Feminism in dating (Updated)

[thefooloftheyear]

That wasn't me.

 

I have almost always made more than my partners. Not really trying. That's just how it worked out. They were never shamed for making less. They didn't shame themselves either. All of what we made went into the same pot and we decided together how it would be spent. I believe that it is important that people generally share the same financial outlook, ie spenders vs savers.

 

All of my partners have been somewhat frugal like me. We never fought about money.

 

I have never fought with a man over housework either. What I have fought over is career choices. If I make more, then my career needs to be a priority. If he has demonstrated that he is not all that ambitious, but still gets by... And I need something more challenging, and he is getting the financial benefit from it... Then yea... My job doesn't take a back seat to his. We at least should take turns.

 

Maybe part of the reason I haven't dated uber rich guys willing to lavish me with gifts is because I know the payback is that I am the follower, and I don't want that. To use a sailing analogy... I like being the captain of my own ship. I would love to find a man who is also a 'captain', who will let me take the helm sometimes... And vice versa... But I am not the first mate... And definitely not one of the deck hands.

 

Edited: and while it is definitely true that not all men are rapists... Not by a long shot... 96% of rapists are men... And that includes violence against other men. Not just women. It's in men's best interest to be against rape. Even when they aren't the primary targets.

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

 

 

But here's the thing...Most of those guys would not expect you to be a follower and likely would support you in your endeavors, but if you were a follower, they aren't going to make you feel like crap as a result...

 

TFY

[PrettyEmily77]

No argument....

 

I think its a cultural thing, too..

 

I can state pretty authoritatively that the majority of Italian or Jewish women wont feel good about their man if they aren't strong earners, successful in their craft, and solid providers..

 

And believe me, I mean no disrespect to SAHD's....Its great for them...I just think that arrangement doesn't sit too well with many women...They may do it out of necessity. but they don't particularly like it..

 

TFY

 

Could be a cultural thing, yeah. My experience of women with these expections are that they have no issue being looked after financially by their husbands, who in turn may be supportive of a side business or cute hobby but not always of an actual career because they are not prepared to share the daily stuff.

 

I work as a medic and actually, SAHDs are the envy of a few married mothers with a career in my line of work - working fathers have been able to focus on their careers for centuries, and IMO it's a good thing that working mothers have that option too, and I'm not even a mother.

 

When considering a compatible partner in the early stages of dating, men who want a relationship of equals should really look into dating independent women who are financially self-sufficient. Those who aren't, however attractive, won't be able to reciprocate. They should also be prepared to be equals in all ways and leave the alpha / beta silliness out of the dating process.

 

That being said, pretty sure my BF has no problem treating when out because he knows I'm compleyely self-sufficient, I treat him in other ways and he does it because he wants to, not because I want or expect it (which I don't).

[Wewon]

Lots of men see what they choose to see. Not all women have those preferences, but those guys keep lining up to date princesses. Same way that I don't understand it when non promiscuous women date promiscuous men... For example.

 

It is so counter to what both parties generally SAY they want, but they are too chicken to do anything about it... Too afraid of being alone if they don't go along with it.

 

What some women complain about are the guys who want a woman who splits 50/50 financially, yet still wants her to do all the traditional stuff too.... But I say it is her fault if she goes along with doing all the traditional stuff. If she is pulling her own weight, so should he. And vice versa.

 

Dating is supposed to be about finding a compatible partner but way too many people just date for sport these days.

 

What I tell both genders is stop complaining and just stop complying if it bothers them so much.

 

 

When men and women make these complaints, I never made the assumption that they were anecdotes of compliance, but simply sticking points that they were confronted with that may have ended the relationship. No different than any other complaint that people make of saying that they are finding a ton of people expecting X.

 

Instead, the complaints are being aired to demonstrate that there are general attitudes that people come up against in the opposite sex which makes dating more difficult.

 

For me personally, the number of women that wanted a 50-50 domestic life but also wanted 100% 1950s chivalry out numbered the women that acknowledged this contradiction. Those relationships stopped as soon as the attitude became apparent. So when men complain about this I know that he's not just pulling it out of thin air or speaking of an anomaly. Its a behavior that, as a society, is considered "backwards" and "whiney" to point out.

[mrldii]

This is the message we are given.

