Next post
Why do feminists hate the concept of a “normal” relationship, or what Feministing blogger Samhita dubs “heteronormative” dating?
I dunno, because they hate men?
1. You are expected to dress nice and act a certain way “waiting” to get asked out.
2. You have to play by the rules which generally give men most of the power. (wait till he calls you, don’t be too forward, be mysterious-you don’t want to scare him off, etc)
3. If you show emotion too early on or too much of it, you are needy.
4. If you don’t show enough emotion, you are making the other party insecure forcing them to wield social privilege to silence your daring attempt at independence from self obliteration via coupling.
5. It fetishizes unequal power relations between women. He’ll get the tab, he’ll get the door as long as he gets the vagina, and that is considered “romance.”
6. It makes same sex couples feel “less than.”
7. It dictates your interaction in most social settings and social circles, whether you are single or coupled. It is either/or, there is no 3rd identity or in-between.
8. If you have sex too early you ruined it.
9. If you don’t have sex early on you are a prude.
10. It is expected to lead to marriage (and if you don’t have a ring on your finger you are “on the market.”)
So while some of this is tongue and cheek and most of it is obvious, I do think this is feminism’s dark corner. There is no guide to dating outside of patriarchy, there is no narrative for if you want to do it on your own or if you don’t want to get married, but you don’t want to be single either. Many women are caught in the middle, trapped between the discourse of what is expected and what they want.
What are these complaints?? Oh my God, men and women have to actually exert effort when it comes to their appearance on a date! The horror! Men pay! You have to keep yourself somewhat unavailable! Same-sex couples get their wittle feewings huwt! GASP!!
Of course, this all goes back to the oh-so-common feminist theme of patriarchy and men wielding power so that they can get sex and blah blah blah. What Samhita is complaining about does nothing except show how woefully poor her understanding of men is. Samhita, dear, by making yourself somewhat unavailable and forcing him to chase you, you are making yourself the person who holds the power in the relationship. Is it really that hard to understand? If you’re always there, ready to go, whenever he calls, then he’s the one with all the power. BUT, if you don’t always answer his phone calls, if you don’t always say yes to his dates, the woman holds the power. Manipulative, perhaps, but it’s certainly effective. And men typically don’t want an easy woman (and I’m not talking about sex). Men love the thrill of the chase. They want to work for it. So make them work for it! How does making yourself overly available strip the male of his “power”? It doesn’t. If you’re constantly there waiting and ready for him, you’re giving him all the power.
And, oh dear, the unequal power relations! Go ahead, call me old-fashioned, but I damn well expect a man to pay if he takes me on a date. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to pay. If a man asks me on a date, then he pays. Period. It doesn’t have to be an expensive date… we can drink beer and go bowling and spend less than $20 for all I care. But in the beginning phase of a relationship where a man is attempting to woo and win a woman, it is my firm belief that it is his responsibility to pay. And no, it is not then her responsibility to have sex with him. I don’t see that as fetishizing “unequal power relations” in any manner. And once we’re in a committed relationship, that changes. I’ll pay sometimes, he’ll pay sometimes. Whatever. But if you are a male trying to pursue a female, I strongly believe the male should be doing just that — pursuing her, wooing her, impressing her. He pays for the dates, he brings her flowers, etc. How else do you do that?? If he can’t even fork out $40 for dinner and a movie on a first date, how much can the guy really dig you?
And of course, there’s the prerequisite complaining about sex. I know, I know, feminists are of the mind that truly enlightened women are “sexually free”. That’s the way we’re supposed to put it, right? It’s also a total load of crap. Look, I don’t begrudge anyone having premarital sex. I think waiting is the better course, and I don’t necessarily mean until marriage. Putting out on the first date generally gets you nowhere, though. I know there are circumstances where you have sex on the first date and it works out fine and all, but I’d usually caution against it. It’s not something you just do for shits and giggles. When you’re having sex with someone, it’s a lot more than just a fun physical act. It’s extremely emotional and intimate, not to mention potentially dangerous if you aren’t protected. So even if you don’t believe in waiting for moral or religious reasons, it’s probably a good idea to hold off until you know the guy pretty well just out of self-preservation. I know feminists are all about having as much sex as you want to, whenever you want to, with whoever you want to, but exercizing a little willpower is not a bad thing. Doing “whatever makes you feel good” usually does not make you feel good in the long run. And who cares if you get labeled a prude for waiting too long or a slut for having it too early? Last I checked, my sex life is between myself and my boyfriend, and no one else needs to know about it. Why is sex anyone else’s business?
