"How Feminism Hurts Men"

[Elgee]

I would love to live in the Utopia in which that unnamed author of that article seems to live in.

[Loranflame]

the author states that the average feminist probablly doesnt support any of the points that radical does but ive noticed that a lot of self-identified average feminists support a few or softcore versions of the things the author pointed out; for example, thinking its amusing when a woman beats on a man, sexual objectification of men, reinterpretation/misunderstanding of history, expectation of double standards in favour of women, and judging men based on a negativistic generalisation of their character/gender i have seen some of in average feminists. 

I agree... many average feminists do indeed seem to support such things to one degree or another.

 

i dont agree with how the author seems to suggestt that the current modern western culture is not misogynist and/or patriarchal. while better than it was in the recent past, there is no doubt there are stilll misogynist and patriarchal attitudes and practices heavy within the culture.

I also agree on this point. The author does indeed make it seem as if everything is dandy, and perfect. It is not. Not yet anyway. I do feel that he is right to some extent about Feminism having achieved a certain degree of equality in some areas. Though mostly in the western world. 

 

And yes, there is still misogyny and patriarchal attitudes and practices out there. I do feel however that feminism overplays the misogyny and patriarchy hands. You'd think most guys out there are out to get them. It is easy to forget that we are all born into the same system... and that men are as much a cog in the wheel thread in the pattern as women are. We are indeed born into certain privileges... but we didn't create those privileges, and we didn't choose to be born into them. The Wheel Weaves As The Wheel Wills.

 

there were some other things i cant remember, i would have to go through again. but for the most part the definition of the third wave feminist seems somewhat solid. a personal anecdote, it wasnt that long ago that i had a run-in with some radical feminists in an online group i was in where the leader (one of the radical feminists) claimed that the group had become too "male-dominated" and so therefore she was goin to add less men and get rid others, which was a stunning example of gender discrimination, and the tone of the other feminists involved seemed to demand that the men *somehow* (i wasnt sure how because they didnnt make that clear) make the group more "welcoming" to women. i wasnt sure how the group was unwelcoming and so i suggested both that they come out and speak more about what they dont like besides that they need to be more vocal in general if they want to be heard and help educat people, i have to do that all the time in enlightening ignorant and disrespectful people about primitivism or conservation or anything else, to which i was responded by essentially "that's easy for you to say because you're a male with privelege" (? baffled me since i wasnt sure how my sex had to do with making a common sense assertion that you have to teach people if you want them to stop being ignorant) and there were some derogatory statements about men and their behaviour at which point i left the group because it was clear that such people dont actually believe in equality, they just want men to kow-tow to them and feel guilty for "privelege" while not mending any gender gaps or truly getting rid of authoritarian/oppressive institutes. essentially they just want to take the place of a patriarch, and that and similar experiences with radicals has left pretty bad taste in my mouth for the modern feminist movement. i have great respect for the feminist theory that i know of and feminists in other parts of the world as i think i mentioned before - but then i realised that the theories are a product of the less-recent expression of feminism and these particular feminists are workinng in parts of the world that more resemble other stages of feminism as well. as the article points out, these arent the majority of feminists - but pretty much as in any modern political movement, its the radicals - the peoplle who are very intense about whatever - who are the life of the movement.

Wow... very good anecdote and great points WildTaltos!

 

I don't really know feminist theory... but I do wonder how many people actually read and research the theories behind causes that they follow? I'd say a very small percentage of the average cause, is actually familiar with and aware of the theories behind their cause. For this reason... I would say that Feminist Theory, and Feminism are not one and the same. As is the case with most theory out there... theory and practice do not match up perfectly anyway. So yeah... I'd imagine that Feminist Theory speaks of the ideals behind Feminism... and I'm sure the ideals sounds great. But be aware... that the actual movement is not necessarily aligned with those ideals.

 

And yes... I'd say many feminist don't know Feminist Theory any better than I do, which is to say very little. And so the Feminism practiced by the average Feminist is based upon an overall idea of Feminism, with a particular focus on the main causes it fights for. This is also shaped to some extent by their environment and their own experiences with sexism and inequality. That is why many feminist in third-world countries where there is still much to be done... are probably very much in line with the 1st and 2nd waves... while the western world feminists may be partly caught up in a few of the third wave characteristics mentioned in the article.

