Some wish it was back to the "Good old days" of dating

[Cristo]

That's your opinion, that I disagree with.

 

Even so, you did not address the rest of my response to you.

[BlueIris]

The playing field is not even though.

I agree that it is not completely level. We disagree as to which ways.

 

In today's society, women have the upper hand.

I disagree.

 

Most can get away with murder and still have men around.

Hyperbole. Undermines your credibility.

 

So the deck is now stacked in your favor.

Restatement of the above. Disagree.

 

Even among men, if you are short, ugly, the wrong race, etc, the deck is stacked against you.

"Short, ugly" people have disadvantages in some arenas, regardless of gender. Race is a continuing disadvantage in many ways in the US.

 

So your argument doesn't make sense.

Not seeing it.

 

Would I like the deck stacked in my favor? Absolutely. But it's not.

Ok. But not ALL people want that or feel good about "winning" at others' expense, which you had stated as a law or rule of all humans.

 

I think that's everything. No real substantial change, though. The only substantive statement you made was that women have an advantage.

[Cristo]

I think that's everything. No real substantial change, though. The only substantive statement you made was that women have an advantage.

 

A few things:

 

- My point about ugly/short/certain races was NOT a man vs. woman argument. It was part of my original argument that some people have an advantage. In the past, men that were good providers had an advantage (regardless of their looks). Now, the typically attractive men have an advantage.

 

- Again, I disagree that people don't want the advantage. Approach a guy that is 6'3 and ask him if he would give up his height to be 5'5 to make things more fair. I doubt that he would.

 

- "Getting away with murder" is a figure of speech. It means that that person can do whatever they want and get away with it. It does not literally mean murder.

[JuneJulySeptember]

I think the trouble most of the guys have these days is the fact that many of us are taught one thing about dating, to be a nice guy, treat women with respect, ect, and when we actually start dating, we notice that most of that means squat anymore.

 

In fairness, how much does being a nice person mean for anything in life?

 

Stop and think about it for a second. At work. For friendship. If you can't get the job done or are boring, it means squat to most people.

 

I mean, how much does being really kind, selfless, non-ladder climbing and not talking crap about others help the obese, boring, homely woman? I mean, I would have to consider her, especially for friendship, because of my own experience with being rejected. But that is neither here nor there.

 

Back to your point, young men are taught a lot of things that are fallacies. Why? Makes for better movies and stories I suppose.

[Phoe]

The real problem is that women who look halfway decent can do literally anything they want, and they can get anyone, anytime they want. They don't want this to end, so they try to keep it secret.

 

O_o

 

Lol what?!

[guest569]

Anti feminism is a huge deal breaker for most of us women. Would any of you men date women who think you should be slaves with no rights?

[ufo8mycat]

The real problem is that women who look halfway decent can do literally anything they want, and they can get anyone, anytime they want. They don't want this to end, so they try to keep it secret.

 

What exactly is being kept secret?

 

As soon as the power and privilege of men is challenged it becomes the womens fault that life ain't as easy as it used to be.

 

It is a difficult position to empathise with. Men lamenting the good old days where women had few opportunities, most had to leave the work force upon marriage, certainly when children came along. Only the cooking, cleaning and deferring to their husband to look forward to. Where women had little autonomy of their time or bodies. Less access to education, or at the very least something you left when you married. For married women didn't need an education.

 

I can't really understand this position. I want my partner to have options in life an flexibility. The ability to change jobs, to pursue education, to start a business. Whatever. Do enable this I need to be able to earn an income. We both need to do our fair share of the domestics.

 

Do men really want to always be stuck with the burden of being the provider? Even if they hate their jobs?

 

Women are more independent. They don't need to rely on a man so their options are wider. They can make decisions on interests, personality and indeed - love. Rather than a requirement to be married by your mid 20's. Therefore "adequate" was sufficient in a husband.

 

Sounds really appealing.