And yes, there is the dreaded “M” word: marriage. That horrible partiarchal institution that’s merely a form of legal prostitution. Am I right, feminists?
Nevermind that most women want to get married. What women want doesn’t really matter to feminists nowadays, because feminists know better.
I just don’t understand what the big problem is with traditional dating. Here’s a great comment from one of the commenters at Feministing that sums up the attitude. When asked what the commenters hated about traditional dating, this was one of the responses:
Boyfriends that give me flowers or other pointless gifts, knowing full well I don’t need or want it, but choosing instead to believe Hallmark knows what women truly want.
So your boyfriend makes a nice gesture. He spends money on you and gives you a “pointless gift”, all to show his feelings for you and to try and make you happy. Yet this pisses a feminist off. Why?? There’s constant talk in the comments of how outraged they are over these “rules”, yet still follow some of them. Because of the feminist dogma, women need to “break free” of what we think we want, even if it makes us happy. Boyfriend sends you flowers, and you feel good about it, but dammit, it’s a bad thing!! BAD BAD BOYFRIEND! (SSHH… must not tell anyone I really love the flowers.)
It is not “patriarchal” for a man to take a woman on a date, or for him to pay. It is not “patriarchal” for him to send her flowers or buy her gifts. It is not “patriarchal” for a woman to play hard-to-get or for her to maybe make him wait until they’ve been dating a little while to sleep with him rather than doing it right away. It is not “patriarchal” that same-sex couples apparently are over-sensitive about traditional dating. Honestly, what is the point of all this complaining here? Doesn’t it all boil down to the same old thing all over again? I mean, jeez. They write things like this and then they wonder why most men and a lot of women don’t identify at all with modern feminism. What does complaining about traditional dating have to do with achieving gender equality? Nothing whatsoever, except modern feminism is not about gender equality.
What you have here is a group of angry, bitter women who are out to destroy the traditions that most Americans hold dear, because they personally don’t like them. They aren’t speaking or working for the good of women, and they certainly don’t have any respect for men either.
Well daing is how normal people find spouses. A date is merely a job interview for marriage. It not the dating thing per se gender feminist hate. What they hate is the fact the dating leads to marriage, family and children.
Yet dating in an old process, but it works. Gender feminism does not. Call it green eyed jealousy.
J David says: In our feminized society, women now not only don’t know what they want, but seem to wear fickleness and prickliness as badges of honor. They want to lead, be chased, have their minds read and anticipated, but have men be “spontaneous” and surprising. They alone are allowed to change their minds, to abort mens’ children if they wish, or take them away if they wish(while the father is legally forced to pay them to do so). They, in their feminist moods, consider all sex as “rape” (but tolerable if the guy is cute, or has something they can take)and all men as predatory. If the guy doesn’t demonstrate abject submission to every whim and mood they must be disposed of, after complete destruction, of course. The exceptions, and they are exceptions, to these rules are fewer all of the time.
There was an episode during the first season of Friends in which Joey was dating Ursula, Phoebe’s twin sister. Rachel said, “They’re not serious yet; they’re not even sleeping together.” I have to admit that I actually sighed when she said it.
I’m not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think way too many people give away, far too easily, something which should be treasured. Sex has been completely devalued, to the point it’s almost considered a problem if, on the first date, the girl doesn’t lie down and spread her legs or give the guy a hummer just because he bought her a Happy Meal at McDonalds.
There’s something to be said for intimacy and romance OUTSIDE of sex. Unfortunately, that idea has been almost completely discarded these days. I do not think that that is a positive change in our society.
btenney says: I always figured that if she chose to ride in the back of the truck, she wasn’t wantin to go to my place.
Frank White says: Feministing? That sounds painful, although I wouldn’t mind watching.
Normal people:
Stuff you don’t like – stuff you can change – stuff you can badger others into changing – stuff you’ll just have to learn to live with = zero. That’s an EQUATION. An equal sign, with one thing on each side of it, each of which add up to the same value, thus connoting balance.