 

As long as Feminism makes it a "battle" of men vs. women... there will be slow progress and no winners. Equality isn't a battle between men and women at all... it a joint effort to create a world where individuals can thrive, having the freedom to make their own choices. That won't be achieved by a movement that isn't sure whether or not men can be considered an actual part of the movement. But... Feminism is as much a step in the right direction as anything else. So while I am not a Feminist... I do support Feminism, even if I don't agree with everything it stands for or everything feminists say.

 

Haha Elgee! He did make our world sound more perfect than it is... but he did have some valid points nevertheless. Or at least I think he did. 

[Barid Bel Medar]

Something that I have found, particularly in the last 10 odd years is people (mainly women) feeling harassed by people trying to 'chat then up'. 

 

Obviously, I disagree with any form of harassment if it is sinister, however, I have experienced personally or from friends and acquaintances basically every situation which one might attempt to strike up a conversation as being uncomfortable. While one might find a particular situation ok, another will feel harassed. 

 

I am not talking about real harassment. Harassment is a problem, most definitely. This is about well-meaning encounters which are suddenly conflated due to an incongruity in the 'right' ways of expressing attraction. 

 

We do have clear boundaries. Obviously it's not ok to try and chat up someone in a dark alley at 3am. On the other side, it is ok if it is at a dating event (like speed dating or what have you) and on internet matchmaker sites. 

 

I think that the problem with harassment atm is not totally sinister, but something as a result of a state of confusion. We are currently in a state of transition in terms of gender roles and socially acceptable behaviour. Men approaching women with declaration of intention and general sense of 'choosing' a woman is something from my grandparents era. In my parents, there was more equality in the approach, but was still typically male initiated. The man generally was the one to approach a woman. The man is the one to make the move and propose etc... 

 

Now in this era, these roles are changing - for the better, I think, for both sexes. Women should feel comfortable taking a more dominant role and men should not have to have the pressure of having to assume the dominant role. Each person should feel comfortable to assume the role they want and not be judged on it. 

 

A big problem is I think the confusion surrounding the transition we are going through. From personal experience, both myself and friends, situations are extremely hazy and unpredictable. 

 

One night, a friend goes out and as things progress, they gets talking with someone - sometimes intentionally, sometimes by chance - and they hit it off. 

 

Another night  the same thing happens. This time however, the  friend is not interested. Throughout the night, several men/women talk to him/her. All of them accept it's fine and walk away after being told she is not interested. Then they complains that she/he is sick of guys/girls trying to hit on him/her. Sometimes they get rude and insult the person. (admittedly, it happens far more to females, but several times I have seen male friends in relationships go out and have to reject advances.) 

 

Before I go on, I'll say that any time (either male or female) doesn't take the "no" and tries to press the issue, I condemn and you'd rightly be annoyed. 

 

So, I understand the friends feeling, however, I don't blame the people who approach them either, if they are respectful. 

 

The problem is there seems to be a general uncertainty surrounding the issue. Of course, there has always been an element of uncertainty and there is no set formula, but I find it even more so with so many people now taking issue with things.

 

I think that there should be more honesty and openness from both genders on the issue. I can't count how many times I have seen a man called a creep or a woman called a slut from simple situations where the person's intentions are simple and honest. 

 

A big part of it I think is tolerance. If I go out for a night - I have a girlfriend - just with the 'boys' and want to have fun, several women approach me. These people don't know my situation. The other 50% of men in the place are interested. There is no way for a person to know, unless you hang a sign on your back or something. Personally, I might get slightly annoyed, but I wouldn't say it was harassment, unless they persisted. 

 

(Incidentally, I know of events where you have glow-stick armbands, green = single and interested in meeting someone, yellow = single, but not interested in anything, red= not single. Which I think is pretty good.) 

 

I have heard some people say that they want to be left alone to dance or have a night out without being 'bugged'. I don't see this as plausible, as 50% of the patrons are interested. How does someone know (specially if they are drunk, and may not have seen the person reject the last person) that? 

