Feminism in dating (Updated)

[clia]

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?

 

I'm always kind of baffled by the argument that men have to put forth all of this effort in the early stages of dating. Is it really that difficult to make a phone call or pick a location for a date? How much time does that take out of your day, five minutes? Is it really that difficult, because it doesn't seem that difficult to me, yet a lot of men on this site seem like it involves moving heaven and earth. Women have to put effort into this, too. We respond to your texts, return your calls, talk to you on the phone, etc.

 

By investment, I assume you mean paying. I really don't see how allowing a guy to pay when he asks me out on a date results in a disconnect to feminist ideals. To me, feminist ideals are about choices and rights. They aren't about tit for tat adding up the cost of a first date. By your logic, it would be wrong for a feminist to ever allow anyone to pay for her because by golly, equality! That just seems silly to me. I treat people, people treat me, etc. It's a choice. I mean, if you really want equality, let's make it all equal. I had to drive three more miles to the date location than you, so you better reimburse me half the cost of the added gasoline and wear and tear on my car. And let's be sure to add up the cost of our first date attire to reimburse the person who spent more on their clothing, hair, etc. Oh, and the make-up! You don't have to wear any, so I think I should be reimbursed for having to use some of my makeup for our date. And let's split up the bill line by line and only pay for what each of us ordered. I mean...look, I'm not going out on a date with a guy to get a free beer or a free cheeseburger. I'm going out on the date to find out if he's someone I want a relationship with. If it's that big of an issue to you, choose a date activity that's free. Go hiking, to the park, to the beach, etc. That way you don't have to spend a dime!

[sambolini]

I'm always kind of baffled by the argument that men have to put forth all of this effort in the early stages of dating. Is it really that difficult to make a phone call or pick a location for a date? How much time does that take out of your day, five minutes? Is it really that difficult, because it doesn't seem that difficult to me, yet a lot of men on this site seem like it involves moving heaven and earth. Women have to put effort into this, too. We respond to your texts, return your calls, talk to you on the phone, etc.

 

By investment, I assume you mean paying. I really don't see how allowing a guy to pay when he asks me out on a date results in a disconnect to feminist ideals. To me, feminist ideals are about choices and rights. They aren't about tit for tat adding up the cost of a first date. By your logic, it would be wrong for a feminist to ever allow anyone to pay for her because by golly, equality! That just seems silly to me. I treat people, people treat me, etc. It's a choice. I mean, if you really want equality, let's make it all equal. I had to drive three more miles to the date location than you, so you better reimburse me half the cost of the added gasoline and wear and tear on my car. And let's be sure to add up the cost of our first date attire to reimburse the person who spent more on their clothing, hair, etc. Oh, and the make-up! You don't have to wear any, so I think I should be reimbursed for having to use some of my makeup for our date. And let's split up the bill line by line and only pay for what each of us ordered. I mean...look, I'm not going out on a date with a guy to get a free beer or a free cheeseburger. I'm going out on the date to find out if he's someone I want a relationship with. If it's that big of an issue to you, choose a date activity that's free. Go hiking, to the park, to the beach, etc. That way you don't have to spend a dime!

 

It's not "allowing" a guy to pay. The issue is when a woman requires a man to pay.

 

I'd allow a woman to give me a blowjob on a date. But requiring it is a completely different matter.

 

But Rosebud was right a few posts back. Men just need to stick to their principles. If a woman says she expects the man to pay, then he is free to decline and look for someone else. That's really the crux of the matter.

[clia]

It's not "allowing" a guy to pay. The issue is when a woman requires a man to pay.

 

I'd allow a woman to give me a blowjob on a date. But requiring it is a completely different matter.

 

What are these women doing, putting a gun to the guy's head and forcing him to take out his wallet?

 

But Rosebud was right a few posts back. Men just need to stick to their principles. If a woman says she expects the man to pay, then he is free to decline and look for someone else. That's really the crux of the matter.

 

Totally agree.

[Timshel]

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.

 

Too bad you're not meeting compatible women. If you were, you wouldn't have made this ^ post.

I hope that you meet a lovely woman Sam.

[sambolini]

What are these women doing, putting a gun to the guy's head and forcing him to take out his wallet?

 

No. But a good deal of them will try to socially shame him in order to comply with their demands. One may give lip service to the ability for someone to do the opposite of what they want, but they will still attempt to manipulate circumstances to achieve their desired goal. That's just human nature.

 

And it's one that feminists have used quite successfully in the past.

[sambolini]

Too bad you're not meeting compatible women. If you were, you wouldn't have made this ^ post.

I hope that you meet a lovely woman Sam.