Feminists:
Stuff you don’t like == HIGH HIGH HIGH
Stuff you complain about to other people == HIGH HIGH HIGH
Stuff you can change == HIGH HIGH HIGH because you’re just so GD powerful, you are strong, you are invincible, you are woman
Stuff you have to learn to live with == HIGH HIGH HIGH so you can do some more complaining tomorrow
Hey, that doesn’t add up to zero.
Doesn’t have to. Welcome to the surreal quantum-mathematical world of feminism. It’s all about the complaining. Balance has nothing to do with it.
Cassy, I commend you. I don’t have the stomach to read their pathetic website. I’ll throw in my two cents here. Back in 1975 my husband and I worked in the same place. We became friends. He was getting over a divorce, I was recovering from a busted engagement. We had both sworn off the opposite sex. On a lark, I asked him out. That’s right. We went out for coffee after work. We had 10 dates before our first kiss. We were celibate until the wedding. We have been married 32 years now and have never once regretted the decision. Those females of the canine persuasion at Feministing should be so lucky. Maybe they wouldn’t have so much venom to spew all over the internet.
Stephen J. says: Much as I agree Samhita is overreacting, I think she does point out some valid damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t problems with many of the unarticulated and contradictory expectations of dating nowadays – contradictions created precisely because there isn’t a commonly accepted model for such things any more, a situation to which the feminist movement contributed in no small part.
I’d suggest that part of understanding articles like this is understanding what the complainers are really complaining about. Samhita isn’t complaining about “dating” per se; she’s complaining about the assumptions and habits a lot of guys still bring to the table, and some of them are valid complaints. Cassy’s defense of why a man should pay on the first date, for example, though admirable, in some ways misses the point; the man pays to show his respect and interest, not to “earn” any kind of intimate favours as a reward – but Samhita’s point is that too many guys still believe and act as if it does.
Or take the commenter who complained about boyfriends giving flowers or other pointless gifts thinking “Hallmark knows what women want”. The complaint here is not so much “How dare he give me a ‘traditional’ gift! Does he expect me to be slavishly grateful?!” as “I feel like you didn’t put any thought into this at all; like you fell back on a commercialized easy default rather than actually trying to learn what I might like.” It’s not the “traditionalness” of the gift that offends in itself; it’s what the gift betrays about the attitude of its giver.
Robert Fulghum once wrote that while “it’s the thought that counts” is still true as far as it goes, it’s also worth remembering that the better the thought, the better the gift. Not getting a gift at all can be bad; getting a gift that both you, and the giver, know very well is a half-hearted, half-assed token gesture can be worse.
Certainly many women are prone to misread honest mistakes in the worst possible way – maybe the guy really does think you like flowers, and at least he tried – but it is also true that a lot of guys just get lazy about the little things, and don’t put effort into learning what their girlfriends actually want as unique people. I don’t think complaining about that necessarily makes one an anti-man feminist.
(Which is not to say I agree with all of Samhita’s complaints; I understand most of them, but some of them I think are beyond anybody’s power to fix and others are considerably less “normative” now than she seems to think. Yes, dressing by someone else’s standards of “nice” and having to passively wait to be asked can be frustrating – but I know almost no women who consider themselves bound by this any more. Yes, most people tend to categorize you as either “single” or “coupled” – but they are going to do that anyway no matter what your dating model, so get used to it. And yes, some same-sex couples may feel marginalized by boy-girl dating, but if they’re minded to take the sheer existence of heterosexuality as a personal criticism they’re not going to forgive a ‘feministly enlightened’ version of it, so get used to that too.)
MagicalPat says: The longer I am around, the more I am convinced that feminism was invented by a man. A lazy, cheap, chauvinistic one at that. Let me count the ways:
1) Don’t bother getting the door for women, or performing any courtesies for that matter. Make them think it makes them inferior, and that by rejecting these efforts by men they are asserting their girl power.
2) Don’t pay for everything. Create in their minds that it makes them less self reliant, and that it is a subconscious attempt to pay for sex. Make women think they must take this power away from men.
