they like the study area, and want to be financially independent to please themselves.

        24. KK

          LOL

        25. KK

          My LOL was @ the lack of reading comprehension. “Chance, ONCE AGAIN for the 100th time……”

          Jeez!

        26. Chance

          Emily:  AGAIN, for the 100th, time, this isn’t about who spends more time/money on their appearance or who puts in more time/money developing “other resources.” It’s about what is EFFECTIVE.”

           

          I got that part.   I just think it’s disingenuous to hide behind the “you should only do it because it’s effective” reasoning.   Also, when a woman’s first reflexive response to a man who points out how it is unfair for men to be expected to pay is to simply note that she has to spend more money on her appearance, she is strongly implying that she is justified in her expectation of his payment regardless of how much she subsequently back-tracks by saying that neither party is entitled to anything.

           

          Just because something is effective doesn’t mean it’s remotely fair.   It’s one thing to spend time/money/energy to improve aspects of yourself that the opposite sex values in a partner, and I believe that both sexes do this to an equal extent, but with a different focus.   However, it’s entirely different to expect the opposite sex to adhere to a specific set of rules or behaviors during the dating process in order to qualify for your intimacy.   This is why I don’t think GWTF’s comparison is particularly valid (men calling, planning, paying and women spending time and money on appearance).   Men also rarely get pleasure out of paying, but rather, they just pretend to like it in order to impress women.

           

          A more appropriate comparison would be if the vast majority of men had a rule that women should give them a blowjob after the second date, with no expectation of sexual reciprocation, in an expression of her gratitude for his display of decisiveness and generosity when he was calling/planning/paying.   Men want to verify sexual availability and generosity in a romantic prospect in the same way that women want to verify a masculine dominance and generosity in a man.   I can’t think of a better way for a woman to demonstrate sexual availability and generosity, and it certainly would be EFFECTIVE.   However, it wouldn’t even be remotely fair for men to have a rule that women behave that way.

           

          GWTF, please see comments above addressed to Emily, but as it relates to this question:   “As far as going to college, that you mentioned as a specific strategy, is getting women the top reason men do this, or do they do it for themselves?   Because they like the study area, and want to be financially independent to please themselves.”

           

          It’s a little of both.   I would say that men are much less likely than women to study an area they are passionate about if studying such a field cannot result in a financially lucrative career because they know that no woman would want them.   As men get older, their work-based decisions are increasingly dictated by the drive to attract (and, sadly, retain – i.e., serve) women.   This is why men are more willing than women to work long hours or odd hours, travel for work, work in dangerous conditions, or work in an otherwise soul-sucking environment.   It’s because they understand, on some level, that their money is expected by most women.

        27. Emily, the original

          Chance,

          A more appropriate comparison would be if the vast majority of men had a rule that women should give them a blowjob after the second date, with no expectation of sexual reciprocation, in an expression of her gratitude for his display of decisiveness and generosity when he was calling/planning/paying.

          I’m thinking that you may want to try to become famous. Then you wouldn’t need to bring anything to the table to attract women.   You wouldn’t have to do anything.   The women would be lined up. (I mean this in all seriousness.)

           

           

    2. 41.2
      Chance

      I can agree with this, although it is nice that these comment sections don’t look like IMDB message boards (when they existed), which became pretty much useless.   I just couldn’t believe the coke bit actually got through given EMK’s policy on personal attacks.

  2. 42
    Shaukat

    GWTF,

    Thanks for the articles. The survey you linked to found that adult women exceed the amount of time men spend on their appearance weekly by less than 2hours. This is not much at all, and the survey reported a margin of error -+2% at the 95% confidence level. Moreover, the questions asked weren’t provided; I don’t know if ‘working/thinking about your appearance’ includes time spent at the gym or not.

    I understood the first time that you and Emily were simply looking at effective strategies in dating when you brought this up, and that you weren’t necessarily saying that time spent on appearance cancels out money spent on a date. What I’m struggling to understand is why even bring it up then, especially when your own evidence shows that the difference in time spent on appearance   by men and women is slight, and perhaps non-existent. To take  a hypothetical, if we were discussing the amount of time women spend on their appearance as a dating strategy,  suppose I then  brought up the fact that men allegedly plan and pay for the first date as a counter-strategy.  If,  in fact, it turned out that women also  plan and pay  at roughly the same frequency as men, then the premise of the initial comparison is demolished.

    1. 42.1
      KK

      Shaukat,

      You said, “What I’m struggling to understand is why even bring it up then, especially when your own evidence shows that the difference in time spent on appearance   by men and women is slight, and perhaps non-existent”.

      Only one commenter brought it up.

      Stacy2 said,  “So, yes, when I put that much effort into the presentation, I expect a guy to pick up the freaking $50 wine bar tab”.

      Other female commenters disagreed with her statement. It was only when male commenters said that women didn’t spend that much time or money on appearance, that other female commenters chimed in. As an aside to your comment quoted here, I will again reiterate that women do in fact spend more time and money on appearance. I don’t see how anyone could seriously deny that. Just ask your married friends which of them takes longer to get ready. Ask how much his wife spends on hair products, make up, and skin care.

      Stacy2 bringing up something unrelated to the original article is no different than Chance’s unrelated comments about transactional relationships. But once it’s brought up, it seems fair game to discuss it.

      1. 42.1.1
        Chance

        Shaukat, I know you don’t need the help, but I believe it was Emily that first brought up the fact that women spend more time and money on their appearance so the claim that only one commenter brought it up is inaccurate.   Also, the claim that I brought up the supposedly unrelated topic of transactional relationships is also inaccurate because I was responding to Stacy2’s points about being compensated for the time and effort she puts into herself in preparation for a date.

        1. KK

          Chance said, “Shaukat, I know you don’t need the help, but I believe it was Emily that first brought up the fact that women spend more time and money on their appearance so the claim that only one commenter brought it up is inaccurate”.

          The comment I made about only one commenter was in relation to Stacy2 conflating time and money on her appearance with being treated to dates. She was the only commenter to say that. Jeez! It’s not difficult to understand that, is it? A separate conversation took place about time and money on appearance which had absolutely nothing to do with who pays on dates. It was completely unrelated! Got it yet???

          “Also, the claim that I brought up the supposedly unrelated topic of transactional relationships is also inaccurate because I was responding to Stacy2’s points about being compensated for the time and effort she puts into herself in preparation for a date”.

          It is unrelated to the rest of us here. You & Stacy2 both agree that all relationships are transactional. No one else has made that claim, which probably explains the fact you both have chips on your shoulders the size of Texas.

           

           

           

  3. 43
    Stacy2

    I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here. Perhaps, rather than discussing what’s “fair” till everybody’s green in the face you should practice some unfairness in out in real life (personally i just came back from a spa weekend trip with my beau.

    I will stand by my original comment (with a clarification that it does not apply on the individual level but as a general philosophy). I always bring my A-game to every date. I expect that a man does to0. I work hard on trying to impress him. I expect him to work hard on impressing me back. I am not interested in dating men who don’t care to impress me. These are men who only want to get laid on the cheap. Obviously I am not “entitled” to anything – but neither is he. So if we are looking to get somewhere together, both have to work on it. And, as women, we have to put up with a lot more unfairness in life and dating in general, so paying for first dates   kinda pales in comparison (especially when you consider that the ultimate upside is greater for the guy). So if as a white male in the US you’re whining about “unfairness” of dating or life in general – you need to seriously check yourself.

    1. 43.1
      Chance

      I know, whatever benefits that women receive pale in comparison to that nebulous patriarchy.   White males are privileged because… well, they just are and that’s just the way it is.   No need for proof or actual evidence.

       

      Women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.   Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength.

       

      At any rate, I’m not blaming women for monetizing their sexuality.   I actually blame men for willfully engaging in this much more insidious form of prostitution (since, let’s be honest, this financial provisioning often goes far beyond just paying for the first few dates).   I just call BS on women’s justifications.   Just be honest about what you’re doing…. at least street walkers have that common decency.

      1. 43.1.1
        Stacy2

        White males are privileged because… well, they just are and that’s just the way it is.  

        Yes. They are. Google is your friend with respect to evidence.

          I actually blame men for willfully engaging in this

        Willfully engaging? No-no. Men have created this setup in the first place, so you should take more credit than simply “willfully engaging”. Women are creating the product that men desire, but they expect the men to pay. Unfair? Cry me a river. Or, better yet, change your own priorities. Instead of longing for beautiful and objectifying women based on their looks, start prioritizing smart, educated, accomplished with good values, etc. When men as a gender begin consistently doing that, you can rest assured that female behavior and expectations will change accordingly. Don’t preach to women. Preach to your bros out there who all chase the hot chick. Women in general are not dumb and will not go for this “unfairness” argument. We know what really is unfair (and thats not you paying for dates…)

        P.S. What cracked me up was the comment above how men going to college is investing into their SMV. I suppose the commenter didn’t realize that women now outnumber men in colleges (as well as some grad schools)

         

         

         

        1. Chance

          Stacy2,

           

          “Yes. They are. Google is your friend with respect to evidence.”

           

          I don’t have the inclination.   You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to provide evidence to back it up.   Tell your sisters to step up their game if you don’t like women’s lot in life.

           

          “Willfully engaging? No-no. Men have created this setup in the first place, so you should take more credit than simply “willfully engaging”.”

           

          Western civilization is dependent on men producing more than they consume so women can consume more than they produce.   Women achieve this through the maximization of the price of their sexuality.   I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations, and I just simply avoid the arrangement.

           

          “P.S. What cracked me up was the comment above how men going to college is investing into their SMV. I suppose the commenter didn’t realize that women now outnumber men in colleges (as well as some grad schools)”

           

          Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult).   I already addressed this in my response to Emily and GWTF.

        2. Stacy2

          You’re the one who made the claim so it’s up to you to provide evidence to back it up.  

          No, not really. White male privilege should be so blatantly obvious to any unbiased observer that asking me to produce “evidence” of it is ludicrous. “Having eyes do you not see? Having ears do you not hear?”. Not my problem to educate you.

          I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations

          The primary beneficiaries of this “strategy” have been men. Men, who for hundreds of years treated women as property, something to be “given away” at a wedding, something to be “taken”, an under-human who were to have no separate identity and no separate rights. So no, it wasn’t the women who designed this arrangement, and it wasn’t the women who benefited from it. You making this statement is akin to saying that slaves benefited from slavery for generations because they were “provisioned” for by their masters. It is ludicrous, offensive, and has no basis in truth.

          Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult)  

          Yes. Yes it is. Perhaps you have to recheck your facts. Women outnumber men in med schools (which is as difficult as it gets). Women to men ration in law schools has been roughly 50-50 for over 30 years now. So yes, women have stepped up in big numbers and generally have beaten the crap out of men in every fields that they’ve gone to. But – you want to see the example of “patriarchy”? The men to women ratio in senior positions across the board has been equalizing much more slowly. Why? I’ll tell you – because the system continues to be rigged against women. One aspect of it is the male-dominated culture that dictates that in order to succeed one has to have no other loyalties but to one’s job. Effectively, women are pressured to make a choice – have kids/family or advance your career. Men are not pressured to make this choice. They’re not the ones enduring any downtime associated with procreation. This, of course, will change in the next 2 generations because the younger crowd doesn’t stand for this B/S. But we’re not there yet and until we are yes, patriarchy. There’s that.

           

        3. KK

          Chance said,

          “I’m not complaining as I think the strategy seems to have been very effective for women for several generations, and I just simply avoid the arrangement”.

          Out of all the disingenuous comments you’ve made here, this one takes the cake! You have made the personal claim here more than once that you are here to fight back against women. You use this space to complain and insult women constantly. What a joke!

        4. Shaukat

          I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here.

          Katie already responded to this, but I’d simply point out that it’s rather ironic that you wrote that and then proceeded to make at least five comments on two different threads.

          Regarding your other points, I’m not sure if you really are such a proponent of social justice as you claim to be, since on other threads you’ve supported Trump and his immigration policies. But let’s assume you’re being sincere. It’s still completely irrelevant to the topic of dating, which is why I ignored your earlier points, 2-5.

          Let’s offer this analogy: suppose someone were to say, “hey, men work the most dangerous occupations, they suffer from depression and commit suicide at higher rates, they get injured on the job more, hence, women should pay more on dates.” Before you say men created the system, I’ll remind you that working class men did not. To be fair, this is an area where I would likely also have some disagreements with Chance, because in my opinion to say ‘women benefit’ from some system, or ‘men benefit’ from some system without also looking at one’s economic/class position is a mistake.

          However, to take this analogy further, suppose an African American man, who earns a decent salary and comes from a well-to-do family, were to say, “because of the discrimination we’ve faced in the past and due to the problems many of us still face, I think the white girl I’m dating should foot the bill for everything.’ Would you agree with that? Yet, that’s where your reasoning leads.