[guest569]

Are any of you women slaves with no rights? Do we need to give you anymore favors? What do you need for us to be your total servants? You don't want equality, you want total supremacy. You almost have it, just wait.

 

You have said that you want women to go back to having no rights. Society allowing women to have rights..they are RIGHTS, not favours. I guess inferior men feel threatened by the added competition that modern society brings when it allows women to work for a living and be independent human beings with freedom of speech. Really hard to feel sympathy for you.

[JuneJulySeptember]

Anti feminism is a huge deal breaker for most of us women. Would any of you men date women who think you should be slaves with no rights?

 

In terms of sniffing out bitterness, I have met women who have said "Men only care about looks." Didn't turn me off in the least. In fact, it kind of encouraged me, because I don't care about looks that much.

[GoodOnPaper]

It is a difficult position to empathise with. Men lamenting the good old days where women had few opportunities, most had to leave the work force upon marriage, certainly when children came along. Only the cooking, cleaning and deferring to their husband to look forward to. Where women had little autonomy of their time or bodies. Less access to education, or at the very least something you left when you married. For married women didn't need an education.

 

Men and women of the past didn't look at their situations through the cultural lens of 2014. No one viewed things as one big oppression conspiracy. They were just trying to get by day-to-day the best way they knew how, just like we try to get by day-to-day the best way we know how.

 

Even now, I can't imagine that any reasonable man would wish that women as a gender were oppressed. If there is anything to lament about the "old days" it's that there was a more inclusive masculine identity that centered around a man's long-term mission of providing and protection. The way a man "improved" himself focused on long-term character attributes through education, career training, and plain old elbow grease, and this was all culturally connected to attraction.

 

Now, a young man learns very early on that his long-term mission is completely disconnected from what women are attracted to . . .

 

But in my eyes, men are going down from what they were (read: more lazy, dont know how to talk w a girl, male characters which in shows like American dad or in comedy shows getting praised, the so-called guyland; still immature teenage behaviour in late 20's)

And women, going up from where they were, obv expecting more.

 

I think the only things more that women are expecting of men are excitement, looks and abs -- all for the benefit of short-term things. And this was starting to happen back when I dated in the late '80s/early '90s. I can't image the chaos that online dating has fostered. Go to LS threads about what constitutes "husband material" -- women say you can't be "husband material" without being able to attract women for short-term flings.

[BlueIris]

Just out of curiousity, do you think men have the upper hand then? If so, in what ways?

 

IF we’re talking about the US, no, I don’t think that either gender has an “upper hand” overall in dating and mating.

 

Individually, of course some people have advantages that are initially attractive, such as beauty, wealth, intelligence, sociability, charisma, optimism and other things that lots of people admire, are drawn to. But even people with envied assets can have trouble in romance and relationship.

[Phoe]

I think that in the dating world, women do have some upper hands. There are some aspects to dating where a man has an upper hand. Both genders have them at some point, during some circumstances. I think overall, women have MORE upper hands than men in dating, but that doesn't universally mean that every woman has those upper hands, nor does it mean that every man is universally not gonna have some upper hands. Some women do lousy, some men do great.

 

And the same goes for outside of dating. Men and women have different upper hands in a different variety of things. Some of which may be unfairly skewed in another's favor.

 

As someone who wants gender equality, I stand for men's rights right alongside Womens rights. I want myself to be treated equally in all aspects of my life, and I want to see men get the same. When I see men getting treated unfairly, i stand up against it and acknowledge when they get a bad hand, and am grateful when men do the same for women. It's about lifting each other up, not scrambling and stepping on each other to get an upper hand.

[Woggle]

I think that in the dating world, women do have some upper hands. There are some aspects to dating where a man has an upper hand. Both genders have them at some point, during some circumstances. I think overall, women have MORE upper hands than men in dating, but that doesn't universally mean that every woman has those upper hands, nor does it mean that every man is universally not gonna have some upper hands. Some women do lousy, some men do great.