3) Convince them that they want no obligation sex as much as men do. Make them think this gives them power or at least equality. Sell women on the idea that being a man’s f&*k buddy is a good idea.
4) Convince women that they don’t need a man. In fact, make them believe that having a husband is traitorous to all women. Career first and foremost! Plant the idea that it is best for women to sleep around in order to find a compatible mate.
5)Also, go against human nature in desiring children. Live on birth control, and should that fail, make sure an abortion is easy to acquire. Keep the man out of the decision making process.
6) Do not rely on men to be the breadwinner. In fact, you be the money maker in the house. Make women think they will need this in case the man ever leaves her.
So, here in a nutshell is what men have gotten from feminism. No obligation sex on the first or second date. No need to woo a woman by treating her decently or paying for dinner. No need to commit, no responsibility towards monogamy, no need to earn a living to support a family and no need to stick around. Plus, should a woman get pregnant, no need to stay on as father, and no feelings of guilt should she abort it since it’s ‘her decision’.
Tell me again that some lazy, cheap, jerk didn’t come up with the idea of feminism.
A while back i found a list of “100 things men should know about women”. yeah it was for a men’s magazine but it was written by a chick with quotes from women. I realize it isn’t universal for women but i found a lot of it to be true.
http://rantvillereborn.blogspot.com/2006/01/100-things-about-women.html
Bottom line in all this is that i think you’re overreacting Cassy. Feminists are just bullies. plain and simple. they only have power if women buy into the BS they’re selling and GIVE them power. Ignore them and they are going to no-men themselves into extinction. The worst thing you can do is try and out-crazy them. Just go about your life and let them be crazy. Besides if they think men have the “power” in the relationships they are high as a kite.
mojoe says: Sanhita’s rant is all about “the game”. We’ve all played it.
-Don’t call too soon because you look desperate. Don’t wait too long or you don’t look interested.
-Offer to pay, but don’t insist because there is the perception of “owing” something for the date.
-Pay attention, but not too much attention.
-Call the next day, or do I? Bring flowers, send cards, or should I? Hold the door or not? Compliment or act disinterested?
Of course the rules of the game change depending on your physical attractiveness. The better looking you/they are, the more crap you get away with or are willing to put up with.
I f***ing hate playing the game, and stopped in my late 20’s. I’m 43, single, and don’t miss the rollercoaster ride that playing brought with it. I’m often alone, but rarely lonely.
RA says: What really irritates the FemiNazi is the “ten foot pole rule” that men use as soon as they find out what she really is. Sometimes good for sex but little else.
Micah says: $40 bucks for dinner and a movie? What cheap mysterious land do you live in? Its 20 bucks just for movie tickets. Plus about $15 a plate for a decent meal, not including tip. That’s 50 bucks right there. Then if you want popcorn or even water its 3/4 of a human soul.
Yeah but this just reinforces my belief that most feminists just like to complain.
“considered a problem if, on the first date, the girl doesn’t lie down and spread her legs or give the guy a hummer just because he bought her a Happy Meal at McDonalds.”
Happy Meal? Uhm, how old of a “date” are we talking about here?
Mikey NTH says: They think heteronormative dating sucks because they can’t get one.
J David says: mojoe hit the nail right on the head, and I am almost exactly the same age and had exactly the same reaction the crap “society” has been shoveling at me. As a result I have both enjoyed much more of life, been spare much more of the crap, and spared women putting up with me. If that makes me a *hedonistic, narcissistic Neanderthal male* then so be it, but if I am going to be expected, at some level, to be the *leader* in a family unit then that leadership will be real or not bothered with at all. Until a particular individual gives me particularly good reasons to marry that outweight the overwhelming number of negatives legal and cultural I will be just fine without it. Let the “strong women” see what it’s like to be “strong” all by themselves if they wish, or let the slobbering “feminized” males who can’t get along without them enjoy the downside of “strong women”. The economic havoc is about to reward me once again for not gathering dependents around me.
RogerCfromSD says: Why don’t these feministas just come out of the closet, already?
Contrary to what they may believe, men don’t want to sleep with uptight, sexually-conflicted women, either.
It’s amusing to read that they are mad because men think Hallmark knows what women want more than the individual woman herself, but then they write shelves full of books and create web sites telling women that the feminists know what they really want and if they think otherwise they’re just confused.