          @kk

          I was mainly responding to Emily and GWTF. Regardless of Emily’s intentions, the fact that she brought up this topic in the context of what was being discussed, implied that the time women spend on their appearance was some kind of quid pro quo.

          @Jeremy,

          I agree that confirmation bias is  a real thing, but I disagree that this always has to be a factor, even if some bias always enters into science. I’ve changed my own position on several issues over the years due to the scientific principal of falsifiability.

        5. GoWiththeFlow

          Chance,

          “Not when it comes to the more useful and lucrative fields of study (often correlated with being more difficult).”

          You are equating career/field of study usefulness with lucrativeness.   The predominantly female study majors and career fields of education, nursing, and social work don’t pay well on a time spent in study and training vs. hourly pay rate, but I would hardly call them “useless”.    If every teacher, nurse, and social worker stayed home all next week, that would definitely demonstrate how useful they are.

          As far as level of difficulty, there’s nothing easy about having to remove a child from parents who live in a drug stupor, try to teach kids who have  parents who will scream at you if you give their poor baby a failing grade, or take care of patients with evolving heart attacks.

          As for the gender distribution of dangerous jobs, the highest level of job related injuries  are in the nursing field.   Back injuries specifically.   They also are exposed to infectious agents like Hep B and HIV.

        6. Chance

          GWTF,

           

          No one said those fields were useless… that’s binary thinking.   However, while it may sound harsh, compensation is a reflection of someone’s utility in the workforce.   That’s an unavoidable fact.   The labor market is like pretty much every other mart of competitive commerce where the cost of a product/service is based on perceived utility (except in cases where there’s gross self-dealing and things of that nature).   While it would be disruptive if all teachers, nurses, or social workers quit on the spot, the are more easily replaceable than physicians or electrical engineers, and that is why they cost what they cost.

           

          As it relates to difficulty, I was referring to the difficulty of the path to get to a particular profession, not the difficulty of a typical day on the job.   I will freely admit that a server or roofer’s day on the job is much harder than my typical day, but the path to get to practice my profession is exponentially more difficult than the path to become a server or roofer.

           

          Finally, I acknowledge that nurses can often get injured on the job,   but that’s just one tiny slice of the picture you are choosing to present.   I haven’t seen data that shows whether men or women get injured more on the job by type and severity of injury.   However, you and I know full well that men are much more likely to work on a job that requires them to risk their lives, which was what I was getting at in the first place.   This is evidenced by the fact that men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in 2015 according to the BLS (and I’m not sure if that would even count the undocumented workers who are killed on the job as Latin American males have an inordinately high workplace mortality rate).

      2. 43.1.2
        Chance

        Are these your alternative facts, Stacy2?   It must be nice to think that you can just make s*** up.   Here’s what I found as it relates to medical school graduates:

         

        http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

         

        https://www.aamc.org/download/321532/data/factstableb2-2.pdf

         

        There may be something wrong with my eyes, but it sure appears that more men than women are graduating from medical school.   I didn’t bother to look up law school graduates since most lawyers don’t make squat because the legal field is over-saturated with lawyers produced by lawyer mills.   Here are some points of reference that you probably need to peruse:

         

        http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/359419934/who-studies-what-men-women-and-college-majors

         

        https://web.archive.org/web/20170924063639/http://www.aei.org/publication/highest-paying-college-majors-gender-composition-of-students-earning-degrees-in-those-fields-and-the-gender-pay-gap/

         

        http://www.randalolson.com/2015/08/16/u-s-college-majors-median-yearly-earnings-vs-gender-ratio/

         

        http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income

         

        Stacy2, tell your sisters to step up their game.   Don’t wish things were easier for women.   Wish women were better.   Don’t like that women are affected by “having” to stay home to raise a child (a dubious claim in this day-and-age)?   Then be open to the idea of a stay-at-home husband in the same way that men are open to the idea of stay-at-home wives.   Problem solved.

         

        “No, not really. White male privilege should be so blatantly obvious to any unbiased observer that asking me to produce “evidence” of it is ludicrous.”

         

        That’s because you can’t come up with evidence.   We’re still at square one.

        1. KK

          Chance said, “That’s because you can’t come up with evidence.   We’re still at square one”.

          I’d like to hear evidence as well, Stacy2. You see, unlike Chance who paints an entire gender as bad, I actually rely on facts to inform my opinions, and I actually like men. Please explain what special protections white males have under the law. I know people who are completely shitty employees who will never be fired because they know they can play the race card or the gender card. I know teachers who are not allowed to do their jobs because when they discipline a student, that just happens to be a minority, the parents will turn it into a race issue when it isn’t one.

        2. Jeremy

          Oy.   This conversation is making my head hurt.   Guys, do you not realize that we humans believe what we want to believe and then search for corroborating evidence?   That whatever world-view we wish to espouse, we can find data that will back it up?

           

          It matters not at all whether the world is more unfair to men or women, as long as members of both genders are willing to fight unfairness equally when they find it (and are willing to recognize it where it exists).   Recognize that there are areas where women are disadvantaged and be willing to offer help, or at least understanding.   Recognize that there are areas where men are disadvantaged and be willing to offer help, or at least understanding.

           

          But the pissing game of who has it worse is childish, and ultimately fruitless.

        3. Chance

          Jeremy, agree, but in this instance, there is very little evidence to support Stacy2’s claims and some overwhelming evidence that contradict her claims.   There’s a difference between me and her here:   she’s not providing any evidence and I am.

        4. Jeremy

          But here’s the thing, Chance – there is evidence out there to back BOTH of your claims, whether presented here or not.   That’s why the notion of providing evidence to support a world-view is nonsensical.   You might find evidence that you believe corroborates your view, and so might Stacy.   But although the statistics that both of you present may be accurate, neither is proof that the story you are creating out of those facts is the whole picture.

           

          In the book “The Black Swan”, the author describes Umberto Ecco’s library – a huge library full of many more books than any human could ever read.   And any time a visitor came to Ecco’s house, they asked whether he had read all of those books.   His answer was that of course he hadn’t, and that was the point.   The library’s presence served to remind him of the vast quantity of knowledge out there that he was unaware of – had never read.   Its point was to humble him before venturing an opinion, that in spite of all he felt he knew, there was plenty that he didn’t know.

           

          This doesn’t mean that we can’t have beliefs and opinions.   But it means that we should be gentle with them, because we may be wrong – we may not have all the information.   Because even when we have some data to support the stories we tell ourselves, we don’t know how much we don’t know about what might contradict those stories.

           

        5. Stacy2

          Chance:

          there is very little evidence to support Stacy2’s claims

          You have just assembled this evidence yourself. You just refusing to see what’s in front of you. According to your very links, men and women graduate from medical school in roughly equal numbers. Same goes for law schools This has been the case for decades. Yet… yet… how come women are just 15% of department chairs in hospitals? How come the ratio of male to female partners in law firms is 5:1, while at the entry level it is 50/50? This, chance, IS EXACTLY the evidence of systemic male privilege. What it is actually showing that less qualified men are being promoted ahead of more qualified women (if we rationally assume they were equally qualified at the start). Ponder on that. Women ARE better. Already are. And it is only matter of time until this male dominated culture is watered down enough to overcome the discrepancy.

          And, btw, literally the only major where men outnumber women by a significant margin is computer science (per your own link). They are dead even in business, math and science and healthcare. And I can tell you that a business grad or a doctor will blow an average programmer out of the water in terms of earnings power. I should know because I have 2 masters degrees in these fields.

          Don’t like that women are affected by “having” to stay home to raise a child (a dubious claim in this day-and-age)?   Then be open to the idea of a stay-at-home husband in the same way that men are open to the idea of stay-at-home wives.

          Yes, i am very unhappy about having to be pregnant and having lower productivity and downtime associated with it. The day a man conceives and carries a child, i will be behind the concept of SAHD. Until then, i chose to not have children unless me and their father can afford round the clock childcare to minimize the blow. Here. An alternative solution.

          @KK:

          Please explain what special protections white males have  under the law.

          Please explain where did I say they have any special protections under the law? I didn’t. “Privilege” is not about individual advantages or protection under the law. It is about the persistent, often subconscious biases against certain groups, specifically minorities and women, it’s about the culture that is male-centric and leads to the exclusion of women, it’s about outright harassment, etc. Something you’d be able to see with your own eyes if you actually attempted to work in corporate america.

           

           

        6. KK

          Stacy2,

          I worked in corporate America before I had children and I do now, as well. I’m not seeing what you claim to see.

          Outside of one individual, I’ve never been treated poorly for being a woman. I’m referring to sexual harassment, by the way. I’ve had male co-workers flirt with me and the worst I can say about that is that I found it annoying. Sexual harassment came from someone in upper management. I hold him individually responsible for his own actions; not all mankind.

          Other than that, I’ve never been treated differently for being a woman. About 6 months ago, a middle management position became available when one of the managers decided to move out of state to work at our Nashville office. A co-worker thought she was a shoe in for that position because of her seniority. When a male co-worker was chosen instead, she was very upset and made the kinds of claims you’re making. I later learned the reason she wasn’t chosen is because on the occasions when she had been brought in to sit in on meetings with middle and upper management (because they were hoping to groom her for a higher position), and she had been instructed only to let them know her thoughts and opinions on particular issues, she bulldozed over everyone with ideas that she was never asked about. It was decided that she wouldn’t be a good fit. Now, to hear her tell it, she was only overlooked because she’s a female.

          I’m not saying that there isn’t any truth to some of your claims. I just don’t perceive it as all encompassing as you do. The average, white male doesn’t have it any easier than anyone else.

          On occasion, when someone is rude to me, whether it’s at a department store or a restaurant, or the post office, I don’t assume it’s because that person hates 40+ year old white women. I figure they’re either a jerk or maybe they’re having a bad day and move on. However, I do know people who think that any perceived slight, no matter how small, is because of their race, gender, class, etc.

        7. Stacy2

          @KK

          With all due respect you really don’t even understand what I am talking about. Nobody was “rude” to you? What a hoot. Yeah sure they will smile in your face and stab you in the back. That is a given. And you really don’t see the worst of it until you begin to get to the positions with real money. To build on your example:

          she had been instructed only to let them know her thoughts and opinions on particular issues, she bulldozed over everyone with ideas that she was never asked about.

          So think about it for a second.. If it was a man in her place he’d be dubbed a “go getter”, “showing initiative” and all sorts of things. But as a woman? “Aggressive” and “not a fit”. That is exactly what i am talking about. Nuanced, hidden, hard to prove and root out biases, that we as women have to tread. Like literally, the same behavior that is considered desirable in a man is a disqualifier for a woman. There’re studies on that, if you’re interested (but I doubt that you are).

        8. KK

          Stacy2,

          “So think about it for a second.. If it was a man in her place he’d be dubbed a “go getter”, “showing initiative” and all sorts of things”.

          You don’t know that. You literally make shit up to justify your own inferiority.

          “Yeah sure they will smile in your face and stab you in the back. That is a given”.

          Is it now? Please educate me more, oh wise one. If someone chooses to stab me in the back, I will deal with it when it happens. I refuse to go around believing everyone is out to get me. I’m sure there are some self-help articles on this as well, if you’re interested (but I doubt that you are).

          “And you really don’t see the worst of it until you begin to get to the positions with real money”.  

          Well, of course. You’re superior in every way except, of course, when you’d prefer to play the victim. Must be a real mind f###.

           

           

           

           

        9. Stacy2

          @KK

          You don’t know that. You literally make shit up to justify your own inferiority.

          I don’t know that and neither do you. But you didn’t really expect them to come out and say “we did not promote her because she was a woman”. The fact is, there will always be an explanation provided for you why you weren’t “good enough”. Too aggressive. Or not assertive enough. Or whatever. And half the time the decision makers will actually believe that. Nobody is self aware enough to say “having a woman in this position makes me deeply uncomfortable because of my life-long biases” and almost no one is dumb enough to come out and say “i discriminate against women”.

          And yes, at the lower level it is not visible as much. Because women doings simpler, support tasks are not offensive to the ingrained social construct that wants to see them as mothering-supportive-consensus-building figures, not take charge leaders. Now that is a no-no.

          Read up, liquidate your ignorance..

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2015/08/25/gender-bias-is-real-womens-perceived-competency-drops-significantly-when-judged-as-being-forceful/#15148e712d85

           

          And no, i don’t play victim. Pointing out the issues is not playing the victim. I sat at the table long before Sharyl Sandberg told women to do so.   Two promotions in one year, only one ladder up left, which is why nobody can accuse me of playing the gender card. But yeah do tell me all about it. LOL

        10. KK

          Stacy2,

          So then, please explain how you’ve come to your conclusions. You’ve said you weren’t born here. You’ve said you come from a poor family. You’ve said you obtained two master’s degrees from an Ivy league school. So, please explain to me how an immigrant who had access to all kinds of scholarships has been mistreated by “the patriarchy”. Please explain to me how as a black woman, affirmative action has not ensured you will never have to worry about not being considered for a job. Please explain how someone who is living in the most expensive city in the country making over $500k a year has been marginalized in any way. Who are these (white) boogiemen trying to keep you down? Your statements about victimhood and not being a victim completely contradict one another.