 

I appreciate your kind words. I know you mean well. But truthfully, I don't care if I meet her or not. A relationship is not high on my priority list. I don't need a woman for anything. So for me to want to accept a woman in my life means she's going to have to be truly exceptional. And I won't compromise that standard.

 

Interpersonal relationships are fascinating to me, but I don't enter into them very often. It's like religion; I'm highly fascinated by the idea of religion even though I'm an atheist. The same concept applies here.

[Shining One]

I treat people, people treat me, etc.

Based on this, my question does not apply to you. My question is aimed at the women who have this mindset: You treat me, you treat me, you treat me, you treat me, maybe I'll treat you if you make it to the relationship phase. My girlfriend (although she doesn't advertise herself as feminist), treated on our second, fourth, sixth, and eighth dates. While the numbers may not be 50/50, it's balanced enough for me.

[PaperCrane]

My question: What burden is the male gender willing to carry for the sake of humanity? Is there anything the male gender can be happy to own as their lot even though terribly inconvenient?

 

The highest rate of workforce mortality rates for; raw resources, innovation, construction, etc, that we all take for granted.

 

Front line defense in wars over territory and shelter and resources.

 

Accepting the "women and children first" mentality when disaster strikes.

 

 

Regardless of what people think, when push comes to shove it is the man, or those accepting the 'male' gender roles, who are looked upon to protect and provide.

 

This is rooted into your first statement, though unquoted, that women carry this aspect of childbirth. This aspect is always hammered into us all, which gives the female gender inherent value. Males must earn their societal value.

 

In dating, to show that a male is on an even keel to a females 'value' he must display this about himself. It's a mating dance really.

 

When a man pays for a date, he is literally paying for that time with someone with his own life boiled down to the exchange of time for money. Not only is he choosing to spend irreplaceable time with someone, he is also taking time he turned into resources for that moment. A double investment.

 

This carries on through life. We must always doubly invest because if we don't we lose our value. We must always be willing to make a larger sacrifice if need be. We do not enjoy the fallback of being inherently valuable to society. We do not have access to as much help or the support systems that the female gender enjoys.

 

Is that a bad thing they exist for women? No. Does it make backwards sense that they don't really exist for men? Yes. If those existed it would show that men aren't quite as capable on their own as many think. The framework upon which society relies isn't as surefire and stable as we believe it to be.

 

The short of it is that men are to be always relied upon, that is the view, and that is what we 'carry' as a gender. We are the disposable ones in the end.

 

I'm not trying to be an apologist or some other form of divisiveness. We've come a long way as a society to get away from requiring certain things from both genders. However...when the dating and mating game come into play, when women choose whom to further our species, they are picking the traits and aspects that will be carried on. If traditional gender roles are in play during courtship, they will persist in society for as long as they are required to gain access to a vagina.

[Heatherknows]

I appreciate your kind words. I know you mean well. But truthfully, I don't care if I meet her or not. A relationship is not high on my priority list. I don't need a woman for anything. So for me to want to accept a woman in my life means she's going to have to be truly exceptional. And I won't compromise that standard.

 

Interpersonal relationships are fascinating to me, but I don't enter into them very often. It's like religion; I'm highly fascinated by the idea of religion even though I'm an atheist. The same concept applies here.

 

You might be one of those men who's happier hanging out with friends and pursuing hobbies. If you go out with your friends you can chat with different women but not be hassled by the stuff that goes on in dating.

 

Relationships are hard to negotiate and the deeper you get into them the tougher the negotiations. The drama doesn't get easier it just changes and...well..gets more complicated and sometimes horrible. Right now, it seems your biggest dilemma is "Why do women expect me to pay for dates?" Dates are a lot cheaper than marriage. When I picked the man I was to marry I was so focused on the man and how we would work. I didn't realize that I'd also have to deal with a mother-in-law and a bunch of other extended family members and my mom's feelings and family hassles. I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

 

So if dating is really irritating to you. Don't date. Do something else, you won't make it in a relationship.

[loveflower]

Absolutely fantastic post.

 

Although I would argue that we are not disposable. Quite the contrary. Without men to fight our wars to protect our society, build our infrastructure, gather the resources to continue our existence, and protect our genetic line, we would have died out as a species long, long ago. It is precisely our masculine traits that make us valuable.

 

I also do not see women having inherent value simply because they have a uterus. Without sperm, a uterus is useless and has no more value than an appendix.

 

The caveat with that is that men need to be very, very careful to whom they give their sperm.

 

yeh, right:rolleyes:

 

When a woman want to be a single mother, she can just get sperm easily or almost free.

 

When a man want to a single father, good luck in finding a free uterus.

 

That's the difference between uterus and sperm, man and woman. sperm are abundant. Uterus is precious. one woman only has one. women need to carry the baby in their womb for 10 month and endure the inconvenient and pain of child birth.

