Feminism in dating (Updated)

[Woggle]

If women want men to be protective then they should have no problem being nurturing and boosting a guys ego every now and then. The fact that a good portion think this is beneath them or anti-feminist is why a lot of men are rejecting what is supposed to be our role.

[Els]

Considering you are so rigid with regard to your biological / evolutionary imperative to find a man who provides for you, how do you feel about a man's biological imperative to be polygamous?

 

I'm not picking on you particularly as there are lots of women who feel the same way you do about a provider male.

 

If a guy wants to do that, it's entirely his prerogative to hold out for polygamous relationship(s), just as it's a woman's prerogative to hold out for whatever she wants. Polygamy in and of itself is not wrong, it's the deceit that accompanies cheating that is wrong. If a couple decides to be polygamous then eh, whatever floats their boat.

 

So, yeah, if you want to be polygamous then go for it. You might have trouble finding a woman who agrees to it, but similarly women with any requirements are also not always able to find men who satisfy them.

[Shining One]

I'd like to pose a question to the ladies who self-identify as feminists but still desire a man to demonstrate a disproportionate level of effort and investment during the early dating phase: Do you perceive this as a disconnect from feminist ideals as defined earlier in the thread?

"Feminism" = "the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes"

 

"Feminist" = "a person [i.e., male OR female] who believes in feminism

Or do you believe that equality should be limited in scope to only certain things?

[sambolini]

He is unable to because of his job. Had she kept hers she would also have been unable to because of her job. Someone's job had to go as babies cannot be left alone at home. He is unwilling for it to be his. She had to.

 

I'm really not sure why this is so unclear to you.

 

It's unclear because of your perceptions.

 

You say he expects to do 0% of the child care. As in, literally never care for this child that is his. You go on to say that because of the job he has, he is unable to do so.

 

One may expect a paraplegic to walk, but the paraplegic has no such expectation. He knows it is impossible. So he is then ridiculed because he doesn't expect to walk.

 

To expect someone to do something they literally cannot do (because of whatever circumstance) is rather silly.

 

You still haven't provided us with enough information. Does he make more than her? Is his field harder to get back into? Was he in the job market longer? Does her job provide more potency leniency with returning to work after a period of absence?

 

My ex wife returned to work after a of maternity leave. It didn't negatively impact her career at all. And day care didn't hurt my daughter at all. In fact, she still goes when I have her, and she loves it there. It's a wonderful place.

 

You'll never hear me argue with a mom who stays with her child during the first few weeks of life. I think that's a wonderful thing.

 

But for her to make a unilateral financial decision that not only impacts the father, but also said child, without discussing with the father, is wrong. No amount of feminist righteousness will convince me otherwise.

[sambolini]

Considering you are so rigid with regard to your biological / evolutionary imperative to find a man who provides for you, how do you feel about a man's biological imperative to be polygamous?

 

I'm not picking on you particularly as there are lots of women who feel the same way you do about a provider male.

 

Precisely.

 

Woman want men to fill a role. Fine.

 

What role is she going to play in my life in return? Are you going to play the role of sex goddess? Wife who has dinner on the table?

 

People don't do things unless they get something from it. I still fail to see what benefit men get for filling this role.

[Timshel]

Precisely.

 

Woman want men to fill a role. Fine.

 

What role is she going to play in my life in return? Are you going to play the role of sex goddess? Wife who has dinner on the table?

 

People don't do things unless they get something from it. I still fail to see what benefit men get for filling this role.

 

A role? Tom Cruise and Jennifer Lopez get paid for playing a role. In real life, people connect, love each other and build a life together. It's complicated and messy.....imo, the best perk of breathing. I am not speaking of romantic relationships only......if a person views relationships as a 'role' that's the trouble.

 

There is always a give and take. If a person lives on an island they still have to compromise and survive with nature.

 

It sounds like you want things to be cut and dry. You/me, you do this, I do that. That's not how love is or any healthy relationship.

[loveflower]

A role? Tom Cruise and Jennifer Lopez get paid for playing a role. In real life, people connect, love each other and build a life together. It's complicated and messy.....imo, the best perk of breathing. I am not speaking of romantic relationships only......if a person views relationships as a 'role' that's the trouble.