          If I were you, I wouldn’t be harping about how unfair you have it. I’d be thankful that I live in a country where you have every opportunity available to become successful. Why not focus on the positive? You could literally be an inspiration to young, underprivileged girls if you chose to go talk to them about how you achieved financial success. Or, I guess you could bitch about the patriarchy. Oh well…

        11. Stacy2

          @KK:

          Since you’re keeping such a good record, please make a note that i did not have access to any scholarships. I paid for my education and only recently paid off my loans. Yes, they were big.

          You continue to fail to grasp the concept of what i am talking about. Let’s use another example. Just because Obama was elected president, doesn’t mean that hundreds of african americans are not being marginalized on a daily basis. Affirmative action guarantees you a job? What a hoot. There’s not a single black person on my floor. Not one. I mean, literally. Just because some individuals manage to rise above their circumstance, doesn’t mean that the issues of “patriarchy” or marginalization don’t exist. I am sorry that you can’t get it through your head. It doesn’t seem to be a complicated concept.

          If I were you, I wouldn’t be harping about how unfair you have it. I’d be thankful that I live in a country where you have every opportunity available to become successful.

          This is not an either or proposition. I can be grateful for all the positives and still point out all the negatives. Progress is not made by those who are satisfied with the status quo.

        12. KK

          Stacy2,

          I’ve already said that there is some truth to what you’ve said. I also said I don’t think it’s as bad as you think it is. A perfect example is the situation I told you about where a female employee was not given a promotion. You immediately went to her defense. Why? Do you really believe that ANY TIME a female or a minority is passed over that there’s some insidious plot to keep them down? Is it possible that they may have actually been less qualified? I guess I just prefer to look at these issues on a case by case basis with an open mind.

          You said, “Progress is not made by those who are satisfied with the status quo”.

          Nor is it made by those who have a one track mind. To make progress, you have to be willing to look at the entire picture without bias and come up with solutions that are helpful for everyone; Not just specific groups of people.

        13. Katie

          To make progress, you have to be willing to look at the entire picture without bias and come up with solutions that are helpful for everyone; Not just specific groups of people.

          Actually history doesn’t suggest this. It would be nice if it did, but the major facilitators of change have, on average, had pretty one track goals. The way I see it, invoking change is very energy consuming and to actually be successful it helps to have be very one-track goalwise.

          Now one-trackness I’m referring to says nothing of whether the change is positive or not.

          Rosa Parks comes to mind as in invoker of positive change.

          Hitler comes to mind as an invoker of negative change.

          And btw. I’m NOT comparing anyone here to either. It’s just that your comment KK, made me think. I agreed with you at first, until I thought about it a bit.

        14. KK

          Hi Katie,

          I think it all depends on the issue. For example, when women couldn’t vote, the solution was to allow women the right to vote. Simple. Women weren’t given superior voting rights and men’s voting rights weren’t taken away or diminished. Problem solved. Everybody wins.

          But what about issues that aren’t so cut and dry? Just one example: lower female college enrollment in STEM majors. When my kids were in junior high, there was a special assembly hosted at their school with female guest speakers that had careers in STEM. Sounds good, right? Except it was only for the girls. My question is why? Why do we need to exclude boys to advance girls? Why can’t it be all inclusive? The assumption that boys naturally gravitate towards those careers and the ones who don’t, just aren’t interested is false. I’m sure there are lots of boys who may not have considered a career in STEM who may become interested if given the same information.

           

        15. Katie

          But what about issues that aren’t so cut and dry?

          You’re example was not “cut and dry” at the time it was an issue. It only appears so now. When major societal changes stick, the next generation always looks back in astonishment at the last generations social blindness.

          Case in point – Slavery. It’s absurd and horrendous to consider enslaving an ethnic group based on skin color today. But that wasn’t the case at the time. A war was catalyzed by the debate at the time.

          On another note, I fail to see how your STEM example is an example of anything at all. Please be clearer about how this particular  workshop  is an example of successful change on a non “cut and dry” scale. I’m dense.

        16. Stacy2

          My question is why? Why do we need to exclude boys to advance girls?  

          This is a good question, except nothing of this sort is happening. Things like that are needed to counteract currently toxic perceptions that an engineer is a dude wearing flip flops, untucked pleated shirt and yesterday’s pizza crumbs in his beard. Seriously. The concept that you need to be of a certain mold to be in that field needs to just die, because it definitely can prevent girls from entering it, if they see it as socially weird.

          Google Isis Wenger – a good looking girl who was an engineer and was featured in her company’s ad campaign, and how everybody assumed she was a hired actress or something (she created hashtag ilooklikeanengineer).

          That perception is a real problem. If you’re a woman the society wants you to shake your ass and boobs and that’s ok, but use your brain – nope, not ok. That’s weird and suspect. As women, we have this image problem and it’s real. For example – i was recently entertaining female executives. We were at a business restaurant where the walls were covered with photographic images of women striking exaggeratedly sexy poses (use your imagination). I couldn’t shake off the irony of that. Here we are, a group of accomplished women, running listed companies and what not, and yet the perception of our gender as expressed through art work is based on how good we can stick our tits out? And I have to look at that? How about some equalization there too then – lets see some 6-packed half naked male models. Or better yet, let’s see neither? (the technical term for this i believe is male gaze)

          So, to sum up – the purpose of the panels like the one that you described is to break these damaging stereotypes and perceptions and show these girls positive role models in the field that they may almost feel is a taboo. Boys don’t have that issue, there’s nothing to remediate.

           

        17. Jeremy

          @KK, it’s always complicated.   For example, regarding the voting issue, the reason men were given the vote was because they were conscripted for war, so it was felt that they had a right to have a say in who sends them to war.   When women demanded the vote, they did not demand to be conscripted, nor did they demand an end to male conscription.   They wanted equal rights, not equal responsibilities.   This is to say that issues are NEVER simple, and that there is always a broader picture that proponents for change usually ignore.

           

          Katie is right – proponents for change are usually single-minded.   Whether the change they advocate for is something we would consider “progress” depends on our own biases.

           

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – what matters is not whether our world-view is “true.”   What matters is  why we choose to believe it.   Someone who chooses to believe in micro-aggressions all around her/him has likely had negative experiences that the individual wants to blame on other things.   Is that belief helpful and does it result, ultimately, in greater happiness for the individual?   I can’t answer for others, but that is the question to consider, when evaluating our own beliefs.

        18. Jeremy

          @Stacy2, you wrote, “boys don’t have this issue, so there’s nothing to remediate.”

           

          Except that women outnumber men in just about every other profession, right?   Except that there’s a sense that men can’t be teachers (especially for young kids), or nurses, or any caring profession?   Except that now that women outnumber men in universities for medicine, dentistry, and law, there is no effort to find out why that might be or to get more young men into those fields, right?

          Because when men have problems it’s because they suck and because women out-compete them naturally, not because there might be biases present in society that you don’t see, right?

        19. KK

          “On another note, I fail to see how your STEM example is an example of anything at all. Please be clearer about how this particular  workshop  is an example of successful change on a non “cut and dry” scale. I’m dense”.

          Okay, Katie, bear with me here…

          Did you read Evan’s article on over correction? Let’s say you have a series of failed relationships that end badly and you try to figure out what went wrong. You decide the common denominator was an intense level of chemistry and this must be the problem. You’re right. However, instead of trying to date guys you feel a little less passionate about you make the mistake of overcorrecting by dating guys you feel no passion for. That doesn’t work either, does it? So, you eventually realize you need some passion but not so much that you’re blind to his flaws and eventually get it right.

          I think this sort of overcorrection is what’s happening on a larger scale in society. Not enough girls or minorities going to college? Let’s make it easier. Let’s give out grants and scholarships. Let’s educate them on the importance of higher education. Let’s encourage and inspire. Great. Until it flip flops. Another overcorrection will take place focusing solely on boys (highly unlikely) and the cycle will continue or boys will start to be included on a larger scale and balance will be achieved.

          There’s this assumption that males have it easier in every facet of life and it just isn’t true. Eh, he’s a guy. He’ll be fine. Not true. I don’t understand why if we TRULY believe that we’re all equal and all deserving of equal treatment and equal opportunities why this assumption exists. Stacy2 thinks white males are privileged. That’s not my perception. The only people who are privileged are the truly privileged; ie, very wealthy and powerful themselves or from very powerful, wealthy families. But the middle / upper middle classes? Nope. The only advantages they have are the ones they work for to create themselves.

        20. KK

          Jeremy said, “Because when men have problems it’s because they suck and because women out-compete them naturally, not because there might be biases present in society that you don’t see, right?”

          Thank you, Jeremy, for stating this in a way that I hadn’t thought of. This was one of the points I was trying to make.

        21. Stacy2

          @Jeremy:

          There is no effort to find out why that might be or to get more young men into those fields, right?

          I think this is a valid point and I think that absolutely there should be an effort to get more men into nursing and teaching – which are well paid middle class jobs that men should be transitioning to as traditionally “manly” occupations in manufacturing disappear. Yes we need positive images of male nurses and teachers in the media, and similar workshops for these occupations – badly. So far a male nurse for example only has been a subject of ridicule in movies/TV. I agree with that.

          But having a girls only workshop for STEM does not in any way constitute advancing girls at the expense of boys.

          And while we’re at it, let’s also acknowledge that a lot of what’s holding men back in those occupations is negative peer pressure.

          @KK

          The only advantages they have are the ones they work for to create themselves.

          That is all wonderful, except it is much easier to create those advantages for yourself as a white guy. The second easiest would be as a white woman, and then the minorities. And this is how racial privilege works. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic class.

        22. KK

          “But having a girls only workshop for STEM does not in any way constitute advancing girls at the expense of boys”.

          Surprisingly (haha), I disagree with you and I could list all the reasons why, but I don’t think you’d seriously consider anything I have to say on the subject.

          “And this is how racial privilege works. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic class”.

          Stacy2, when I was in high school, one of my friends was the daughter of a well known judge. Being stupid teenagers, we had gone to a party, drank, and drove back to her house with an open container of alcohol sitting out in plain sight. A couple of blocks from her house, she rolled through a stop sign and we got pulled over. I knew we were getting ready to go to jail and my parents were going to kill me. The policeman asked for her license, asked if we’d been drinking, etc. He made her pour out the container of alcohol. After telling her what a great guy her dad was and how he knew he’d be really disappointed if he found out she was drinking underage and then driving, he gave us a stern speech and instructed us to go directly to her house and he let us go. No arrest, no ticket, not even a warning ticket.

          WHO you are makes a difference. The more power, influence, and money you have makes a difference (regardless of race / gender).

          Obama’s daughters will never have the same concerns as any kid (regardless of race / gender) from working class – upper middle class USA. Average white males do not have the advantages you think they do.

          But to save you the effort of disagreeing yet again, let’s just agree to disagree on these topics.

           

        23. Jeremy

          Stacy2, you wrote, “in no way does running a girls only STEM workshop help girls at the expense of boys.” – It does it that’s all you are doing.   If you are choosing to only see the one profession where girls are lagging and not all the other professions where boys are lagging, you are by definition advancing girls at the expense of boys.

           

          You wrote, “Let’s acknowledge that a lot of what’s holding men back in those professions is negative feedback and social pressure.”   I agree 100% with that.   How is that different from what is holding women back in engineering from lack of role models?   It goes back to what I said before – whether or not these ideas affect us largely depends on whether we choose to believe in them.   If we choose not to believe them, we can rise above them (as women have done in medicine, law, dentistry, accounting, the list goes on and on).   Not to say that biases don’t exist in society – they do – but the more we ignore them the less basis they will have in reality.   That’s how you fight a bias.

        24. Chance

          Jeremy gets to the heart of why I’ve always thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote:

           

          “When women demanded the vote, they did not demand to be conscripted, nor did they demand an end to male conscription.   They wanted equal rights, not equal responsibilities.”

           

          The only thing I would change here is the past-tense nature of the comment.   I think that most women still have this mindset today as it relates to conscription.

        25. Katie

          Jeremy gets to the heart of why I’ve always thought that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote…

          @Chance

          If you don’t feel this way actually, then you are a troll looking for a reaction.

          If you actually do  feel this way, you are a fossilized misogynist.

        26. Jeremy

          Chance, the point was not to say that women shouldn’t vote – it is to say that if a desire for equal rights had gone alongside a desire for equal responsibilities, an end to male conscription should also have been demanded.