 

And the same goes for outside of dating. Men and women have different upper hands in a different variety of things. Some of which may be unfairly skewed in another's favor.

 

As someone who wants gender equality, I stand for men's rights right alongside Womens rights. I want myself to be treated equally in all aspects of my life, and I want to see men get the same. When I see men getting treated unfairly, i stand up against it and acknowledge when they get a bad hand, and am grateful when men do the same for women. It's about lifting each other up, not scrambling and stepping on each other to get an upper hand.

 

This I fully support. I say all the time I am all for the dictionary definition of feminism but there a lot of those who call themselves feminists that are just plain man haters. In my darker days I used to go on feminist boards for god knows what reason and I think some of them would murder a man if they get away with it. What self respecting supports people like that? It's sad because they make it so much harder for the feminists who do fight for real issues.

[Revolver]

Anti feminism is a huge deal breaker for most of us women. Would any of you men date women who think you should be slaves with no rights?

 

 

Since when does not being a feminist=Anti gender equality?

 

None of the women in my family are feminists

[preraph]

The "old days" that I'm talking about were the pre-feminist days (generally, the 1930s-1950s). You're saying that you were of dating age during these times.

 

Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths? I didn't say I was dating age then. I said I was "old enough to remember." My mom was a 50s mom and all my friends' moms were 50s moms. So let me just flip your tactic back over to you. Are you saying you were of dating age in the 50s and remember what it was like? Obviously not or you'd know what it was really like and not be idealizing it just because no educated woman in her right mind in 2014 will put up with you.

[guest569]

Since when does not being a feminist=Anti gender equality?

 

None of the women in my family are feminists

 

Anti-feminist = people who are against women's rights and against gender equality.

[BlueIris]

The "old days" that I'm talking about were the pre-feminist days (generally, the 1930s-1950s). You're saying that you were of dating age during these times.

 

Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths? I didn't say I was dating age then. I said I was "old enough to remember." My mom was a 50s mom and all my friends' moms were 50s moms. So let me just flip your tactic back over to you. Are you saying you were of dating age in the 50s and remember what it was like? Obviously not or you'd know what it was really like and not be idealizing it just because no educated woman in her right mind in 2014 will put up with you.

 

I agree.

 

I wonder if the people who say their dads, moms, aunts, uncles, grandparents and great-grandparents didn’t have to work as hard and “had it easier” have ever told their relatives this. It is insulting, after all.

 

Knowing my family, if I’d said or even implied that to ANY of them, they’d have called me a spoiled brat and told me to get off my butt and stop whining. There’d have been holy hell to pay!

 

“Well, dad, we all know that mom only married you because she couldn’t get work….” "Well, grandma, we all know you only married grandpa because you didn't have any choice."

[Michelle ma Belle]

Going back to the OP's original post, I've always said how much I miss the olden days of dating when people met and interacted very organically.

 

I met my (ex) husband on a blind date. We were inseparable from the moment we met. And it made for a great story.

 

And as far as women who don't like to be approached in RL, I'm not sure who they are because I have yet to meet any that would subscribe to this theory.

 

[Phoe]

Since when does not being a feminist=Anti gender equality?

 

None of the women in my family are feminists

 

What it comes down to is that most people don't know the actual textbook definition of feminism, which is that it promotes gender equality for men, women, and those who don't identify with a gender, equality for sexual orientations, races, ages, etc. it is NOT pro-female, and it rejects that idea.

 

Sadly, the fem in feminism, leads people to latch on to the widely accepted incorrect stereotype, which is that feminism is pro-female. Nope!

 

I think that those people who identify with the real definition of feminism (equality for all, acceptance and celebration of all) should start adopting a different term, and leave the tainted word "feminism" to the misguided people who think it IS about man bashing woman bra burning power.

 

I do not call myself feminist, because I dislike the stereotype associated with the word, even though I fit into the true textbook definition (which a LOT of people unknowingly do. If you support equality for all, you are technically a feminist).