 

There is always a give and take. If a person lives on an island they still have to compromise and survive with nature.

 

It sounds like you want things to be cut and dry. You/me, you do this, I do that. That's not how love is or any healthy relationship.

 

If people marry because they love each other as much as they love themselves, this debate wouldn't even exist.

 

The root of all this problem is most people marry just to coexist, hence the debate, who is the winner and loser of the R.

 

People always ask what other can do for them, not what they can do for other. It's a very individualistic and self-serving culture. Where as in other cultures, they are more family-oriented.

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

On the flip side, men want women to step up and take financial responsibility for themselves and the decisions they make. They also want them to participate. So you gave birth. That doesn't give you a free pass for the rest of your life. Men will be happy to support you, but you have to have something to offer him to make it worthwhile. "I gave birth, so you owe me for the rest of your life" is not an attractive option. YOU need to accept that you are just as responsible for accepting this man's sperm as he is for putting it there.

WOW. :eek: Men want women to step up and take financial responsibility for themselves? News flash!!! Women DO take financial responsibility for ourselves! And not because MEN us to but because it's part of being an adult person. It's not gender based.

 

If you think that a mother needs to share 50/50 financial responsibility with the father when a couple has kids - many couples do have this arrangement but it's not that simple to organize. They will need to have enough income between them to pay for full time childcare, and want to have others take care of their children all day. Also, many couples are not so obsessed with who pays more for what and AS A TEAM decide that one of them will stay home and take care of the kid(s) - because they believe in this way of having a family! If this happens to be the woman, yes, that is the traditional scenario. So what if they both agree on it. If a guy hates this situation it is not his place to whine and rail against it if HE CHOSE TO BE IN IT. It's not a case of "mooching" when somebody raises a kid while another person brings home the bacon.

 

I went to college and so did most of my friends, guys and girls. Maybe in the '50's girls went to college to find a man - though I will argue this as my great grandmother (an original suffragette!!) graduated from UC Berkley in Business, she certainly didn't put herself through that to find a husband (and ended up married to a gravel quarry worker). Anyway, all my friends who went to college did so because of what we wanted to DO with our lives. It certainly had NOTHING to do with being contented that some guy gave us some sperm and now will pay for everything for the rest of our lives.

 

Where on Earth do you live where this seems to be the norm?? Or maybe you just need to get out and meet a different type of people? Because that is really NOT normal.

[Rejected Rosebud]

This. I'll definitely agree with you here.

 

A man shouldn't have to go to court to get equal time with his children. That should be the default.

Why? Because he has a penis?

 

If the father didn't take care of his children other than financially, if that, why should the kids be in his care half of the time?

 

Same would go in reverse. If the father was the primary caregiver, this should continue after a divorce, for the good of the kids.

[Heatherknows]

If women want men to be protective then they should have no problem being nurturing and boosting a guys ego every now and then. The fact that a good portion think this is beneath them or anti-feminist is why a lot of men are rejecting what is supposed to be our role.

 

What age range are you talking about? Gen X women are very nurturing and ego boosting to their men. I freaking wait on my husband hand and foot.

[Timshel]

If people marry because they love each other as much as they love themselves, this debate wouldn't even exist.

 

The root of all this problem is most people marry just to coexist, hence the debate, who is the winner and loser of the R.

 

People always ask what other can do for them, not what they can do for other. It's a very individualistic and self-serving culture. Where as in other cultures, they are more family-oriented.

 

 

Not everyone...not always.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I appreciate you admitting that. Many people here attempt to invalidate my experience because they either haven't experienced it themselves, or don't know anyone who has experienced it also.

Personally I do NOT invalidate your experience and I don't want to do that, but you ALWAYS couch it in gross generalizations about women and the unfair system and how men get screwed over. Always. So you experienced what you experienced and you are not the only one but can't you see by just reading this thread that you don't represent the norm? Is there even one woman on here who actually has a man paying for her entire lifetime because she gave birth one time? Honestly I don't even know ONE person in that situation. Including my parents, grandparents and great grandparents!