           

          It’s not to say that women should not have no-fault divorce, but rather to say that they should have also demanded an end to alimony along with it.   It is not to say that  there shouldn’t be efforts to equalize women’s education and employment opportunities, but rather that when those opportunities swing in women’s favour that they should advocate for men.

           

          The problem is not malevolence on the part of women.   The problem is the narrative – the idea that society is patriarchal and swings in men’s favour.   If that is the belief, women need not advocate for equal responsibility because any gain that women make only brings them part way toward the un-achievable goal of equality, while any concession they make sets them back.

           

          The solution is not to advocate for an end to women’s rights.   It is to add men’s problems to the narrative.

        27. shaukat

          Chance and Jeremy, I disagree with you both on this issue.

          @Jeremy,

          I have not seen any evidence to suggest that historically the franchise was extended to men due to conscription. Voting was always predicated on the ownership of property. In he United States it was extended to non-property owning white men in order to diffuse potential rebellion. Blacks also served in the military and were not granted the same right at that time.

          Chance, I think the fundamental mistake you are making is the assumption that democracy is a privilege that state elites are entitled to dole out at their discretion based on behavior, as opposed to an intrinsic right. I think it was Huxley who once said, ‘freedoms are taken, not given.’

        28. Stacy2

          Jeremy:

          It’s not to say that women should not have no-fault divorce, but rather to say that they should have also demanded an end to alimony along with it.  

          I am sorry i must be dense, you do realize that alimony is gender blind, don’t you? In other words, men can (and do) get alimony if the wife is the primary bread winner?

          I do think that alimony should be completely abolished. The idea that one adult should support another just because he/she had voluntarily been doing that for the past X years is moronic. But this isn’t a gender issue as the law is, and has always been, gender blind.

          I agree with your point of equal responsibility. To that end I completely support the requirement for women to register with selective service and be drafted if needed. It is worth pointing out though that women have been fighting for the right to join the military, not trying to avoid it, and that the question of draft is basically moot at this point as we have professional military.

           

        29. Jeremy

          @Stacy2 re: alimony – yes, the law is gender-blind,  but  although I could talk about how it really isn’t gender-blind at all in practical terms, that isn’t really the point.   The point is in the assumptions made by the common narrative about what EQUALITY means.

           

          If we believe that the gold standard is what men have traditionally had, then the goal of equality should be to bring women to the level of men.   This would mean conscripting them for war, requiring them to pay alimony, and expecting them to be open to “dating down” financially as men have always done.   But if the gold standard is not what men have traditionally had, but rather a combination of the benefits that both men AND women have traditionally had, then “equality” looks very different.
          Instead of requiring women to pay alimony as men have done, we eliminate alimony completely as an archaic concept.   No adult should unwillingly support another.   Instead of conscripting both men and women, we conscript neither.   And instead of focusing on STEM fields where women lag behind men, we focus on ALL fields where there is a significant gender difference to assist anyone who needs assistance.

           

          That is how alimony is still a gendered issue, in spite of the gender-blindness of the law.

        30. KK

          Jeremy,

          You said, “Instead of requiring women to pay alimony as men have done, we eliminate alimony completely as an archaic concept”.

          Here’s the problem with that. Stay at home moms. If a couple decides to have children and they both agree that it would be best for their family if the mom stays home to take care of their children, should she be penalized (for lack of a better word) in the event of a divorce? I don’t know the divorce laws in every single state. The divorce laws where I live put a cap on child support. So someone making   $500k a year pays the exact same in child support as someone making $85k.

          So, let’s say a man earns $200k a year. He has a wife who has stayed home with the kids for 10 years. He abandons his family. She files for divorce, gets primary custody of their two children, and is awarded less than $2,000 a month in child support until the youngest is 18. She has to figure out how she’s going to live on less than $24,000 a year after living on $200k a year. If she hasn’t worked in over 10 years, it doesn’t matter what she did before professionally or what degrees she had. She’s going to have to work full time and go back to school full time in order to support herself and her kids and still be a full time single parent. Otherwise, she’s going to be living in poverty with two kids. THAT’S archaic.

          Temporary alimony (that’s all you get in my state) allows someone time (right now it’s 3 years. In rare cases 5 years, but never to exceed 5 years) to go back to school or get additional training in order to better support herself and her children.

          Personally, I think no fault divorce is bad. I also think that temporary alimony should only be awarded on specific cases, similar to what I described.

        31. Stacy2

          @ Jeremy:

          I completely agree with you on principle. I do disagree on the details re alimony. It doesn’t sound like you have any first hand experience with it, but i do. My ex sued me for alimony. A female friend of mine, who is a successful CPA and a mother of 3, was ordered to pay alimony to her ex (who was the father of her kids). Since she has custody the court has netted it against his share of child support, requiring him to pay next to nothing. It really is applied on a gender blind basis, but i totally agree that it has to be abolished.

          @KK:

          Here’s the problem with that. Stay at home moms. If a couple decides to have children and they both agree that it would be best for their family if the mom stays home to take care of their children

          No, that is not a problem at all. If a grown woman decides to opt out of labor force to pack sandwiches for her kids and do yoga, it is her prerogative and she should do it at her own risk. She should decide whether she trusts her husband to do right by her. If that’s what the couple really desires to do, they can have maintenance written into a prenuptial agreement. There’s no need to set it in the law as a default for every unsuspecting adult who may be required to support their ex for nothing else than the fact that they happen to be making more.

          Alimony originated from the time when men treated women as property. That need to be “maintained”. It should be gone, gone, gone, like yesterday.

        32. Stacy2

          @KK

          She files for divorce, gets primary custody of their two children, and is awarded less than $2,000 a month in child support until the youngest is 18. She has to figure out how she’s going to live on less than $24,000 a year after living on $200k a year.

          And why is this a given? If this woman can’t support herself, perhaps she should relinquish custody to her husband, who clearly can support himself and his kids, and figure out how to be an independent adult first. I find it really bemusing that the courts in the U.S. use the standard of “lifestyle she became accustomed to”. I find it to be grossly unfair to the money-making spouse. Marriage becomes leg irons.

        33. Chance

          @Jeremy – “The solution is not to advocate for an end to women’s rights.   It is to add men’s problems to the narrative.”

          I understand.   I can’t see how any reasonable person would disagree with that.   I’ll explain my thoughts on conscription in another comment since it will be in response Shaukat’s comment as well, and I believe it will show that I hardly wish to “end women’s rights”.

          I respect your viewpoints and enjoy reading your posts, but you’ve been talking at me over the past several days/weeks on this thread as if I don’t already understand the ideas that you’re presenting.   I think you and I just differ in our outlooks, and as a result, our approaches are quite different.   I get the impression that you believe that women simply aren’t understanding the concerns of men because these concerns haven’t been communicated effectively (i.e., the narrative is off).   It’s my belief that they are completely aware of our concerns, but rather, most of them just don’t care.   A looong time ago, I used to think the way I believe you currently think, but I don’t think this way anymore.   This is why I don’t bother trying to reason with them most of the time….. I think they already understand.

          I hope you’re right and that I’m wrong, but a good illustration of this on EMK’s blog is the post relating to the debate over whether a man should have to pay for a child that he didn’t want.   The current legal setup is patently unfair and it’s clear as day… and there’s no way that women can’t understand this.   Yet, look at the comments from most of them.   You’ll see all kinds of odd justifications that don’t even begin to hold up to logical scrutiny, or you’ll see all kinds of misdirection, or shaming.   Take your pick.   They are either really stupid or they are being disingenuous because they don’t really care about equality.     You decide, but my thought is that no one can possibly be that stupid not to see the unfairness in it.   Another example is a nice exchange you had with a poster within the past couple of weeks relating to understanding women, I believe.   Your comments were so lucid and sensible that I don’t see how anyone could disagree.   You attempted to get her to see things from your position with one logical and reasonable point after another, and while you may have made a blog friend, she didn’t really concede to any of your points during that entire, long exchange (if she did concede to anything, it was very little if memory serves).

          At any rate, that’s why I feel like attempting get women to come to the realization that men have issues, too, is ultimately fruitless.   IMO, I think the solution lies in men creating awareness among each other that they aren’t wrong in feeling that something isn’t right with certain laws or social conventions, and encouraging them to protect themselves from these situations without succumbing to the predictable shaming tactics.

        34. Chance

          Jeremy & Shaukat,

           

          “I think it was Huxley who once said, ‘freedoms are taken, not given.’”

           

          I would agree with that, and one freedom that I feel that all humans have a right to is the freedom from being forced to fight, and potentially die, for the country of which you happen to be a citizen.   It’s a form of slavery, and the unspoken message that is sent to men is more galling than a fair amount of people realize.   More specifically, not only is the government saying that men must register for possibility of being drafted to fight and die in war, but it’s saying that men must do so at a rate that doesn’t equate to what the market will bear.   What is market price?   The amount of compensation that you have to provide to get the people you need.   The draft enables the government to bypass this, and the public is essentially saying “We expect you to die for us, but we don’t want to pay for it”.   If a country wants to go to war, then the people should be willing to fund it with their taxes.   At any rate, paying market price is how I believe the U.S. was able to get the troops it needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:   offer enough of a signing bonus, and voila, you have the bodies   you need.   It’s embarrassing that a country’s populace that probably prides itself on capitalism more than any other mostly supports something that is inherently anti-capitalistic.

           

          So, yes, I believe the best solution is to end conscription for all.   If a country isn’t willing to go for this, then the next-best solution is to require both men and women to register for the selective service, especially since women can join the military if they want and can serve in combat roles (this is where I differ w/Stacy2’s thoughts:   while most women want to be able to join the military, I don’t think most of them want to be forced to join against their will).   Finally, if the country won’t go for that, then yes, I don’t think women should be allowed to vote on matters that could affect the country’s decision to go to war.

           

          So, in a perfect world, perhaps the solution should be that if a country were to ever consider a draft, then we would have a referendum of sorts where only men could vote on whether or not we should have a draft.

        35. Chance

          Stacy2, I can sympathize with you regarding alimony.   It’s downright awful.   You’re right to be disgusted with it.   However, I think Jeremy is referring to the fact that the vast majority of alimony payments are paid by men to women.   97% is the percentage I seem to remember seeing.   This is facilitated by two things:   1.) Women (over the age of 28 or so) are very good at making sure that they don’t get married if it’s going to cost them.   Usually, when a woman gets trapped with having to pay alimony, circumstances changed significantly during the marriage where she became the primary breadwinner.   However, it is rare that a woman walks down the aisle with a man who makes significantly less.   2.)   Studies have shown (and I apologize for not being able to cite them off the top of my head) that men are much less likely to go after alimony when they are the lower-earning spouse because the wife is more likely to fight it (compared to a husband) and men are more likely to feel ashamed (due to very effective shaming tactics) for receiving alimony payments.

           

          It’s usually in the rare instance when a woman finds herself in a situation where she has to pay alimony that her stance on alimony changes.

        36. KK

          Stacy2,

          In all due respect, I was hoping to hear from Jeremy.

          The last response I made to you regarding men not having it as easy as you think, you completely ignored. So why the need to chime in here?

          I already know how you feel about women’s rights. You’re only interested in the ones that apply directly to you. Men’s rights? Meh. To hell with men… am I right? Children’s rights? Tough! Their mother shouldn’t have been such a trusting fool! Who gives a damn if they went from living in Suburbia to living in squalor.

          But, here we go again.

          “If that’s what the couple really desires to do, they can have maintenance written into a prenuptial agreement”.

          Right. Because nothing says I trust you and love you unconditionally more than a prenup… puleeease!

          “There’s no need to set it in the law as a default for every unsuspecting adult who may be required to support their ex for nothing else than the fact that they happen to be making more”.

          1) You used the term unsuspecting adult. Shouldn’t you have taken your own advice with that prenup??? Sounds like the hypocritical do as I say not as I do lingo.                                                                                  2) Re-read what I actually wrote. I specifically stated that TEMPORARY alimony should only be awarded in specific circumstances. I’m not advocating for what you just stated.

          “That need to be “maintained”. It should be gone, gone, gone, like yesterday”.

          Genius. Prepare for a huge tax increase. Surely you don’t mind doing your part to help support all those worthless, stupid, overly trusting, naive women bee bopping around in their yoga pants AND their snot nosed brats. Because guess what? That is exactly what will happen if temporary alimony is done away with regardless of circumstances.

          “If this woman can’t support herself, perhaps she should relinquish custody to her husband, who clearly can support himself and his kids, and figure out how to be an independent adult first”.

          Because child custody is determined by the “fitness” of the two parents and what is in the best interest of the child(ren). In the example I gave, I clearly stated he abandoned his family. That means he doesn’t want custody of his kids. Capiche? Over the past several years (in my state) 50/50 custody is becoming more and more common. Even so, if one parent is uninterested or unfit, it doesn’t apply.