 

1) Rape culture

2) Wage gap

3) Patriarchy

 

Every major feminist issue (from an aggregate feminist movement standpoint) paints women as victims of men in some way. Victims of rape, victims of wage inequality, victims of toxic masculinity.

 

So, yes. My perception of feminism is that it is about being a victim.

 

That may not apply to you individually, but that perception certainly applies to the message we are being given by the aggregate feminist movement.

 

It scares the living sh*t out of me that the "major feminist issue(s)" of "rape culture, wage gaps, and patriarchy" come to mind while discussing heterosexual dating and no one bats an eye.

 

Speaks loudly to the point that was made in Post #14: "dating" never has, never will, and never should have one damned thing to do with EOE policies in the workplace and within society.

 

If it did, that would mean ALL the guys have to ask ALL the women out, including the fat chicks who post deceptive FB photos only from the shoulders up. Most of the "feminists" on this thread have indicated personal taste comes to play in dating, NOT non-discrimination clauses and laws. The fact that you can't hire female doctors simply based on whether or not they can fill a DD bra, doesn't mean you can't choose to only date female doctors who can fill a DD bra.

 

 

It's *funny* how - 17 pages into it - there's still so much *confusion* over the concept.

[sambolini]

It scares the living sh*t out of me that the "major feminist issue(s)" of "rape culture, wage gaps, and patriarchy" come to mind while discussing heterosexual dating and no one bats an eye.

 

Speaks loudly to the point that was made in Post #14: "dating" never has, never will, and never should have one damned thing to do with EOE policies in the workplace and within society.

 

If it did, that would mean ALL the guys have to ask ALL the women out, including the fat chicks who post deceptive FB photos only from the shoulders up. Most of the "feminists" on this thread have indicated personal taste comes to play in dating, NOT non-discrimination clauses and laws. The fact that you can't hire female doctors simply based on whether or not they can fill a DD bra, doesn't mean you can't choose to only date female doctors who can fill a DD bra.

 

 

It's *funny* how - 17 pages into it - there's still so much *confusion* over the concept.

 

I wasn't speaking about feminism in a strictly dating concept. I was speaking about feminism as a whole. The question posed was whether or not feminism is about being a victim. I answered in the affirmative based on my observations.

 

But to tie it back in to dating: any woman who lives in a state of perpetual victimhood is not an attractive mating option. Why would I voluntarily date someone who views me as part of the problem simply because I have a penis?

[mrldii]

I wasn't speaking about feminism in a strictly dating concept. I was speaking about feminism as a whole. The question posed was whether or not feminism is about being a victim. I answered in the affirmative based on my observations.

 

But to tie it back in to dating: any woman who lives in a state of perpetual victimhood is not an attractive mating option. Why would I voluntarily date someone who views me as part of the problem simply because I have a penis?

 

 

Once again, the definition of "feminism" is being bastardized...now, to be synonymous with "damaged women".

 

 

While a "damaged woman" could claim to be "a feminist", being "a feminist" does not require that one be "a damaged woman"...or, "a damaged man", for that matter.

[sambolini]

Once again, the definition of "feminism" is being bastardized...now, to be synonymous with "damaged women".

 

 

While a "damaged woman" could claim to be "a feminist", being "a feminist" does not require that one be "a damaged woman"...or, "a damaged man", for that matter.

 

I never said they were "damaged". That is a word that you chose.

 

I said their message is one of perpetual female victimhood at the hands of men. Which is a deterrent for some men to choose them as partners.

 

I am under no obligation to date a feminist.

 

ETA: If you don't like how people perceive feminism based on its message, then my response would be to change the message.

Edited December 13, 2015 by sambolini

[mrldii]

...ETA: If you don't like how people perceive feminism based on its message, then my response would be to change the message.

 

That's NOT the message of feminism; never has been, never will be. "Victimhood", as a matter of fact, is exactly what feminism fights against - whether it be women falling victim to social mores, or men falling victim to them.

 

 

I - nor any other feminist - can NOT be held responsible for what others choose to hear as the message; that's achieved by the filters the recipient chooses to employ. But, I - and most other feminists - will speak up when others bastardize the message simply to fulfill their predetermined agenda of what they want "feminism" to mean to attempt to make it something it's not.