[Heatherknows]

Personally I do NOT invalidate your experience and I don't want to do that, but you ALWAYS couch it in gross generalizations about women and the unfair system and how men get screwed over. Always. So you experienced what you experienced and you are not the only one but can't you see by just reading this thread that you don't represent the norm? Is there even one woman on here who actually has a man paying for her entire lifetime because she gave birth one time? Honestly I don't even know ONE person in that situation. Including my parents, grandparents and great grandparents!

 

For the record, I'm a SAHW and although I did work outside the home at one point, I don't now. However, if my husband had to hire professionals to do what I do he'd pay a ton of money for these services. So, in fact, I'm damn good deal.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I'd like to pose a question to the ladies who self-identify as feminists but still desire a man to demonstrate a disproportionate level of effort and investment during the early dating phase: Do you perceive this as a disconnect from feminist ideals as defined earlier in the thread?Or do you believe that equality should be limited in scope to only certain things?

 

Maybe yes, and maybe no.

 

If I am a feminist and still love to be courted in a traditional way, that is not in and of itself contradictory. If I felt that a man MUST court women in a traditional way, and women MUST receive that, then it WOULD be contradictory.

 

Feminists and everybody else gets to conduct their personal, dating and sex lives however we CHOOSE. It's about choice. Which pre-feminism, women did not get.

 

Also, many of you guys on here are hung up on "investment during the early dating phase." That's a drop in the bucket of a long term relationship.

[Rejected Rosebud]

For the record, I'm a SAHW and although I did work outside the home at one point, I don't now. However, if my husband had to hire professionals to do what I do he'd pay a ton of money for these services. So, in fact, I'm damn good deal.

I don't equate being a SAHW with expecting a man to pay for your entire life because you gave birth once. Do you?

[Shining One]

Maybe yes, and maybe no.

 

If I am a feminist and still love to be courted in a traditional way, that is not in and of itself contradictory. If I felt that a man MUST court women in a traditional way, and women MUST receive that, then it WOULD be contradictory.

Here's how I look at it: Special treatment allocated to one gender and not another is counter to equality. A man making more money than a woman for the same work output is unequal. A woman receiving free meals at the expense of a man is also unequal.

Also, many of you guys on here are hung up on "investment during the early dating phase." That's a drop in the bucket of a long term relationship.

Have you actually done the math on this? As someone who has been on many early dates that don't lead to relationships, I can tell you it is certainly not a drop in the bucket. It may be a drop in the bucket for the men who are chosen to make it to the long term relationship, but many women chose to provide no reciprocation whatsoever for those men they cut ties with earlier.

 

I specifically refer to the early dating phase because it's where many women expect the disproportionate investment rather than an equal investment. I question how that desire for inequality in their favor is reconciled with the feminist desire for equality.

[Heatherknows]

I don't equate being a SAHW with expecting a man to pay for your entire life because you gave birth once. Do you?

 

I never gave birth. No children. So financially my husband is responsible for me but I earn my keep so to speak.

 

And to qualify the threads theme "dating." I never paid for any of our dates prior to marriage.

[PrettyEmily77]

I don't really identify as a feminist (I don't care much for labels) but if having a well-paid career, a mortgage with a deposit I raised myself, a car I own and a comfortable lifestyle qualifies me de facto, then so be it.

 

 

In dating, I have found that common deal-breakers / values / way of viewing the future, natural chemistry, a fairly healthy body and mind and simple common sense matter a whole lot more than 'feminism'; IME anyway.

[preraph]

I can only give you the overview of someone who embraced the first availability of birth control and first generation of women for whom it was truly possible to be independent. And to me, that is what feminism is about. Survival and choices. Not having to depend on someone else for your wellbeing, not having to put up with someone because you can't leave them because of financial dependence.

 

But all that is new in the last 50 years. Before that we have eons of instincts where men are providers and women are babysitters and homemakers. Well, some people still like it that way, and that's fine. Even plenty of feminists would probably say they'd be happy to have kids and run the household. Certainly most men seem to not like the independence of women when it comes right down to it because they lost leverage. But it's a healthy step forward.

 

What anyone needs emotionally varies per person, so you can't say "all women want this, all men want that." But what you can break down is practical reasons for some traditions lingering longer than others.