 

I would say women are the ones that need to be EXTREMELY careful to whom they give their uterus.

[loveflower]

The highest rate of workforce mortality rates for; raw resources, innovation, construction, etc, that we all take for granted.

 

Front line defense in wars over territory and shelter and resources.

 

Accepting the "women and children first" mentality when disaster strikes.

 

 

Regardless of what people think, when push comes to shove it is the man, or those accepting the 'male' gender roles, who are looked upon to protect and provide.

 

This is rooted into your first statement, though unquoted, that women carry this aspect of childbirth. This aspect is always hammered into us all, which gives the female gender inherent value. Males must earn their societal value.

 

In dating, to show that a male is on an even keel to a females 'value' he must display this about himself. It's a mating dance really.

 

When a man pays for a date, he is literally paying for that time with someone with his own life boiled down to the exchange of time for money. Not only is he choosing to spend irreplaceable time with someone, he is also taking time he turned into resources for that moment. A double investment.

 

This carries on through life. We must always doubly invest because if we don't we lose our value. We must always be willing to make a larger sacrifice if need be. We do not enjoy the fallback of being inherently valuable to society. We do not have access to as much help or the support systems that the female gender enjoys.

 

Is that a bad thing they exist for women? No. Does it make backwards sense that they don't really exist for men? Yes. If those existed it would show that men aren't quite as capable on their own as many think. The framework upon which society relies isn't as surefire and stable as we believe it to be.

 

The short of it is that men are to be always relied upon, that is the view, and that is what we 'carry' as a gender. We are the disposable ones in the end.

 

I'm not trying to be an apologist or some other form of divisiveness. We've come a long way as a society to get away from requiring certain things from both genders. However...when the dating and mating game come into play, when women choose whom to further our species, they are picking the traits and aspects that will be carried on. If traditional gender roles are in play during courtship, they will persist in society for as long as they are required to gain access to a vagina.

 

This is what I would call a man.

[lollipopspot]

The "protect" thing is a racket, like a mob protection racket. Women generally only need protecting by men...from other men.

 

I remember one guy on here was really resentful that women might ask him for an escort to her car at night, and he was like, "Why should a man have to do that? Women can get themselves to their own cars!" But women only ask for that so-called "favor" because they're in danger of another man attacking them.

 

That system doesn't honestly serve men well either, even though some might like to keep the system going in order to keep women dependent (as otherwise they might feel disposable). Perhaps some women are primarily (even if unconsciously) with men for the "protection" they offer. That's not the route to real relationship.

Edited December 9, 2015 by lollipopspot

[sambolini]

yeh, right:rolleyes:

 

When a woman want to be a single mother, she can just get sperm easily or almost free.

 

When a man want to a single father, good luck in finding a free uterus.

 

That's the difference between uterus and sperm, man and woman. sperm are abundant. Uterus is precious. one woman only has one. women need to carry the baby in their womb for 10 month and endure the inconvenient and pain of child birth.

 

I would say women are the ones that need to be EXTREMELY careful to whom they give their uterus.

 

Your uterus does you no good if you are incapable of providing the resources to continue the existence of said child post birth.

 

The reality is that no one gender is any better than the other. I think pregnancy is a wonderful thing (and truthfully, quite sexy!). But she depends on the man to provide the resources for her and the child while she recovers from childbirth, and to ensure the child doesn't starve to death.

 

I see that as symbiotic.

 

Feminism has diminished men's contributions. That's where I take issue.

[loveflower]

Your uterus does you no good if you are incapable of providing the resources to continue the existence of said child post birth.

 

The reality is that no one gender is any better than the other. I think pregnancy is a wonderful thing (and truthfully, quite sexy!). But she depends on the man to provide the resources for her and the child while she recovers from childbirth, and to ensure the child doesn't starve to death.

 

I see that as symbiotic.

 

Feminism has diminished men's contributions. That's where I take issue.

 

you don't have comprehension problem, right? I said want to be SINGLE mother/father. you don't know what that entail?

[lollipopspot]

But she depends on the man to provide the resources for her and the child while she recovers from childbirth, and to ensure the child doesn't starve to death.

 

Some men won't or can't do that, so in modern western societies because we don't want to see children starve to death, society steps in at that point, or the woman provides for herself and pays for help.

Edited December 9, 2015 by lollipopspot

[sambolini]

you don't have comprehension problem, right? I said want to be SINGLE mother/father. you don't know what that entail?

 

Your sarcasm and rudeness notwithstanding, yes I know what that means. However, I'm talking about in the context of a marriage/relationship. Not a single parent situation.

[sambolini]

Some men won't or can't do that, so in modern western societies because we don't want to see children starve to death, society steps in at that point, or the woman provides for herself and pays for help.