 

I am simply pro-human.

[preraph]

My mom met my dad when she was a volunteer nurse (and not a real nurse -- didn't have to be during WWII) and he was on the third day of a three day drunk and I think she just thought he was handsome.

 

BTW, gentlemen, demanding a BJ in 1950 would have earned you a separate and very lonely bedroom. So be careful what you wish for.

[Phoe]

I wonder if the people who say their dads, moms, aunts, uncles, grandparents and great-grandparents didn’t have to work as hard and “had it easier” have ever told their relatives this. It is insulting, after all.

 

My grandparents will straight up tell you they had it easy lol. They met at 5, were exclusive at 17, had my mom at 20, and are now 75 and happy as ever.

 

 

My grandma never understood why I was having trouble. She could never understand why I wasn't dating, wasn't married and having kids, why getting a job after college was majorly hard, and both my grandparents kind of adopted the idea that I must have something massively, defectively wrong with me to have "failed" to get everything that came so naturally to them.

[preraph]

Anybody notice the Quote feature is goofed up and putting the wrong name on there? Happened above and to me earlier too. I made a note to the mods about it.

 

Meanwhile, Phoe, all I can tell you is it's a lot more fun to be young and not married and free to explore everything than it is to marry right out of high school which gets to be a drag pretty quick.

[Phoe]

Meanwhile, Phoe, all I can tell you is it's a lot more fun to be young and not married and free to explore everything than it is to marry right out of high school which gets to be a drag pretty quick.

 

Oh I'm not even trying for that. I don't want that, but my grandparents think I should, and that there's something wrong with me, lol.

 

This is a very small town, where most folks DID get married right out of high school. I chose the path less traveled, and went to college, did my own thing.

[ufo8mycat]

Men and women of the past didn't look at their situations through the cultural lens of 2014. No one viewed things as one big oppression conspiracy. They were just trying to get by day-to-day the best way they knew how, just like we try to get by day-to-day the best way we know how.

 

This isn't entirely accurate. In the period mentioned - the 1950's was where the rumblings of first wave feminism began. I can't recall who said it but war did more to change the role of women in the western world in four years than 100 years of the suffragette movement.

 

Many women were employed during the war only to loose their jobs when the men returned from the front. At least according to my grandmother and mother it was one big oppression conspiracy. For a short time women earned an income, learnt skills and experienced much of what the men of the era benefited from. Only to return to domestic roles post war. Many were unhappy about this and the clear inequality. There is an enormous amount written on this.

 

Even now, I can't imagine that any reasonable man would wish that women as a gender were oppressed. If there is anything to lament about the "old days" it's that there was a more inclusive masculine identity that centered around a man's long-term mission of providing and protection. The way a man "improved" himself focused on long-term character attributes through education, career training, and plain old elbow grease, and this was all culturally connected to attraction.

 

I can't imagine any reasonable man who wish a gender to be oppressed either, but studies on unconscious bias don't agree. It may not be intentional but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

I understand that the changing role of women in western society has also meant the role of men has changed as well. Men also need to to reconsider what contemporary masculinity means and that the cultural concept of attraction is probably shifting. Whining for the good old days where there was a massive power imbalance is a difficult position to engage others in. Particularly the women you might wish to attract *that being the general you*

 

You can't stop progress.

[BlueIris]

This isn't entirely accurate. In the period mentioned - the 1950's was where the rumblings of first wave feminism began. I can't recall who said it but war did more to change the role of women in the western world in four years than 100 years of the suffragette movement.

 

Many women were employed during the war only to loose their jobs when the men returned from the front. At least according to my grandmother and mother it was one big oppression conspiracy. For a short time women earned an income, learnt skills and experienced much of what the men of the era benefited from. Only to return to domestic roles post war. Many were unhappy about this and the clear inequality. There is an enormous amount written on this.

 

And don't forget the invention of the birth control pill, also during the 50's. That has had a huge effect too.