 

For example, while women can work and make a living now, at least among all my friends, the vast majority of people, not just women, don't make that much money. Most people in the US fall into what I would call the lower middle class, employed but existing paycheck to paycheck. So for those people, there are still some practical considerations because if they want to have kids, that has become a very expensive proposal. I heard a new report on the radio yesterday that childcare expense for infants has now risen to the same level as a four-year college degree.

 

For the father of your child, you want someone responsible and solvent to some degree. This doesn't mean you too aren't capable and industrious and working to maintain independence and contributing and doing everything just as much as a man, but it can mean that there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject a longstanding tradition that has a basis in practicality of seeing how the man contributes and shows up on time for a first date or during the dating period. Because it is a good indicator of dependability, generosity, level of taste and aspiration, and if you are considering sharing your life with someone, those are all necessary things that need to mesh.

 

So that is one tradition that remains intact for the most part: because it was there for a reason.

 

Now, I think sometimes that younger people who have no connection to pre-birth control simply don't realize that it was never all take and no give on the part of women. Women simply didn't have many choices but to spend their days homemaking and cooking and babysitting. But even in the old days of dating, there was some reciprocation. A man wouldn't hear of a woman whipping out her wallet at dinner and indeed would have been humiliated if she'd done so, but he certainly had many homemade meals and plates of cookies bestowed upon him by her and her family during and after the dating process.

 

Now women are also vetted for how ambitious they are and what their debt to income ratio is unless the man is specifically looking for a stay-at-home mom to be dependent on him, and that's fine. So those guys are always going to want to pick up the tab and they should.

 

Then there's the rest of us who know that there will be times when the husband has to carry the load IF we choose to get pregnant or if we are between jobs, so the qualification is still there: Is he responsible, ambitious and solvent? But for much of the time, we intend to also work and be responsible and ambitious and solvent and be a team. But that does not negate the need to vet the man as quickly as possible while our faces are smooth and our eggs are warm to see what he's made of. Practically speaking, if a grown man on a first date, takes a woman who's accustomed to better to a fast-food restaurant, shows up late, and isn't neatly dressed, the woman knows within 30 minutes she's not about to make this choice and spend her life this way. (That's not to say the right woman isn't out there who is comfortable at that level.)

 

If men feel a strong need to vet the woman's financial potential, well, men are not usually shy and demure and will quickly be able to do that by asking question, without making her pay for the first few dates. Once a couple, there will be plenty of give and take on both ends. (And if there's not, it's usually because one or the other agrees to an imbalance of power for their own personal piccadillos.)

 

I think those who complain about women not paying on the first date are often just trying to get laid without spending money and not looking for a life partner. Maybe they wouldn't mind buying her a plate of pasta on the first date or even the second if they were sure she would put out on the third. But you see, most women aren't coming to the date with that same goal -- and even if they do just want sex with a stranger, most of them can get it without depleting their meager bank accounts (Let's not forget women still only make 74% of what men do) and probably wouldn't expect dinner first.

 

But it's also important to remember that most of them aren't going out on a dinner date with you just for a free plate of pasta. Most of us can afford to buy that for ourselves these days. They're genuinely interested in seeing if you have potential as a mate. If not, maybe you'll get laid and maybe you won't, but the getting laid part has nothing to do with you paying for dinner. Just has to do with if they think you're at least stimulating or attractive enough to have sex with if nothing else.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Here's how I look at it: Special treatment allocated to one gender and not another is counter to equality. A man making more money than a woman for the same work output is unequal. A woman receiving free meals at the expense of a man is also unequal.Have you actually done the math on this? As someone who has been on many early dates that don't lead to relationships, I can tell you it is certainly not a drop in the bucket. It may be a drop in the bucket for the men who are chosen to make it to the long term relationship, but many women chose to provide no reciprocation whatsoever for those men they cut ties with earlier.

I really can't take you seriously if you want to put a woman accepting a man paying for her dinner in the same category as a woman getting paid less than a man for the same job.

 

A man taking a woman out to lunch does not represent "special treatment allocated to one gender." It represents a man wanting to take a woman out to dinner and her accepting it.

 

 

 

I specifically refer to the early dating phase because it's where many women expect the disproportionate investment rather than an equal investment. I question how that desire for inequality in their favor is reconciled with the feminist desire for equality.