          “I  find it really bemusing that the courts in the U.S. use the standard of “lifestyle she became accustomed to”. I find it to be grossly unfair to the money-making spouse. Marriage becomes leg irons”.

          That might very well be the case in NY or Cali and other states. Where I live, it is “the lifestyle the children are accustomed to” and it is a total and complete crock. It just doesn’t happen for the reasons I’ve already stated: 1) temporary alimony and 2) a cap on child support. Plus, no matter how big the pie is, and no matter how you slice it up, less is less. Period.

          I’d love to hear your response, but I’m not going to go round and round with you on this. You have a total lack of respect or understanding about women who choose to prioritize their families by giving up their careers to care for them. Most are not spending their days lounging by the pool eating bon bons, lunching with the ladies, flirting with Pilates instructors, and occasionally throwing a frozen lasagna in the oven because ya know… domestication and sh..tuff. LOL. It’s actually a demanding and fulfilling job to take great pride in. After all, Evan’s wife is currently a stay at home mom. Do you think he’d be on board with your portrayal of SAHMs? I highly doubt so. I have a feeling he considers what his wife does for his family to be of value. Many men do. Which, funnily enough brings up another point.

          You’ve literally been trying to make the case for having the cost of your makeup subsidized by the random guys you date. LOL!!! Yet, you are thoroughly pissed that a woman who has ACTUALLY ADDED VALUE to a man’s life be financially reimbursed in any way. Let’s make a list of all the things a SAHM does and find out how much it would cost to hire that work out? Live in maid, cook, nanny, chauffeur, entertainment coordinator, family event and vacation planner, financial planner, personal shopper, personal assistant, errand runner……. I could go on, but that’s just off the top of my head.

           

           

           

           

            

           

        37. Jeremy

          @KK, like so many things, this issue is complicated.   Should SAHMs be thrown out on the street with no way of supporting themselves?   Of course not.   But…..should the baseline standard of the law be that the higher income spouse must continue supporting the lower income spouse after divorce?   No, I don’t think so.   I don’t think that is fair because I believe in consent.   Lack of consent turns sex into rape.   Lack of consent turns sharing into theft.   And just as consent to sex can be withdrawn, consent to sharing income can be withdrawn – that is what divorce IS.

           

          I think that in any marriage where one spouse wants to withdraw from the workforce, a post-nuptual agreement should be drawn up.   It should stipulate the responsibilities of each spouse, and agree on the length and amount of spousal support if the marriage dissolves – and if it is agreed upon, it is fair.

           

          Many people think that such agreements are not romantic.   But they forget that marriage itself is a financial contract, especially as it is set up today.   Most women don’t find marriage un-romantic because it protects them.   Some women believe that agreements show a lack of trust – but again, marriage itself currently shows a lack of trust to men.   It says – if you leave me, you will have to pay me.   A much better display of trust, IMHO, is entering into marriage in good faith and negotiating responsibilities together, in a mutually-agreed upon way.   If it is agreed, it is fair.

        38. KK

          Jeremy,

          “I think that in any marriage where one spouse wants to withdraw from the workforce, a post-nuptual agreement should be drawn up”.

          Sounds great. The problem is that it will never happen; not on a large scale, anyway, simply because of the nature of the relationship. Usually when someone withdraws from the workforce, it’s because of children. So when that conversation takes place beforehand and it’s mutually agreed upon, most people aren’t going to feel the need to protect themselves legally. If we’re talking about a good marriage, there’s implicit trust. This is the person you trust more than anyone else, the person who knows everything about you, your safe place no matter what the world throws at you. So, even though we can take a very practical stance and say what should happen, I don’t think massive amounts of men or women will find it necessary regardless of how many times they’re warned.

          If you have an acquaintance that asks to borrow, let’s say $10,000 from you and you want to help and are able to help, you’d be a fool to hand over the money without a contract stipulating how and when you’ll be paid back. If, on the other hand, your best friend of 20 years asks to borrow $10,000 and promises to pay you back at the end of the month, does it make you a fool to trust him? I don’t believe so; not if you trust this person. And this is what happens in marriage.

           

        39. Stacy2

          @KK:

          Prepare for a huge tax increase. Surely you don’t mind doing your part to help support all those worthless, stupid, overly trusting, naive women bee bopping around in their yoga pants AND their snot nosed brats. Because guess what? That is exactly what will happen if temporary alimony is done away with regardless of circumstances.

          Nope, nothing of this sort would happen. I believe that if spousal support was completely abolished, women would not be opting out of workforce to be SAHMs. It is simply rational economic behavior. If you know you will be “maintained” after the divorce – hell yeah it’s a good deal to quit your job and plan playdates for the next 15 years. But if you know that should your husband leave you’d be required to support yourself, fully 100% from day one, you would think twice about this choice. That’s all there is.

          Chance:

          the fact that the vast majority of alimony payments are paid by men to women.   97% is the percentage I seem to remember seeing.   This is facilitated by two things:   1.) Women (over the age of 28 or so) are very good at making sure that they don’t get married if it’s going to cost them.      2.)   Studies have shown that men are much less likely to go after alimony when they are the lower-earning spouse  

          And whose fault is that exactly? Women’s? Don’t think so. Perhaps men should take a page out of women’s playbook and place a higher value on the financial situation and earning potential of their prospective spouses. So far what I’ve read on this blog is that men take pride in “not caring about how much a woman makes, only about how she makes them feel”. Well they are fools and they will be separated from their money. Serves these men right. And on #2 – again nothing is stopping them, clearly from seeking it.

        40. Evan Marc Katz

          Blog topic: “How Can I Turn Drinks into Dinner Without Scaring Guys Off?” Maybe it’s time to shut this one down.

        41. Adrian

          Hi Evan,

          For what it’s worth, many readers who are not commenting on these sub-sub… of a subbed sub conversation???

          Still are learning from the debates.

          My only suggestion is that they make sure to keep everything relevant to dating and relationships.

          ..

          .

          Either way, I am just thankful that you have allowed this.

          Remember I have went back and read all your blogs including your very first few, so

          – I remember the days when you didn’t even allow sub conversations or any conversation that had nothing to do with the main topic

          – I remember when you did not allow multiple post from one commenter

          – and I remember when you didn’t allow commenters to ask dating questions even to each other in the comments section.

          Oh and I also remember when you debated shutting down the comments section because of all the negativity.

        42. Evan Marc Katz

          1. I still don’t allow people to ask their own questions to hijack the forum. If you wrote, “Hey, I have this issue with this girl. Can you help me out?” it should be in the trash. If it got through, it’s because my assistant let it through or because I was too tired to pay close attention. I still don’t want hundreds of people asking for advice in the comments section.

          2. I’ve always allowed multiple posts. What I didn’t like was people replying to one post three consecutive times, thereby stifling the conversation and boring other people.

          3. As recently as last week, I was thinking of shutting down the comments section because of the negativity. Alas, I have bigger fish to fry than the fact that a post about “turning drinks into dinner” is nearly at 500 comments that have nothing to do with the original post. We all have to choose our battles.

          Thanks for reading. Just know: I’m not any different. Just a little busier and less likely to read things closely. 🙂

    2. 43.2
      Katie

      I don’t know how you guys manage to do any serious dating with all this activity here.

      Oh stop. You are the most prolific comment-maker here from what I’ve seen

      Perhaps, rather than discussing what’s “fair” till everybody’s green in the face you should practice some unfairness in out in real life (personally i just came back from a spa weekend trip with my beau.

      This smells of bragging. Practicing unfairness in real life is exemplified by a couples vacation spa? Whether you intended it this way or not, this reads as a gloat, because it completely irrelevant to the paragraphs opening statement. It’s like saying ‘Rather than practice unkindness, you should practice kindness like me and personally I got a tattoo this weekend.’

       

  4. 44
    Marika

    Stacy2, Chance,  Shaukat et al.  

    Can we please, please call a truce on this? Both genders have their own challenges to deal with in dating & relationships, that we can’t hope to fully understand without walking a mile in their pumps/moccasins (sp?).

    Maybe we can take comfort in this: The fact that we can sit here typing away comments on blogs on our laptops/smartphones about how hard we have it because we need to spend x on  clothes, hairstyles, hair removal, watches & dinners, makes us luckier than maybe 95% of the world’s population who would kill to have our problems (I have no Google stats to back me up on this, I’m guessing).

    Evan gives away a lot of useful, free advice on this site. Let’s not abuse that by getting into endless petty arguments about who has it harder – the fact is we collectively have it a hell of a lot easier than most of the world, and than at any other time in history.

    I’m not trying to say it’s not tough out there, but can we please try more gratitude, more support, more listening & taking on board the other’s perspective & less pettiness, name calling & arguing? We can all learn a lot from each other if we put the ego aside.

    I know I’ve learned a lot from reading this blog (and some of the comments).

    Appreciated.

      1. 44.1.1
        Marika

        * Blushing * 🙂

        And yet  an unproductive, nasty, highly personal & largely off topic discussion continues…(which has little if anything to do with trying to move drinks into dinner..)

        I wonder if we can encourage those who are continuing this debate  to swap contact details and take this conversation off-line?

        It’s incredibly disappointing that some people on this blog like to hijack posts to launch off-topic personal attacks & force their own agendas,  which are unfortunately doing nothing to help them with their dating lives.

        I’ve thought about not reading the comments, but sometimes the comments give me yet another useful perspective I’ve never considered. It’s unfortunate we need to wade through petty squabbles to get to the good stuff.

        1. Evan Marc Katz

          Agreed. I don’t censor comments unless they are questions or unless they are intensely personal attacks. So far, this has just been a very heated argument with a few women who both have valid points but are largely talking past each other. I stay out of it.

        2. Shaukat

          And yet  an unproductive, nasty, highly personal & largely off topic discussion continues

          Actually Marika, as someone who used to enjoy your posts, I can tell you that if you keep shaming people who are engaging in debate (even if it’s off topic debate) you’ll eventually end up with ‘group-think’ or some other Orwellian state of affairs. I often check this site and find comments that don’t interest me or that I find annoying; I simply move on instead of throwing a tantrum. You’re either aiming for cheap applause or have a very weak constitution. It’s not hard to wade through comments, and sometimes it can be entertaining. I’m saying this as someone who rarely agrees with the two women engaged in this debate.

        3. Katie

          I often check this site and find comments that don’t interest me or that I find annoying; I simply move on instead of throwing a tantrum.

          +1

      2. 44.1.2
        Marika

        Evan

        I can’t reply to your comment above, so am putting it here as a sincere request please not to close the comments. I can entirely understand why you’d be tempted to, but obviously you can’t answer ever single question or deal with every possible issue & I know I learn a lot during some of the more productive conversations. I’m sure I’m not alone here.

        If that’s ever a likelihood, maybe you can let us know in advance what comments are borderline or what the rules are around commenting so we can avoid having to shut it down entirely?

  5. 45
    Marika

    Shaukat,

    No tantrum. No weak constitution. You  don’t mind the spite. I do. I find it depressing. So I’m asking if they will stop the ongoing arguments as they get less & less productive and more and more personal, as well as off-topic. It got to the point that people actually asked the moderator to step in when one commenter on this thread went too far. I think that’s a problem.

    So I can ask. And they, of course, can say no.

    Perhaps  this can be one of the comments you just move on from, rather than contributing to the nastiness?

    1. 45.1
      Katie

      Stop  with the self-righteous, pearl clutching then. If you don’t have anything to add to this topic, move to another that you do.

      1. 45.1.1
        Marika

        Katie:  the topic is (was supposed to be) Turning Dinner into Drinks. Instead that’s been hijacked into random tangents & personal attacks that I’m pretty sure wouldn’t be made without the Internet to hide behind.

        That’s the whole point. This thread isn’t adding anything to the topic.

        Simple.

        1. Shaukat

          Marika, there are numerous threads that devolve into sub-topics that are sometimes not related to the original issue. Maybe sometimes that can be a problem, but often it’s possible to derive some value from those sub-issues as well. I’m not sure why it’s such as issue for you-you have full autonomy here. Rather than trying to police it, click on a different thread.

  6. 46
    Kyra

    I’m truly curious about the men who find the current state of dating (men, essentially, paying for the drinks/dinner/etc. to impress their dates) to be problematic and a “waste” of their time, does that also include the amount of time and money that women put in to impress their dates? We’re talking a second or third date with a man you are genuinely interested in (that, and let’s be honest, still could result in zero ROI).