[sambolini]

That's NOT the message of feminism; never has been, never will be. "Victimhood", as a matter of fact, is exactly what feminism fights against - whether it be women falling victim to social mores, or men falling victim to them.

 

 

I - nor any other feminist - can NOT be held responsible for what others choose to hear as the message; that's achieved by the filters the recipient chooses to employ. But, I - and most other feminists - will speak up when others bastardize the message simply to fulfill their predetermined agenda of what they want "feminism" to mean to attempt to make it something it's not.

 

"Women are afraid of meeting a serial killer. Men are afraid of meeting someone fat." When Strangers Click

 

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

 

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will

 

What other conclusion should I be drawing?

[mike_89]

"Women are afraid of meeting a serial killer. Men are afraid of meeting someone fat." When Strangers Click

 

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

 

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will

 

What other conclusion should I be drawing?

Isn't it obvious? The conclusion is that you should be hand picking which feminists actually are feminists based on their message. If their message does not fit the correct definition of feminism, which is changed every time to fit the agenda of the person using that definition, then they must not be feminists. Just try to imagine that feminists would show the dark side of feminism! The horror!

Instead you should disregard the *opinions* that all people you quoted completely fit the definition of feminism based on their actions and accept the *fact* that these people are not feminists because feminism would never do anything to hurt the male gender.

[RedRobin]

But here's the thing...Most of those guys would not expect you to be a follower and likely would support you in your endeavors, but if you were a follower, they aren't going to make you feel like crap as a result...

 

TFY

 

 

I'd like to think so... but nearly all of the uber rich men I know have wives who are followers. Not necessarily SAHMs, but when it comes time to move on for the next promotion... it's her dumping her job. No questions asked.

 

 

Its not like that for lower earning men. I've dated construction workers, librarians, fire fighters... All good at what they do, self sufficient, and love their jobs. Which is great. Ask them to switch jobs, even to a different library? or a different firestation? Oh hell no! That's what I'm talking about.

 

 

I was dating a guy who worked in one of the factories for a major coffee company. He wanted me to move to a little town in Vermont, for what? so he could make an extra $2.50/hr? There was nothing there. I get it that everyone has their pride. And men especially. They are told that their job = identity. But this is just one of the many tradeoffs women make that men aren't expected to make.

 

 

THESE are the things I look for when I'm dating someone. Not if he pays for my meal. That doesn't mean diddly to me. I want a guy who is flexible, just like me. Who wants a real partner.

[sambolini]

Isn't it obvious? The conclusion is that you should be hand picking which feminists actually are feminists based on their message. If their message does not fit the correct definition of feminism, which is changed every time to fit the agenda of the person using that definition, then they must not be feminists. Just try to imagine that feminists would show the dark side of feminism! The horror!

Instead you should disregard the *opinions* that all people you quoted completely fit the definition of feminism based on their actions and accept the *fact* that these people are not feminists because feminism would never do anything to hurt the male gender.

 

This brought a smile to my face.

 

If people want to actually believe the words I quoted, then they can. That's their right. But I am under no obligation to consider them as viable dating material because of their belief.

 

Feminists in this thread have continuously said that in dating, it's all about preference. I agree. And my preference is to not date them.

 

I don't think they're bad people. I don't think they're damaged. And I don't believe they should be relegated to second class citizens.

 

I just don't want to form an intimate bond with one. Just like how I don't want to form an intimate bond with a woman who expects me to pay for every date.

[mrldii]

"Women are afraid of meeting a serial killer. Men are afraid of meeting someone fat." When Strangers Click

 

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

 

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will

 

What other conclusion should I be drawing?

 

 

ABsoLUTEly you should take the words of three people, self-professed "feminists" or not, and decide that this is what ALL "feminists" believe.

 

Be sure to ignore the words of the 30+ "feminists" on this thread, alone, who've indicated they believe the exact opposite.

 

By ignoring what all the other self-professed "feminists" say, it'll help keep your predetermined and completely misguided bias as to what "feminism really is" firmly in place.

 

 

Now, really, I'm out of this thread. Discussing "feminism" on LoveShack.org is almost like talking about the various shades of purple to a blind-from-birth person.

 

*Almost*.

 

*Like*.

 

 

[RedRobin]

I dunno. It seems logical that the women who don't expect guys to pay for every date are going to be women who believe in gender equality and fairness.