 

Romance and courtship isn't measured like that. Emotions are involved.

 

I guess your problem is that you look at dating as a business transaction or as something that should have legally defined parameters. That would definitely make things especially difficult for you. All I can suggest is that you remain true to yourself and never, never take a woman out on your dime.

[BlueIris]

Here's how I look at it: Special treatment allocated to one gender and not another is counter to equality. A man making more money than a woman for the same work output is unequal. A woman receiving free meals at the expense of a man is also unequal.Have you actually done the math on this? As someone who has been on many early dates that don't lead to relationships, I can tell you it is certainly not a drop in the bucket. It may be a drop in the bucket for the men who are chosen to make it to the long term relationship, but many women chose to provide no reciprocation whatsoever for those men they cut ties with earlier.

 

I specifically refer to the early dating phase because it's where many women expect the disproportionate investment rather than an equal investment. I question how that desire for inequality in their favor is reconciled with the feminist desire for equality.

 

I did do the math, and did ALL of the paying for a year or so way back when- and it is expensive! I definitely changed to cheaper or no cost dates at the beginning.

 

The unexpected silver lining to always paying was that it made me far more realistic and decisive about who I liked and didn't like. When you're putting in your time AND your money, decision making is easier and you don't diddle around for "a few more" dates.

 

Funny thing is (not so funny) I had a friend back then who encouraged me to keep seeing someone I was ambivalent about for the classic reasons you hear all the time: I should keep giving him a chance, he wasn't that bad, I didn't have anything else to do. But then I told her I was paying for everything and it was expensive. Changed her tune.

 

So especially after that, a man who asked me out for an ice cream cone and stroll or a cup of coffee impressed me because he was smart. I like smart.

 

Don't knock it till you try it.

[sambolini]

Why? Because he has a penis?

 

If the father didn't take care of his children other than financially, if that, why should the kids be in his care half of the time?

 

Same would go in reverse. If the father was the primary caregiver, this should continue after a divorce, for the good of the kids.

 

No. Because he is a parent of that child.

 

No parent should ever be taken away from their child, except in cases of abuse.

[Shining One]

Romance and courtship isn't measured like that. Emotions are involved.

 

I guess your problem is that you look at dating as a business transaction or as something that should have legally defined parameters.

That's quite the assumption. I'm simply trying to understand why some women who claim to want equality do not apply that desire for equality to early dating.

That would definitely make things especially difficult for you. All I can suggest is that you remain true to yourself and never, never take a woman out on your dime.

I take women out on my dime. The good ones reciprocate in turn. The ones that do not are replaced.

[sambolini]

Personally I do NOT invalidate your experience and I don't want to do that, but you ALWAYS couch it in gross generalizations about women and the unfair system and how men get screwed over. Always. So you experienced what you experienced and you are not the only one but can't you see by just reading this thread that you don't represent the norm? Is there even one woman on here who actually has a man paying for her entire lifetime because she gave birth one time? Honestly I don't even know ONE person in that situation. Including my parents, grandparents and great grandparents!

 

As I've already stated, my experience isn't indicative of the whole. It's indicative of the possible.

 

When you play Russian roulette, there's only a one in six chance you'll blow your brains out.

 

Would you still play?

 

Your sensibilities are irrelevant to me. I've stated precisely why I'd never date a feminist. You can dislike my reasons all you want; it's not going to change my mind.

[sambolini]

A role? Tom Cruise and Jennifer Lopez get paid for playing a role. In real life, people connect, love each other and build a life together. It's complicated and messy.....imo, the best perk of breathing. I am not speaking of romantic relationships only......if a person views relationships as a 'role' that's the trouble.

 

There is always a give and take. If a person lives on an island they still have to compromise and survive with nature.

 

It sounds like you want things to be cut and dry. You/me, you do this, I do that. That's not how love is or any healthy relationship.

 

No. It's about getting a return on my investment.

 

So I invest time and money into a woman who expects me to pay for her even though she can easily pay for herself. Why do you suppose she wants that?

 

Because she wants me to fill the provider role. She has already introduced the concept of "roles" right from the very beginning.

 

So if she can expect me to fill a role, why can't I expect the same from her in return? Double standards need not apply.