    Getting our hair done upwards of $50-150
    Getting manicures/pedicures: $15-45
    News shoes/outfit: Let’s just say $50-200
    Taxi/Ride share to meet you: $15-40
    Make-up: $20-50

    What I think some men are not realizing is that you may be plopping down your credit/debit card at the end of the date, but a woman has done the exact same thing days before you have in an effort to impress you. You’re not exactly getting nothing out of your date. For the price of drinks/dinner, you’re getting a woman who has used her hard earned money to provide you with a dating partner who looks, smells and appears attractive to and for you.   One who will continue to do so should you provide for her in a way she finds attractive.

    We women aren’t dating for free. Far from. Our expenses in dating are equally as astronomical as yours. That’s the equality of the dating game.

    1. 46.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      We’ve covered this ground before, Kyra. It’s tiresome. Unless you get your hair done, mani/pedi, new shoes/outfit, new makeup for EVERY date, you’re really exaggerating here. In fact, the more things you layer on, the more most men will roll their eyes at the comparison. Shower. Put on clothes. Put on your hair/makeup. You don’t need to buy a single thing to be a great first date. But men had better pick up the check. That’s the difference.

      1. 46.1.1
        Stacy2

        Actually, this can be completely expressed in economic terms. Women have mostly fixed cost structure (ie spend more or less the same amount every month to maintain looks). Men have mostly variable cost structure (ie pay per date). Just because you have fixed cost does not mean that you’re running a “profitable” business, that means though that you have a higher operating leverage, or in laymen’ s terms – it’s a volumes game. Econ 101 tells us that with such cost structure you really need to scale up the number of units you produce to spread your cost over it. I this case – you need to rack up like a LOT of dates to make it worthwhile, as a woman.

        Say you spend $500   per month on “beauty” (which goes above and beyond simply looking professional for work) and go on 10 dates. Your cost is $50/date.   Which is roughly what a guy would spend on say wine and appetizers, so that’s ok.

        If, however, you only go on 2 dates per month your cost is now $250/date. Ouch. That is getting expensive.   I guess this is why so many married women “let themselves go”.

        For a guy though, given his lack of operating leverage, the name of the game is to increase per-unit margin. In this case, have higher ratio of follow up dated to first dates. How to do that is a whole separate subject.

        The point though is, women’s fixed costs are real and can’t be dismissed. And if a woman doesn’t go on a lot of   dates, it is the same as if spending all that money for just 1-2 dates…

         

        1. Shaukat

          The point though is, women’s fixed costs are real and can’t be dismissed.

          This is all based on a number of fallacious assumptions: 1). that women are incurring these costs for the sole purpose of dating (and not say, due to vanity, for the intrinsic value of looking good, etc); 2). that men do not incur similar costs (in time and money) for the purpose of self-improvement.

          Both your assumptions are false. Just look at the measures listed by ScottH below. You’re actually not talking about what it takes to look good before a date, you’re actually referring to self-improvement broadly speaking. You think that because some women spend thousands in order to conform to the ideal beauty type represented in the media, that this justifies the social custom of men paying for dates. However, there is an equivalent of this type of self-improvement on the male side as well. Think of the skinny or overweight guy who spends years of time and a lot of money dieting down and building muscle.

          Rather than trying to justify this arrangement based on fallacious arguments, be honest: that you want men to pay for dates because in your world a man throwing money at you is evidence of love or intentions that go beyond sex.

        2. Stacy2

          1). that women are incurring these costs for the sole purpose of dating (and not say, due to vanity, for the intrinsic value of looking good, etc)

          No actually i specifically accounted for that by stating – we are going to allocate to dating only the costs that go above and beyond simply looking professional for work.

          I can tell you that if for whatever reason i knew that I would never date or be with a man again (say i joined a monastery or decided to self-identify as a man lol ), my beauty expenses would grind to a complete halt. You would never see me on the goddamn treadmill, i would cut my hair short and never get highlights again, clip my own nails and never paint, and of course waxing would be simply out. I’d probably never shave either cause razors are expensive. And of course zero expenses on cosmetic products or procedures. None of that has any intrinsic value. None of that is needed for my regular everyday life and work.

          2). that men do not incur similar costs (in time and money) for the purpose of self-improvement.

          They don’t, not on an ongoing basis. I have lived with men. I’ve been married to men and I have a very good idea on what men spend on their appearances. As do other women, which is why your point that “men spend it too” continues to fall flat. Do you really think we’re idiots and we don’t know what our husbands and boyfriends spend? My boyfriend’s bathroom contains a 2-in-1 shampoo and wash ($3.99), a hair brush and a roll of toilet paper. That’s it. He has never seen the inside of any beauty salon. Who are you kidding?

            Just look at the measures listed by ScottH below.  

          Sorry, a no-go. Apples to oranges. A one-time cosmetic surgery is not a recurring dating expense. He spends this money once in his life and gets to ammortize it over the lifetime of dates.

          And if you really want to compare specifically what men and women spend on plastic surgery, you should consider that it’s a $15B market in the US where women have 91% of all procedures. Ninety one percent!! Do you really want to go there, complaining how much men spend on cosmetic surgeries? Didn’t think so.

        3. ScottH

          oh Stacy2, puhleeaaasse…. I have to buy and maintain a fine automobile and groom it weekly.   You think shampoo is expensive for your head?    A fine automobile uses much more.   Then, there’s Finishing School (after starting school).   I have to get my poodle groomed and trained should a date ever see him.    The list is endless.   And in the end, we have to ask, plan, and pay while you merely evaluate our efforts which 99.9% of the time aren’t good enough and we’re out yet again.   Grind that through your high finance balance sheet software and tell us what you get.

      2. 46.1.2
        Kyra

        Here’s where reading comprehension comes into play (yours and mine, because I didn’t read through the many responses to see that individuals had broached this subject), I very clearly stated:  We’re talking a second or third date with a man you are genuinely interested in. And, that’s part of the problem, I feel, with this continued argument  between men and women. Trust me, if I could walk into a first date in a pair of yoga pants. no make-up and a bun on my head I would. I make an effort on a first date. Sometimes I purchase something new, sometimes I get my nails/toes done, sometimes I just check the closet and go with what I have. But, we can shoo away the reality that women spend money on dating nearly as equally as men do.  

        Men want to “enough” a woman when she discusses the very real expenses that they incur in dating because (they feel) they don’t actually see or receive the monetary benefits of these expenses. “Well, you women had a nice meal.” Ok, well, look at me. Eat it up. You’re getting a feast for your eyes with every things I purchased to look good explicitly for you.

        Men are welcome to roll their eyes, but if you read Stacy2’s 46.1.1 breakdown of the fixed cost structure that women have to, essentially, attain a “feminine look” that is appealing to men you see it is very high per mo./year. If you break that down in comparison to the variable costs men spend on dates per year, they can be quite comparable.

        If you want us to stop talking about it, ok. I can go with that. If women are discussing their expenses ad naseum and should keep our mouths shut because it’s “enough,” I for darn sure don’t ever want to hear a man complain again about the $188 dollars he spent on a date. We’ve had just about enough of that too. Why don’t we, men and women, just stop this discussion and understand that gender roles in dating are, unfortunately, a thing. Men are largely/primarily desired for what they can provide. Women are largely/primarily desired for their physical beauty. Each of these include expenses that the other gender perhaps do not take into account and/or see in concrete forms.

        if you’re a dater with some sense of understanding for others, you realize that the other has probably spent their money in an effort to impress or please you and  show appreciation. A man recently took me to an expensive restaurant for our first date. After, we went for drinks and I happily picked up the tab in appreciation. We weren’t a match, but I wasn’t going to talk away letting him know I didn’t appreciate the expense he took responsibility for in order to show a woman a nice night on the town. And, hopefully, he noted the nice dress and the necklace I wore to look attractive for him (the wait staff did, and made mention of it) and thought for even a moment that, perhaps, I bought something pretty just to catch and keep his eye. The week before that a man took me to a wonderful French restaurant and, after, bought very expensive wines for us to enjoy. We weren’t a long term match either, but, trust me, I had a great time and he got a very enjoyable ROI on his investment that night.

        Everyone takes a little out of their wallet to please the other. Square deal. So, yea, I agree. Enough. We can all stop complaining about how much we spend in dating. I absolutely  agree with you, Evan.

        1. Kyra

            *But, we can’t shoo away the reality that women spend money on dating nearly as equally as men do.  

    2. 46.2
      ScottH

      Kyra-

      I had a hair transplant for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like bald men

      Liposuction for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like fat men

      A gym membership and I hire someone to do the work for me bc it’s too hard

      Custom clothes because women like a sharp dressed men for many thousands of dollars,

      Custom underwear because women like that

      And I’m still reading this blog on Saturday nights after buying dinner and drinks for women like you.

      Now enough already…..

      1. 46.2.1
        Stacy2

        With all due respect, it is clear that your investments are not producing desired returns. Have you ever stopped to consider that you’re investing in the wrong place??? That may be, just may be, women do not care that much about your appearance after all?? Wouldn’t that be a logical conclusion from your experience?   In business terms we refer to this situation as “destruction of capital”.

        1. Kyra

          I’d honestly like to understand who is this woman looking to date a man with a hair transplant, a thousand dollar suit and custom underwear.

          My last date was a bald man wearing a nice sweater and jeans likely from an off the rack store. We had a wonderful Saturday evening that ended at 3am. After he paid for dinner we went to a lounge where I paid for drinks. Had he asked me out again, I would have said yes.

          Perhaps you’re seeking and dating the wrong women and should be dating women like me.

          I’d agree with Stacy2, perhaps investing in other places than your physical looks could lead to a more successful and pleasurable dating life for yourself.

        2. KK

          Kyra,

          ScottH was being facetious.

        3. Tom10

          @ Stacy2.
            
          Er, I think ScottH was being sarcastic there while trying make a point as I don’t think any guys have custom underwear! Lol.
            
          Although unfortunately, drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.
            
          For what it’s worth I’m not too impressed when I read the comments from male commenters here moaning about having to pay for dates; no-one is making them pay for those dates so their moaning is tiresome. I meet plenty of women who are happy to contribute towards dates so, rather than complain about women expecting the guy paying for the date; I simply cut off them off and move on to women with matching values. Much less hassle. They should really direct their ire at the guys who pay for dates even though they really dislike doing so.
            
          Similarly, it’s equally tiresome to hear women moan about how much they have to invest in their appearance; if you don’t like making such effort simply move onto the guys who aren’t so appearance obsessed and stop moaning.

        4. Stacy2

          Tom10:

          drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.

          I would say, it proves your opponent’s point LOL

          you don’t like making such effort simply move onto the guys who aren’t so appearance obsessed and stop moaning

          I am yet to meet those guys. Like somebody else here said, the day i can show up on a date wearing my yoga pants and gym hair up in a bun and be successful  on that date, amen, i will gladly split it. What gets most women here, i guess, is the fact that men still clearly prefer dolled-up looks, conventional beauty, etc. while moaning about paying for dates. You cant’ have your cake and eat it too. You can’t expect a woman work hard to impress you, but not do your part to impress her.

        5. KK

          Stacy2,

          I’m not re-entering this discussion because quite frankly, it’s stupid. But as a society, could we please do away with the overused phrase, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”? Who the hell wants cake that they can’t eat? What exactly am I supposed to do with it? Lol

        6. Shaukat

          You can’t expect a woman work hard to impress you, but not do your part to impress her.

          We just disagree on what does, or should, impress most women. I would think you  should be impressed by a combination of physical attraction, charm, humor, intelligence, confidence, etc, no? In fact, why a woman as established and financially successful as you would be impressed by a guys’ ability/willingness to pay for your meal is a bit baffling to be honest.

          Also, I’m pretty sure a guy couldn’t show up for a date with you wearing his gym clothes and expect a second date either.

        7. Chance

          Tom10, I agree with you.   I’ve traveled a bit across Western Europe, and I’ve found that attitudes towards dating are much more egalitarian than they are here in North America (especially in the States).   As a result, I don’t think as many guys over here have mustered up the courage to be a trail blazer by not subsidizing women in the way that men in Europe seem to feel more free from doing.   It is absolutely on the guy to change his situation, but I suspect that a lot of American guys know that if they won’t pay, then the next guy will (thereby making it “effective” to pay).   In other words, there’s strength in numbers:   the more guys out there who refuse to pay, the “less ineffective” it becomes to not pay.   Which brings me to why I come here:   I am under no illusion that I will ever change a woman’s mind here about anything.   Rather, I am here so that other guys can witness a guy who freely challenges feminine-constructed social conventions (on a women’s forum) sans a shred of fear of looking like a jerk-off because way too many American men are in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails as a result of being terrified of not knowing how to behave around women (and I thank EMK for having the patience to tolerate me).

        8. Callie

          KK – “having your cake and eating it too”

          OMG it took me forever to understand that saying too! I just never got it, why the devil am I having cake and not eating it, isn’t “having” the same thing as “eating” to begin with.