 

So since women are the gatekeepers, they're choosing to breed with inferior men.

 

I see that as a female issue. Not my problem if they have to suffer negative consequences for their bad decisions.

[loveflower]

Your sarcasm and rudeness notwithstanding, yes I know what that means. However, I'm talking about in the context of a marriage/relationship. Not a single parent situation.

 

so you answered my single context question with marriage? smart! you are such an excellent debater .

 

you failed to argue against my point.

[loveflower]

It does take humility and intelligent to acknowledge the other's validity of point though.

[lollipopspot]

So since women are the gatekeepers, they're choosing to breed with inferior men.

 

I see that as a female issue. Not my problem if they have to suffer negative consequences for their bad decisions.

 

I didn't say anything about negative consequences, I just said that it's not really the case in western societies that children are going to starve to death without that traditional structure.

 

I think we ought to care about this particular "female issue" though, because there are others involved - children. Even if you don't care what happens to women, half of the children will be boys, which presumably you do care about - could have been you, after all.

[sambolini]

so you answered my single context question with marriage? smart! you are such an excellent debater .

 

you failed to argue my point.

 

Because you were right in that context. It's much easier for a woman to become a single parent than a man.

 

However, that just further proves the misandry inherent to our culture.

 

But since you're so smart, I'm sure you already knew that.

[sambolini]

I didn't say anything about negative consequences, I just said that it's not really the case in western societies that children are going to starve to death without that traditional structure.

 

I think we ought to care about this particular "female issue" though, because there are others involved - children. Even if you don't care what happens to women, half of the children will be boys, which presumably you do care about - could have been you, after all.

 

I totally agree with you here. The children's welfare is paramount.

 

But that doesn't negate the fact that single mothers have made terrible decisions, and as the self anointed gatekeepers of reproduction, are therefore choosing to mate with the lowest form of the male gender.

 

These men wouldn't be reproducing if women didn't choose to reproduce with them.

 

Which does our species a genetic disservice.

[loveflower]

I remember one guy on here was really resentful that women might ask him for an escort to her car at night, and he was like, "Why should a man have to do that? Women can get themselves to their own cars!" But women only ask for that so-called "favor" because they're in danger of another man attacking them.

 

hey! sisters of this world. here is a brilliant idea: why don't we just leave those men alone?

 

Since you have to 50/50 with these men anyway, why don't you just find another woman or any body for that matter to live with and 50/50 and just have children with sperm donation? that way you can ensure your children have the best sperm in looks and intellect, instead of sperms from those selfish and ugly men?

 

What a brilliant idea to ensure humanity will continue with the best of genes!

[preraph]

The "protect" thing is a racket, like a mob protection racket. Women generally only need protecting by men...from other men.

 

I remember one guy on here was really resentful that women might ask him for an escort to her car at night, and he was like, "Why should a man have to do that? Women can get themselves to their own cars!" But women only ask for that so-called "favor" because they're in danger of another man attacking them.

 

That system doesn't honestly serve men well either, even though some might like to keep the system going in order to keep women dependent (as otherwise they might feel disposable). Perhaps some women are primarily (even if unconsciously) with men for the "protection" they offer. That's not the route to real relationship.

 

I completely agree with this. Protection is something that good people, male or female attempt to do for others out of basic human compassion. It's important to realize that nearly anyone you would ask for help or a walk to your car in a situation that made you feel unsafe would gladly step in. As far as needing me for protection on an ongoing basis, at least here in the US, that is not the reason any of my friends or family ever took up with a man! There are people who feel more secure living with someone, but the ones I know, it just has to be someone -- or a good dog.

[Els]

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're really reaching here. So many words, so few actual points. My question to you is, do you think it's right for him to expect her to contribute 50% of the finances while doing 100% of the childcare? Because she also literally cannot keep her job while doing that. If someone's job prevents them from being able to contribute to childcare/housework and all of that falls to their partner, then it is generally reasonable for them to pull more financial weight regardless of gender, especially if their partner is sacrificing their career in order to take on that burden. Again, I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

 

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.

Daycare only works up til 5pm here, which is not the case with some jobs.

 

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.

More extrapolation. FTR, the person who informed me about it was my SO, who (yes, is a man! and) was more incensed about it than I was. He thought the man was being incredibly irresponsible, an inconsiderate partner and a terrible father.

 

The men vs women thing is just in your head, you know. The rest of us are a little more reasonable and don't just defend anything someone of our gender does while screaming, "FEMINIST RIGHTEOUSNESS!!! DIE MOTHER****ER!!!" Sometimes women do bad things in relationships. Sometimes men do. This case was the latter. I've certainly seen the former as well, and unlike you I'm fully able to acknowledge when it happens.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Elswyth