 

 

So, what IS your label for people who believe in gender equality and fairness. Do you have one?

 

 

Because if the guys doesn't believe in gender equality and fairness... and he is one of those guys who thinks I'm supposed to be doing X or Y because I was born a certain way, then yea... I wouldn't want to date that guy either. It's just as bad as the women you claim to be 'feminists'... that because you are a guy, you must be and do X and Y. Which I'm opposed to.

 

 

The problem is, the women who hold more traditional views (non 'feminist', in your words) are much more likely to expect the guy to pay. So, how exactly do you reconcile that? You can't have it both ways. You can try I guess, but then I'd call that person a hypocrite. And I don't date hypocrites.

[sambolini]

I'd like to think so... but nearly all of the uber rich men I know have wives who are followers. Not necessarily SAHMs, but when it comes time to move on for the next promotion... it's her dumping her job. No questions asked.

 

Are these women not choosing to dump their jobs? If they didn't want to dump their job, then why not divorce their husband and get alimony instead? If their husbands are uber rich, then I'm pretty certain that these wives would most likely be entitled to a significant maintenance stipend. They would continue to have access to a portion of his money while still keeping their jobs.

 

But if they chose to stay with their husbands instead, then doesn't that make it their choice?

 

Its not like that for lower earning men. I've dated construction workers, librarians, fire fighters... All good at what they do, self sufficient, and love their jobs. Which is great. Ask them to switch jobs, even to a different library? or a different firestation? Oh hell no! That's what I'm talking about.

 

Again, it's about choice. These men chose to not switch jobs or job locations. That's their right. If there is no equality in dating and relationships as feminists claim, then one wouldn't expect there to be equality of outcome in dating and relationships.

 

The results you describe fit that model.

 

I was dating a guy who worked in one of the factories for a major coffee company. He wanted me to move to a little town in Vermont, for what? so he could make an extra $2.50/hr? There was nothing there. I get it that everyone has their pride. And men especially. They are told that their job = identity. But this is just one of the many tradeoffs women make that men aren't expected to make.

 

He wanted you to move. But you didn't want to, so you didn't. You exercised your right to choose not to.

 

He has a right to have his preference (again, we've already established that in this thread). You are under no obligation to agree with his preference, but he has a right to have it.

 

But in the end, you still had the freedom to choose what was best for you. Which was to not move and the relationship.

 

He is not a bad person for wanting you to accompany him; that tells me that he wanted to stay with you, which I don't see how that could be construed in any way as a bad thing.

 

Likewise, I don't consider you to be a bad person for ending the relationship because you didn't want to move.

 

THESE are the things I look for when I'm dating someone. Not if he pays for my meal. That doesn't mean diddly to me. I want a guy who is flexible, just like me. Who wants a real partner.

 

So it was unrealistic of him to ask you to be flexible and move to Vermont with him? You claim to be flexible, but you were inflexible in your anecdote. Again, I'm not coming down on you; if you didn't want to move, then not moving was the right choice.

 

But I do find it a little disingenuous for you to claim when you are flexible right after you gave us a scenario in which you were inflexible.

 

Would you have expected him to move with you if your situations had been reversed? If so, and he chose not to, would you have accepted his decision?

[sambolini]

I dunno. It seems logical that the women who don't expect guys to pay for every date are going to be women who believe in gender equality and fairness.

 

 

So, what IS your label for people who believe in gender equality and fairness. Do you have one?

 

 

Because if the guys doesn't believe in gender equality and fairness... and he is one of those guys who thinks I'm supposed to be doing X or Y because I was born a certain way, then yea... I wouldn't want to date that guy either. It's just as bad as the women you claim to be 'feminists'... that because you are a guy, you must be and do X and Y. Which I'm opposed to.

 

 

The problem is, the women who hold more traditional views (non 'feminist', in your words) are much more likely to expect the guy to pay. So, how exactly do you reconcile that? You can't have it both ways. You can try I guess, but then I'd call that person a hypocrite. And I don't date hypocrites.

 

Can I clone you?

[sambolini]

ABsoLUTEly you should take the words of three people, self-professed "feminists" or not, and decide that this is what ALL "feminists" believe.