          But finally I figured it out.  Think of it this way: Imagine a really fancy Cake Boss like cake, with all the decorations, it’s shaped like something amazing, it’s basically a work of art. It’s like those wedding cakes that you feel is such a shame to cut into. If you eat it, it means it’s gone, you don’t get to keep the work of art. And so you’re all “I wish we could both eat the cake AND keep it as it is as a work of art!”

          That’s what “having” means in this particular version of it. Having = keeping it whole and like it is before you eat it. So one can’t have a cake and eat it. You can only have it OR eat it.

          If I’m making sense.

          Anyway, slight digression but since figuring it out for myself I like to spread the good word as often as I can 😉 .

        9. Stacy2

          @KK and Callie

          It feels really strange as a non native speaker to explain an english idiom to you guys, but here it goes: If you eat your cake, you will no longer have it (you will have consumed it, its gone). Hence, you can not both eat it, and still have it. So the expression means you can’t have things that are mutually exclusive, or you can’t have something without sacrificing something else. Hope this clears it up.

        10. KK

          Chance said, ”  As a result, I don’t think as many guys over here have mustered up the courage to be a trail blazer by not subsidizing women in the way that men in Europe seem to feel more free from doing”.

          Thanks for the laugh, but you’re not a courageous trailblazer. Lol.

          “Which brings me to why I come here:   I am under no illusion that I will ever change a woman’s mind here about anything”.

          No, you won’t, because you’ve made it very clear you’re extremely mysoginistic and not concerned with anyone other than yourself. As a result, you’re dismissed. Evan challenges women constantly and some of us have changed our minds on different topics because of him. Take Jeremy as another example. He’s happily married. He’s shared challenges within his marriage. He’s fair minded. As a result, women here respect his opinions and actually listen to him. He also could challenge our beliefs and have it result in a productive dialogue. But let’s be honest. That’s not the only reason you’re here. You love to stir the pot. When women such as myself and others chime in when sexist remarks are made against men, you’re freakishly quiet. You’re not willing to even acknowledge fairness towards men when it’s being promoted by women.   

          “Rather, I am here so that other guys can witness a guy who freely challenges feminine-constructed social conventions (on a women’s forum)…”

          I’m not so sure that’s what other guys are witnessing. I’m witnessing someone who throws hissy fits when his comments are challenged, such as a most recent one directed towards me. What was it again? “I will never respond to you again. Not ever!” Lol! Doesn’t exactly advertise courageous trailblazer…

        11. KK

          Hi Callie,

          I understand what it means. I still think it sounds silly. 😊

        12. Tron Swanson

          This guy appreciates it, Chance.

          I know what you mean about too many men being afraid to disagree with women in certain areas. When I learned that female approval did not usually lead to sex, I stopped seeking female approval.

        13. Callie

          Stacy 2 – uh . . . yes . . . I know . . . that’s literally what I explained to KK . . .

          KK – ah cool! Sorry for the misunderstanding. For the record I share your  sentiment about the silliness of the saying. It’s not my fav either. Another saying that really got me was in the UK if a stranger sees you looking sad they might say, “It might never happen” in order to make you feel better. Took me FOREVER to realise what they were saying was “The bad thing you are thinking about might never actually happen”. The problem was often what I was thinking about was “I’ll never get this job” or “I’ll never get a boyfriend” or something, so when they’d say that to me I’d just want to yell back, “I know! That’s why I look so sad!” 🙂

  7. 47
    Kyra

    Kyra-
    I had a hair transplant for many thousands of dollars because women don’t like bald men

    Bald men are sexy. I prefer bald men over men with hair and a transplant. I know women who love bald men as well. If you’re sitting at home on Saturday nights reading this blog because you think women don’t like bald men… you may need to do more work on your dating life than just reading this blog.

    You are quite right. Enough already.

  8. 48
    Kyra

    I appreciate all of the men defining what sarcasm and facetiousness are to me and Stacy2. You know, as as if we weren’t clear his comments to a very real conversation were simply that, sarcasm and facetiousness in an attempt to discredit our points of view.

    Not to mention an added “enough…” in attempt to just get us to shut up because, you know, he’s oh so tired of hearing about how much women spend in the dating world.

    What we were pointing out in response to his facetious comments–in response to our very real responses– is that perhaps if he had more salient and thoughtful points to add to the discussion, maybe he’d have more salient and thoughtful resolutions to incorporate in his dating life in order for it to be successful. As Tom10 very eloquently stated, “…drawing an equivalence between the expenditure men and women invest in their appearance through sarcasm nullifies his actual point.”

    Perhaps he isn’t having success with women because, instead of listening to them, he facetiously and sarcastically casts them off (while, at the same time, complaining about the amount of money he chooses to spend on them on a date with no ROI). An investment in working on this issue instead of the ones he sarcastically listed  might be what he needs to make his Saturday nights a bit more successful dating-wise.

  9. 49
    ScottH

    What he intended to do with his sarcasm was to try to show that this discussion could go on ad nauseam, with no possibility of resolution, as it has.    Mars and venus

    Now i’m going to have a piece of cake and plan my date for Saturday night

    1. 49.1
      KK

      ScottH,

      “Now i’m going to have a piece of cake and plan my date for Saturday night”.

      Make sure you eat it too!   ðŸ˜‰

    2. 49.2
      Kyra

      That may be what he believes he did, but what he actually did was attempt to discredit and quiet a person who came into a conversation later than others. He communicated, in certain words (“enough already”) that the individual should keep their thoughts to themselves and not take part in the conversation 1) because he says so, 2) because he deems it’s enough and 3) because he feels the length of topic discussion is undesirable to him. If he had enough of the conversation, he should have politely ignored the comment and kept sarcastic remarks to himself because it not only nullified his argument, but showed him to be rude and attempting to police other people’s choice of discussion.

      Unless the initials in his name are E, M and K policing people’s words on this board aren’t what he’s paid for or authorized to do.

      He definitely should enjoy his  cake and his  date on Saturday. Make the most of it. Have a great time. Wish her well next day if interested. Ask her out again next day if not interested. But, definitely don’t worry about how pays. If she’s a good one, she will or she’ll start to. Only more dates will determine that. One never does.

      Signed,

      “A Woman Like Me”

      1. 49.2.1
        Kyra

        “Wish her well next day if interested. Ask her out again next day if not interested.

        As Missy Eliot says, “put your thing down, flip it and reverse it.”

  10. 50
    Jeremy

    @Chance (new thread because the old one was just too long).   I get it.   I understand where you’re coming from.   There was a point in time when I shared your outlook.   I saw a world where women were used to getting what they wanted (at least, in the relationship sphere) and took for granted that their point of view was correct (and men’s POV simply immature), and considered that they were either very stupid or very manipulative.   I no longer believe that.

     

    The turning point, for me, was understanding the works of Kahneman and Tversky on heuristics and biases.   The way that humans anchor over certain ideas, the notions of judgment bias (especially availability and confirmation biases).   It is not that women are stupid or manipulative.   It is that they are anchored on the ideas they are raised with (as are men).   The women who were unable to understand Evan’s post on the unfairness of male child-support are anchored on the idea that child support is the standard.   If it is the standard, then our bias is to maintain the standard and to rationalize it post-hoc (as so many of the commenters did on that thread).   This is how alimony and child support are rationalized by women.   It is how denying women certain rights in the past was rationalized by men.   It is not stupidity or manipulation.   It is human frailty and bias.

     

    You mentioned the reason you come to this site, so I’ll mention mine – since it may seem odd for a married man to be on a dating advice site for women.   I believe that the best path to human happiness comes from good relationships – for men and for women.   But good relationships are predicated on mutual understanding.   Too many women believe that their POV is the gold standard and that any male POV is immature.   These women will be doomed to relationships where either they or their future husband will be miserable.   The women who come to this site come here because they realize there is something they need to know, to understand, about men.   That understanding the male POV is something that is important for their own happiness.   For the women who undertake that search, I want to help because I think that the search is noble – as it is noble for men who wish to understand women.

     

    And it is important, IMHO, that when these women seek understanding, that it be offered in a respectful and kind way, with an open mind to their POV as well.   Because if we talk over them, disrespect them, denigrate them – well then why would they ever listen to us?   We would only be reinforcing the idea that our POV is immature.    Whether I’ve ever successfully gotten anyone to actually change their mind about anything may be uncertain…..but maybe I’ve at least conveyed to some women that another perspective is out there, that it is intelligent, and is perhaps worth considering.

     

    You may think I’m wasting my time, but I don’t.

    1. 50.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      Applause for Jeremy! (Also, read Michael Lewis’ new book on Kahneman/Tversky. You’ll thank me.)

      1. 50.1.1
        Chance

        Good comment, Jeremy, and yes, I understand that we all have a tendency to anchor over certain ideas, which influences our biases.   However, is this entirely due to socialization, or are there biological differences between the sexes that result in women having a stronger propensity to anchor over certain ideas in a subconscious attempt to avoid an uncomfortable truth?   Or, are these two possibilities actually related?   In other words, can women have a stronger propensity to lock onto certain ideas and thereby create effective social norms that – over time – establish  their ideas and imperatives as the “correct” ideas and imperatives?

         

        I’m not trying to partially disagree with you, but rather I am thinking out loud and considering a theory that I believe has some potential merit, and admittedly, it is based on my anecdotes.   I understand that any attempt by a man to analyze the nature of women must be, at best, mocked, if not deemed misogynistic.   So, I certainly acknowledge that there are biological differences between the sexes that have more pronounced negative behavioral manifestations in men (violence probably being the most obvious).

         

        With this said, I can’t seem to shake the feeling that this apparent stronger propensity in women to anchor onto certain ideas may be rooted in what appears to be a generally stronger ability for women to suppress, and unconsciously dismiss, uncomfortable realities (I.e., realities that contradict with what women want to accept as truth, or what is “correct”).   I think I first noticed this when I was quite young, and would see parents of a missing child on TV being interviewed or speaking to the public.   Almost every time, you can get the sense that the father has accepted that the child is likely gone, but it seemed that the mother truly believed that the child was still alive and would come back home.   She wasn’t stupid, and she wasn’t naive (although the latter is what I used to think).   Rather, it seems that she just didn’t care about the facts, and was subconciously  tapping into some apparent innate ability to suppress an uncomfortable  truth.   I honestly don’t think this is something with which most men can relate.   I noticed the same tendencies in my mother and sisters growing up, and then in the general female population.

         

        Of course, a reflexive response to my theory would be to say that I’m surely just exhibiting confirmation bias in my own observations, and there is probably some truth to that.   However, one could just as easily argue that the motivations for dismissing my theory are, in part, driven by biases as well that have been “confirmed” with the assistance of ideas to which they are anchored.

        1. Jeremy

          @Chance, nothing is impossible, but I’ve not noticed a gender-based difference in propensity to anchor.   Nor have any psychologists or behavioral economists I’ve studied.   The difference may lie in what our biases actually are, though.   We are more likely to see through the biases when they don’t benefit us.   Which is why women demanded the right to vote before men saw the unfairness in the system, and why more men see the unfairness of alimony compared to women.   IMHO.

        2. Chance

          Jeremy, I bought Thinking:   Fast and Slow this weekend.

        3. jeremy

          Awesome, Chance, I hope you like it :). Not an easy read, but eye opening.

      2. 50.1.2
        Jeremy

        Read it.   Loved it 🙂   Also, I omitted (because I thought it went without saying, but later realized it should be said) that you do an excellent job at doing what I described.   I jump   in occasionally to chime in, but the floor is yours.   Just wanted to give respect.

    2. 50.2
      Adrian

      Hi Jeremy,

      Good point I applaud your comment.

      In your opinion then what is the best thing that the men who believe that women have it better can do to not be so jaded and bitter?

      Here is my own personal theory as to why many men think women have it so great in dating. These men only focus on the beautiful and even average looking women and not on the below average in looks women that struggle in dating just like everyone else.

      I know it sounds callus but I think more women fit into the “just at average or below average in looks” than women who are pretty, beautiful or whatever. The reason so many men cry about older women is because most men AND women do not take care of themselves as they age; so that average women gains weight, loses her soft skin, and adds wrinkles and gray hairs as she ages. These women I think struggle in dating like everyone else does yet they are never acknowledged for having difficulty finding and attracting someone when men complain about how unfair and skewed dating is.

      For example many men are quick to point out the Okcupid study on how women only message taller guys but if you look at the study it also shows that as a women’s height increases her number of contacts decreases. Short men AND taller women struggle with online dating, as well as overweight and older women .

       

      I think women do this or a version of this as well.

      ..

      .

      Oh and this is nothing against the commenter Stacy2 personally but I think that for all their arguing most of the contentious guys who comment LOVE her.

      She justifies their belief about women.

      When a woman acknowledges Evan’s points or even compliments men in the comments it hurts the contentious men’s case for saying all women this or that.