So much of the logic here is backwards anyway. A man paying for you is an act of domination? It seems to me that if I can persuade someone else to pay my bills for me, I’m the one in control, not him. A man is willing to pay for a date because he thinks that just being allowed to spend some time with this woman is a privilege worth paying for. That’s a sign of respect, not subjugation.
A man opening the door for you or holding your chair is an act of domination? Hmm. If a man insists that a woman bring him his beer, he’s dominating her. If a man offers to open a door for a woman, he’s dominating her.
In general the feminist philosophy seems to be: If a man does X to or for a woman, he’s oppressing her. If a woman does the exact same X to or for a man, he’s oppressing her.
Cylar says: I’ve certainly had my fill of women who react negatively to my gentlemenly gestures like paying the tab or saying she looks nice. What I keep telling myself is that women like that are still outnumbered by the ones who appreciate it…having themselves gotten fed up with men who don’t care (or who are trying to buy sex).
When I run across anyone who seems bitter, perpetually angry, or otherwise cynical…I smile, thank them for their time, and go on with my life. I simply do not have enough time on this Earth to waste any of it. Especially not while trying to change the minds of some girl so immersed in bigotry, that she’s convinced herself that half of the human race are nothing but predators.
Cylar says: There’s a saying – when a man opens a car door for a woman…either the car is new, or the woman is.
Cylar says: Oh, and I really couldn’t care less what makes homosexuals feel uncomfortable or whatever. They want to run afoul of God’s laws and what normal people consider acceptable…they can pay the price. Not my problem.
Stephen J. says: “It seems to me that if I can persuade someone else to pay my bills for me, I’m the one in control, not him.”
Depends on one very simple factor: the expectation and pressure of recompense. Some gallant gestures are less gallant than others, if you get my meaning, and what should be a no-strings gift is often treated as a down payment.
What can be easy to forget when taking apart screeds like Samhita’s is that for a lot of women they are based on genuinely bad personal experience. Where Samhita goes wrong is where a lot of us go wrong: we project our personal pain onto the system from which it came and assume the entire system is actively unjust, rather than merely indifferent.
And that projection can work in reverse, too. Because many of us posting here have had no problems with the traditional system, that does not necessarily mean the system has no problems. Samhita’s motives may be more subjective than she realizes or wants to admit; that does not mean her criticisms cannot have merit.
J David says: Those women who go out with obviously dangerous/abusive lowlifes ’cause they’re “bad boyz”, and then after getting the obvious results of their morally retarded behavior run around attempting to get revenge on all men, and encouraging others to do the same, need not be apologized for, or excused. Make stupid choices and pay the price.
Stephen J. says: Those women who go out with obviously dangerous/abusive lowlifes ’cause they’re “bad boyz”, and then after getting the obvious results of their morally retarded behavior run around attempting to get revenge on all men, and encouraging others to do the same, need not be apologized for, or excused.
And I neither excuse them nor apologize for them. I simply point out that they are not the only ones making bad choices. It strikes me that rather than just condemning the admittedly stupid choices made by women who’ve had the images of “bad = sexy” drummed into their heads by five decades of profit-driven movies and ads (and, arguably, by five aeons of evolution which rewarded aggressiveness and possessiveness as survival strategies), it might be more useful to also condemn (and rather more strongly) the evil choices made by the men who take advantage of that ignorance for their own gratification.
There’s only so much we can do in practice to protect people from their own folly, and there’s certainly such a thing as being too overprotective. But there is also such a thing as callousness, and indifference, and lack of charity. We are commanded as Christians to try to help those in need, even if the attempt is rejected by those to whom it’s offered. “Make stupid choices and pay the price” sounds entirely too much like Cain’s “Am I my brother’s keeper?” for my comfort.
Dear Cassy,
I get the feeling that these Feministing clowns are a source of much amusement? lol. (I can see why!)
Kamikapse says: Wow Cassy,
You sure are one bitter assclown.
lj says: i read their article and was going along with it and the comments (whining). Thankfully you shook me out of that.
Nobody is forcing anyone to follow rules. Follow them or dont. Their are consequences for your choices in life. They dont understand that.
28 Comments