 

Be sure to ignore the words of the 30+ "feminists" on this thread, alone, who've indicated they believe the exact opposite.

 

By ignoring what all the other self-professed "feminists" say, it'll help keep your predetermined and completely misguided bias as to what "feminism really is" firmly in place.

 

 

Now, really, I'm out of this thread. Discussing "feminism" on LoveShack.org is almost like talking about the various shades of purple to a blind-from-birth person.

 

*Almost*.

 

*Like*.

 

 

 

What is interesting was that I was able to find a multitude of quotes after the most cursory Google search. I only posted three because I felt three was sufficient.

 

Would you like me to link to much more?

 

You have given me no reason to believe that the aggregate feminist movement's message is any different from what I posted. You posted no quotes from feminists who actually, legitimately believe in gender equality; who talk about men's issues and who say they are just as important. All you did was ridicule me for taking the words of those three "self-proclaimed feminists" at face value.

 

Robin Morgan was born in 1941 and has been a self-identified "radical feminist" since the 1960s.

 

Susan Brownmiller was born in 1935, became active with the Women's Liberation Movement in 1968, and wrote Against Our Will in 1975.

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but my guess is that these women have been "self-proclaimed" feminists for about the same time or longer than you've been alive (as a 36 year old male, I know that's true in my case). In other words, they have far more feminist street credentials than you do.

Edited December 13, 2015 by sambolini

[PrettyEmily77]

I dunno. It seems logical that the women who don't expect guys to pay for every date are going to be women who believe in gender equality and fairness.

 

 

So, what IS your label for people who believe in gender equality and fairness. Do you have one?

 

 

Because if the guys doesn't believe in gender equality and fairness... and he is one of those guys who thinks I'm supposed to be doing X or Y because I was born a certain way, then yea... I wouldn't want to date that guy either. It's just as bad as the women you claim to be 'feminists'... that because you are a guy, you must be and do X and Y. Which I'm opposed to.

 

 

The problem is, the women who hold more traditional views (non 'feminist', in your words) are much more likely to expect the guy to pay. So, how exactly do you reconcile that? You can't have it both ways. You can try I guess, but then I'd call that person a hypocrite. And I don't date hypocrites.

.

 

Sometimes you meet someone you care enough about that you would want to make compromises for them (no compliance) and them for you because being with them feels better than holding on to a principle. That's not being a hypocrit - just knowing what battles to fight...

Edited December 13, 2015 by PrettyEmily77

[lollipopspot]

What is interesting was that I was able to find a multitude of quotes after the most cursory Google search. I only posted three because I felt three was sufficient...

 

Robin Morgan was born in 1941 and has been a self-identified "radical feminist" since the 1960s.

 

Susan Brownmiller was born in 1935, became active with the Women's Liberation Movement in 1968, and wrote Against Our Will in 1975.

 

I recommend learning about something called "historical context." Cherry picking quotes isn't really a sincere way to discuss a movement. Do you have any sense of what the laws and opportunities were like for those women as they came of age?

 

Re. the serial killer vs. fat woman comment, there's a certain truth to that. I think men aren't that worried about their safety when they meet up with a woman - they're worried more about being catfished. Women do live with the very real threat of rape when they meet a strange man.

[RedRobin]

Are these women not choosing to dump their jobs? If they didn't want to dump their job, then why not divorce their husband and get alimony instead? If their husbands are uber rich, then I'm pretty certain that these wives would most likely be entitled to a significant maintenance stipend. They would continue to have access to a portion of his money while still keeping their jobs.

 

But if they chose to stay with their husbands instead, then doesn't that make it their choice?

 

 

Of course it's their choice. I already said why I wouldn't date a guy like that. It's his way or the highway every time. Not my cup of tea.

 

 

As for maintenance... If they have kids, that would probably be the case. People can get pre-nups if they want it spelled out. If I were to marry again, I'd get a pre-nup. I already have a will. Not so much for my personal 'fortune' (such as it is), but to make sure that my family heirlooms went back to my family and not his in the case of a divorce or death.

 

Again, it's about choice. These men chose to not switch jobs or job locations. That's their right. If there is no equality in dating and relationships as feminists claim, then one wouldn't expect there to be equality of outcome in dating and relationships.

 

The results you describe fit that model.