      Stacy2 energies these guys and gives them the “I told you so about women a.k.a I warned you about women” see look at her.

       

      1. 50.2.1
        Chance

        Adrian, I don’t think that I agree about your observations relating to Stacy2.   I don’t think   she is like most women because I think she is much more transparent about her motivations on these boards than most women are on here and IRL.   I admire her honesty, but I don’t think that I “love” her because she validates any beliefs I have.   If anything, the comments from the other female commenters do more to validate my preconceived notions.

        1. Adrian

          Hi Chance,

          You said, “If anything, the comments from the other female commenters do more to validate my preconceived notions.

          If you don’t mind would you explain what you mean by this?

          I know this does not apply to all female commentors but most seem to readily acknowledge the good of men and the bad of women in dating.

          Also even Evan can be quoted as saying that his stance on men paying isn’t about fairness but about what works.

          Many female commentors readily say that they like to buy things for, cook for, and just do things that both will and will not involve them spending their own money for a guy once they begin dating…

          Sure they want the man to pay in the beginning but it is not about the money it is about the effort and women don’t just focus on the paying, it is simply a piece of an entire picture of a man they are trying to assemble about his character.

          Again once they enter into a relationship she gives back, sometimes she gives back more.

          Look at the commentor GoWithTheFlow   who is a doctor and Henirette who commented that she is in the top 1% in Canada. It seems silly to me that these two women would be using me for a free meal.

          $40 is probably just a drop in the bucket to them.

          Or What about the commentor Emily who admitted to having 2 bachelors degrees, I doubt she would be on the hunt for a man to pay her way and buy her things when the average man doesn’t even have one bachelors degree.

          and then their are commentors like SparklingEmerald, KK, Callie, Marika, and Stacy(1) who all have admitted on previous post in the past that they prefer a fun date where no money is involved over a date where the guy has to pay anything. Because again it is about the effort not the money to most women.

          So how are you seeing other female commentors being more of a validation of your notions?

          …    …    …

          Again Chance please note that I can’t show tone in text but my question is not one of snark nor am I challenging your view, I am honestly curious as to why you see it this way.

          Most of the regular female commentors seem to want to give as much as they can to a guy they love. So my question to you is based on my desire for you to show me what I am not seeing.

          …I readily admit that I never participate in many of the sub conversations so it is possible that one of them has said something that I don’t know about…

          And I haven’t dated in almost 10 years so even though you and I are around the same age, I admit that I probably don’t know as much as you and things may have changed since I last dated in college.

           

        2. Chance

          Adrian:   first, I’m not one of those people who think that one gender has it harder than the other when it comes to attracting the opposite sex.   Also, I’m not really referring to who pays for the first few dates, but rather what I see as it relates to the financial tone of many, perhaps most, relationships.   The only reason I bring this up is because I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

           

          In short, I’ve learned that it’s better to observe what women actually respond to versus listening to their stated preferences because the two often don’t match.   What Stacy2 often says doesn’t correspond to what other females say, but it corresponds to what they respond to, in my experience.

      2. 50.2.2
        Jeremy

        Adrian, the manosphere calls the phenomenon you describe “apex fallacy.”   The notion that women only see the top 10% of men and use them as a mental representative of all men.   So that when women complain about male privilege and behavior, they are really complaining about only the most privileged of men.   The manosphere fails to notice, however, that they are just as guilty of apex fallacy when it comes to women 🙂

         

        So to answer your question (as best I can), I think that we are all better at noticing the biases of other people than we are at noticing our own.   So I would encourage the jaded men and women to read some books about the psychology of happiness.   Daniel Kahneman, Daniel Gilbert, and Martin Seligman come to mind as excellent resources.   And realize that life is too short for bitterness, and too harsh for us to deal less than kindly with others.

         

        And one other thing, one bit of advice for the weekend   – even if you feel jaded and unhappy, it’s better to fake happiness than to walk around in misery or anger.   Smiling makes us happy.   Smiling at others makes them happy (mirror neurons).   Others acting happy makes us happy (mirror neurons).   So faking being happy will often result in happiness.   Being miserable has the opposite effect.   YMMV.

        1. Shaukat

          So faking being happy will often result in happiness.

          Sorry Jeremy, but with all due respect, in my opinion this is nonsense. In fact, it strikes me as being so fundamentally wrong, it’s difficult to even know where to begin. Leaving aside that the advice amounts to the type of superficial mainstream self-help swill you can hear on daytime television shows like ‘The View,’ at best it amounts to placing a Band-Aid on a deep puncture wound. This type of advice is not only unhelpful, but its main purpose, intentional or not, is to detach individuals from their actual social and material environment, a form of philosophical idealism. It’s the type of faux mentality that author’s like Sinclair Lewis mocked in novels like ‘Babbit.’

          Clearly, it’s not healthy to walk around in a  state of perpetual anger, resentment, and bitterness. The solution, however, is to discover the roots of your misery and stamp it out, not to walk around with a  fake smile plastered on your face in the hopes that you’ll eventually hypnotize yourself. It should also be noted that some of the best literature, music and art has sprung from raw emotion, be it anger, happiness, or sadness.

        2. jeremy

          Sometimes, Shaukat, doing as I suggested is exactly the right thing to stamp out the roots of unhappiness, though not always.   Many men are unhappy in their relationships and believe that their partner is the one making them unhappy.   They believe that if only she would act differently, their life would be better.   But try as they might, they can’t get their partner to act differently.   Perhaps, in those situations, the relationship is doomed.   But perhaps not.   There are many things that are worth trying, as I’ve described in previous posts.   One thing that sometimes works is to pretend to be happy.   It is sometimes amazing the response that doing this can generate.   It can sometimes effect a change in the behavior of others that is making us miserable in such a way as to stamp out the root cause of unhappiness.

           

          I’m not suggesting that we should not allow ourselves to feel the emotions we feel.   I am suggesting that chronically wearing them on our sleeve in a perpetual state of funk can sometimes BE the root cause of the unhappiness we feel.   Sometimes.

      3. 50.2.3
        KK

        Adrian,

        FWIW, I’ll throw in my 2 cents.

        Chance said, “I don’t think   she is like most women because I think she is much more transparent about her motivations on these boards than most women are on here and IRL.”

        Chance’s logic is flawed in more ways than one. First, he’s operating completely from his own negative biases against women. So like you mentioned earlier, if Stacy2 comments about herself in a way that is seen in a negative light or in a way that shows her negative biases against men, then people like Chance and Tron will absolutely engage in flaw # 2, which is the assumption that ALL women think like her and she’s the only one willing to admit it. It’s simply false. It would be just as much of a false assumption if the ladies on here read Chance and Tron’s comments and assumed that ALL men think the way they do.

        Chance’s statement about Stacy2’s transparency being unlike most women is just one more example of his bias. So his false assumption is that if a woman admits she has a negative attitude towards men or some other negative aspect about herself, she is honest and women who don’t make those statements are dishonest. Each individual can only speak for themselves. Chance doesn’t speak for all men and Stacy2 doesn’t speak for all women.

        What’s actually kind of sad is that people that have these very negative, deeply ingrained biases are only hurting themselves. So while some of their comments might be inflammatory or irritating, they should really be pitied.

        Chance seems to be somewhat more evenhanded on issues that don’t concern women, so I’ll use this analogy. Let’s say you have a friend that’s a die hard Trump supporter (kidding…kind of) and your friend believes that ALL illegal immigrants are rapists and he tells you he recently spoke to someone (an immigrant) that admitted he raped someone. Logically, you and I know (and Chance does too) that this individual only represents himself. It would be completely ignorant to say all immigrants are rapists. But for a reason I do not know, Chance is unable or unwilling to apply that same logic in his feelings about women.

         

         

        1. KK

          BTW, out of respect for Evan’s wishes, I’m not commenting any further on this topic, which I agree has been completely exhausted at this point. I had intended not to both times he’s mentioned it and got lured back in by the continuing commentary. Lol. Sorry, Evan!

          Hopefully, Evan won’t close down the comments, because I think they actually help lead to a better understanding on a variety of the topics he posts about even though some of us, including me, go off topic. Good night 😊

    3. 50.3
      Tron Swanson

      “Too many women believe that their POV is the gold standard and that any male POV is immature. These women will be doomed to relationships where…”

      Exactly! Even with their flaws, these women you describe will still end up in relationships. Heavily-flawed women are doomed to bad relationships; heavily-flawed men are doomed to no relationships at all. I agree that both genders have biases and blindspots, but that’s why women have it easier in these things.

      1. 50.3.1
        Henriette

        Are you joking, @Tron?   You honestly believe that all women, no matter how heavily-flawed, can easily get in relationships?   Were that true, why are so many women (including me)  posting on this site, single?   Do you not know any single women in your “real life” (not on this blog)?   I know many.

        1. Tron Swanson

          Hello, Henriette.

          The single women that I know are single by choice; the single men that I know are single because they can’t find relationships. Whenever I’m out and about, I see “extremely non-ideal” women with wedding rings on, while men who come 1% short in a certain category are rejected.

          So, yes, I believe that women can easily get in relationships. If they choose not to, it’s because they’re demanding (which is fair enough), or because something is seriously wrong with them.

        2. Chance

          Hi Tron:   first, glad I can help lol.   Now to your recent post:   how would your claim be mathematically possible?   It’s quite possible that the woman with the ring on looked much better at the time she got married.   In fact, odds are, she did – even if it was just a few years ago.

        3. Tron Swanson

          I hadn’t thought of that aspect of it, Chance…probably because I try not to think about women like that, period. But I’d argue that the fact they still have a wedding ring on–i.e., that their husbands haven’t left them, despite the weight gain–is a sign that women have more power in relationships. If a man was struggling in terms of money or employment, you can bet that the woman would leave, for instance.

        4. Callie

          Could it not be also possible that ultimately looks aren’t the most important thing in relationships, and that even after they fade both men and women can be very much in love with their partner because they are good people, they have fun with them, they have great sex etc?

          Does it really have to be a matter of power? That someone is being forced to be in a relationship against their will? The fact that that is the first conclusion you draw. . . I actually feel truly sorry for you. You must live in a very hopeless and sad world filled with quite terrible selfish people. No one should live like that. I’m so sorry.

        5. Tron Swanson

          Callie,

          Physical attraction is all that I really care about, when it comes to other people.

          I’d much rather live a life in which I didn’t have to care about power at all–and believe me, I tried to–but it’s sadly relevant to my quest to get sex. As long as women have more options than men, I’m fighting an uphill battle, so I have to view things in a strategic manner.

        6. Chance

          Hi Tron, you’re right that women have more power within a marriage more often than not, but that’s due to legal and social constructs.   However, I don’t necessarily think that women have more power in relationships.   In actuality, I would say that most women want to be with a man who has the most power in the relationship (i.e., needs the other partner the least).   Probably more so than any other trait, they are attracted to men who possess a strong sense of self and who are independent.   The great thing about power, in this context, is that it is self-created (i.e., she can’t give it or take it away from you).   It sounds like you’re fairly independent… use that to your advantage.

        7. Callie

          Tron – that may be but that still doesn’t follow that you would therefore assume that anyone in a relationship with a partner less attractive than the other is somehow trapped. I still find it very sad that you make that assumption instead of maybe thinking that not everyone is like you.

          Further, physical attraction doesn’t just derive from outward appearance. For you it might be 100% only that, but for many others there are other things to a person that turns them on.   So a man with a woman you might not find attractive might a) actually still find her physically attractive because not everyone has the same taste, b) might be attracted to other qualities than just her looks (I’d like to say her wit or charm, but hey, maybe she is crazy uninhibited in the sack and does all kinds of kinky things that just knocks his socks off).

          So sure, you can live in your “it’s all a power struggle” world (which actually doesn’t seem to be working for you at all, interestingly, nor do really any of the tactics you espouse here, which to me is odd that you therefore continue to stand by them but hey you do you), but please don’t assume everyone else is and just jump to the conclusion that a couple that isn’t attractive (by your definition of it) isn’t happy together.

        8. Tron Swanson

          Chance: yeah, men have (moderately) more power in a relationship than in a marriage, in the sense that it’s easier for us to walk away. I don’t know if I buy that women are attracted to men with a strong sense of self and independence, though. If it’s a type of “self” they’re attracted to, sure, but if it’s a “self” like the one I have, not so much. And from what I’ve seen, women can take or leave strongly-independent men. I know guys that came from well-off families, who are extremely dependent on them, in the sense that they’re in the family business and need their family’s approval. This hasn’t caused women to run away from them…

          Callie: where did I say that my tactics aren’t working? Sure, they aren’t working as well as I want, but they’re still more effective than dating or relationships would be. As for men being attracted to different types of women…hey, if some guys go for women that I find extremely unattractive, more power to ’em. If they get them to stop cluttering up the sexual marketplace, I’m all for it.

Leave a Reply

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