. yes, that is their right. And for those men who are seriously looking for a life-time partnership, it's something they shouldn't be taking for granted... ie, that the woman is going to move for him just because she was born female.

 

 

He wanted you to move. But you didn't want to, so you didn't. You exercised your right to choose not to.

 

 

Yep. And when I see the pattern repeat over and over, I have to question if there is something bigger at play that has nothing to do with me.

 

He has a right to have his preference (again, we've already established that in this thread). You are under no obligation to agree with his preference, but he has a right to have it.

 

 

Never said he didn't.

 

But in the end, you still had the freedom to choose what was best for you. Which was to not move and the relationship.

.

 

 

If he needed to make more $$ and wanted a more 'pastoral' environment, there were lots of other options than a small town in Vermont. I would have considered moving to another area where we both could have been happy and had our needs met.

 

He is not a bad person for wanting you to accompany him; that tells me that he wanted to stay with you, which I don't see how that could be construed in any way as a bad thing.

.

 

 

Nah, I don't think he wanted to stay with me or anyone. That doesn't make him a bad person. I just don't view him as someone who really wants a life partner. Just someone to hang out with as long as its convenient. Which is fine. But it is also something I screen for early on now.

 

 

Likewise, I don't consider you to be a bad person for ending the relationship because you didn't want to move.

 

Thanks.

 

So it was unrealistic of him to ask you to be flexible and move to Vermont with him? You claim to be flexible, but you were inflexible in your anecdote. Again, I'm not coming down on you; if you didn't want to move, then not moving was the right choice.

 

But I do find it a little disingenuous for you to claim when you are flexible right after you gave us a scenario in which you were inflexible.

 

Would you have expected him to move with you if your situations had been reversed? If so, and he chose not to, would you have accepted his decision?

 

 

The way he managed it showed me he wasn't flexible. I at least considered moving to Vermont, and attempted to see what was there. I did not see any attempts on his part to look for other locations we could move to together where we could both be happy.

 

 

That's what I'm talking about. I don't see much of that kind of negotiation going on at all. Lots of men, even the lower earning men, still have a my way or the highway attitude when it comes to their jobs.

 

 

Probably also goes along with the fact that the NE has more women than men... and why I don't live there anymore. It's not that hard for even the scummiest of men there to find some woman who will tolerate all kinds of things. I don't consider low wage earning men to be scum... not at all... but on a continuum, you could say that they really don't care.

 

 

So I moved. To a place where there are more men than women. And whadda know? They are all of a sudden are happy to negotiate. What a coincidence...

 

 

Long story short... cultural expectations and demographics play a HUGE role in people's choices... if they think hard about it.

[sambolini]

The way he managed it showed me he wasn't flexible. I at least considered moving to Vermont, and attempted to see what was there. I did not see any attempts on his part to look for other locations we could move to together where we could both be happy.

 

 

That's what I'm talking about. I don't see much of that kind of negotiation going on at all. Lots of men, even the lower earning men, still have a my way or the highway attitude when it comes to their jobs.

 

 

Probably also goes along with the fact that the NE has more women than men... and why I don't live there anymore. It's not that hard for even the scummiest of men there to find some woman who will tolerate all kinds of things. I don't consider low wage earning men to be scum... not at all... but on a continuum, you could say that they really don't care.

 

 

So I moved. To a place where there are more men than women. And whadda know? They are all of a sudden are happy to negotiate. What a coincidence...

 

 

Long story short... cultural expectations and demographics play a HUGE role in people's choices... if they think hard about it.

 

The bolded is probably very true. I'll definitely grant you that.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I just want to make sure that you know I wasn't attacking you or anything. Like I said, I think you made the right choice. And I didn't know you actually looked into moving; the fact that you did shows a lot about your character.

 

I think you're a good person, Red. You seem quite reasonable and well grounded. A guy would be lucky to have you.

 

(Just a brief aside, I used to be a line cook at a Red Robin restaurant many, many years ago. I still love their Whiskey River BBQ burger to this day. Mmm...now I'm hungry)

[RedRobin]

The bolded is probably very true. I'll definitely grant you that.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I just want to make sure that you know I wasn't attacking you or anything. Like I said, I think you made the right choice. And I didn't know you actually looked into moving; the fact that you did shows a lot about your character.

 

I think you're a good person, Red. You seem quite reasonable and well grounded. A guy would be lucky to have you.

 

(Just a brief aside, I used to be a line cook at a Red Robin restaurant many, many years ago. I still love their Whiskey River BBQ burger to this day. Mmm...now I'm hungry)

 

 

No worries. I don't feel attacked.

 

 

One of my best friends LOVED Red Robin (the restaurant). It kind of fit my personality too... Red. and robins (who can be pushy and are pretty confident little birds).

 

 

I dunno. I'm 'old' and bitter now, lol. After dating all those NE men, haha. Am doing my best to start fresh with a new attitude here. Overall (not just when it came to dating), I really didn't like NY or most of the NE culturally. Loved the outdoors, which is why I stayed as long as I did... plus I waited for just the right job opportunity to jump.

 

 

I like the PNW (Pacific North West) much better. Not just because it has more men, but it is a better fit for me culturally in many many ways.

 

 

There are a lot of unhappy people out there dating who I feel might be well served to find a place who fits them better culturally. Perfect example... NY just made it legal for people to bring their dogs on a restaurant patio. Here in WA? My dog can ride the bus with me... and he doesn't even need to be an assistance dog. Little things like that. Plus the taxes. For a state that is as socially liberal as WA, they have got the fiscal conservatism down pat. Love that. Tax the weed, but don't tax my income. Sounds good to me.

Edited December 13, 2015 by RedRobin

[sambolini]

I like the PNW (Pacific North West) much better. Not just because it has more men, but it is a better fit for me culturally in many many ways.

 

 

There are a lot of unhappy people out there dating who I feel might be well served to find a place who fits them better culturally. Perfect example... NY just made it legal for people to bring their dogs on a restaurant patio. Here in WA? My dog can ride the bus with me... and he doesn't even need to be an assistance dog. Little things like that. Plus the taxes. For a state that is as socially liberal as WA, they have got the fiscal conservatism down pat. Love that. Tax the weed, but don't tax my income. Sounds good to me.

 

I'm in Oregon, so I totally know how you feel about loving the PNW. I don't mind the income tax because we don't have a sales tax. I pay exactly what's listed on the price tag!

 

I love the easygoing life and laid back culture we have here. I've heard that the EC is just a hustle bustle of activity. I couldn't live that way!

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

 

Crud, I screwed up the link in my last post. Oops! >.<

[Rejected Rosebud]

I will make this clear for you. Women have these preferences in men because they can, bottom line. When you have 5 guys interested in you, and 3 of them are willing to treat you like a princess, open doors for you, pay for everything all the time, ect, those are the guys you are going to prefer.

Oh. Let me make this clear for YOU!! :lmao: Not everybody is going to stay in a relationship just to get our ego stroked or a blow job. I don't give a crap about being treated like a "princess" in fact the idea is creepy.

 

You project way too much.

 

Feminism these days tells women how bad men are,

oh, lordy, you have no idea at all what feminism is these days or in any other days.

 

Everything else you wrote up to now is just a crock, but I have to address THIS:

 

 

Not only that, but thanks to modern feminism, women don't need to fulfill the traditional female gender roles, nor do they even have to take care of themselves, because if anyone has anything even slightly negative to say about a big girl's body, they are body shaming.

 

WHERE do you get off with this? Of COURSE women don't need to fulfill traditional gender roles OR "take care of themselves." And you're allowed to be a fat guy who works at a day care, who gives a crap?? Who on EARTH thinks that it could be appropriate to "say anything negative about a big girl's body"???

 

Yes that is body shaming. My body is not YOUR business just because I happen to be a "FEMALE" and you're a man.

 

I better get down on my knees and thank the good lord that I don't live amongst ANY people who are outraged that they're not supposed to make negative remarks about big women's bodies. Sheesh. :sick:

[Rejected Rosebud]

If people want to actually believe the words I quoted, then they can. That's their right. But I am under no obligation to consider them as viable dating material because of their belief.

 

One thing for sure, you will NEVER need to worry about a woman who considers herself a feminist, or even who knows what that means in history, wanting to date you.

 

And that begs the question - WHY do you only date women who don't have a job or contribute anything? From your posts I think that is the only type of woman you date, or know. Maybe hanging around with feminists would be a good thing for you, at least most of them will probably have a job.