 

I've heard the persons clothing can be used as an indicator. Not wearing something provocative or appealing. This doesn't work for several reason. 1) (At least with men) They don't pick up stuff like that. I don't know if women can spot a man who isn't interested by his clothing. 2) This would then say that to attract someone, you need to wear provocative clothing, which is wrong. Some people are uncomfortable wearing that type of clothing, or prefer other clothing, but are no different from one who does wear it. 

 

You then have the phenomenon of the 'friend-zone'. The concept that a person owes another person sexual attraction just because they have been treated nice, or have been good friends is foolish. However, I think it shows that (younger men in particular) are extremely confused on how to approach women. They are told not to be pushy or aggressive and be like a friend, but then find themselves in this imagined "zone". 

 

My point is that the transition in gender roles and dating culture has created a confusing period where people are unsure of how to approach another. Of course, it comes down to personal preference. However, people can't read minds and don't know other people's preferences. The only way to find out is to try. When the person is successful one time, but is blasted and called names another, it creates not only confusion, but a lack of esteem and confidence. 

 

I am not just talking about men here. Women also suffer the same thing. I have often seen women who choose to use dating apps or sites being called a slut and degraded. 

 

In both the men and women's cases, equality is affected. Men are judged as creeps that freak women out (whether they are, or whether they are confused and use the wrong approach on the wrong person) Women are judged equally as sluts or attention seekers. 

 

 

I'm not looking for an answer, and I don't expect one. Nor am I blaming anyone. Just making the observation, and seeing what other people's thoughts are. Perhaps you have seen or read something that might help clarify general boundaries or acceptable approaches. 

 

To state my personal opinion, I think that if I am going out to a pub, bar, club or social event which people of both sexes use to meet each other, I am at 'risk' of being approached myself. As long as the person accepts the 'yes' or 'no', I see no problem. In other situations, it is more difficult. Random approaching on the street or public place is not the right place to approach someone. I'm sure that there are people who wouldn't mind, and if it works out, that's cool for them, but it shouldn't be used to approach people in general. 

 

Places like university where you share a class or lecture with people I think is in the middle. It's a progression thing I think. You don't go up to someone on the first day. However, after spending weeks/months in the same class, interacting, I don't see a problem with people approaching someone they are interested in. 

[Ithillian Turambar]

Do you think the womens' 'oh my gosh I can't believe that guy asked me out' giggles and conversations with friends might be down in part to the perception that women and girls are not expected by society to be 'open to offers'? It might be that they were flattered and understood what was going on was just normal, but they couldn't be perceived to be asking for interest and so go on the giggle and omg offensive to their friends once the encounter is over.

 

I think the 'view of the tribe' on women's responses to male overtures definitely affected me, and so maybe it affects other women too.

[Barid Bel Medar]

Do you think the womens' 'oh my gosh I can't believe that guy asked me out' giggles and conversations with friends might be down in part to the perception that women and girls are not expected by society to be 'open to offers'? It might be that they were flattered and understood what was going on was just normal, but they couldn't be perceived to be asking for interest and so go on the giggle and omg offensive to their friends once the encounter is over.

 

I think the 'view of the tribe' on women's responses to male overtures definitely affected me, and so maybe it affects other women too.

 

This is a good example. Things are changing, yet many long held 'traditions' are still persistent. 

 

From the male perspective of the 'view of the tribe' I find it hard when I am expected to be a 'man' and pursue a woman (which may tie into the view that women are expected to be 'hard to get' and not 'open offers'). I don't do this and I make sure I am respectful (in fact, I've actually been called TOO respectful and I should just 'be a man and go for it - this from both men and women) because it can make the woman uncomfortable, and I don't want to be harassing someone. 

 

Thus, my somewhat subdued approach makes it seem to women like I am disinterested and cold. 

 

On the other hand, some men find it hard to go against the norm, and feel pressured into being the 'dominant man' and come off as seedy and aggressive. 

 

I suppose it is wishful thinking. It is to be expected that things are confused when culture is changing. I just think that people in general need to be more understanding of the difficulties both sexes have adjusting to these changes. 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

more than a confusion and transition in gender roles I think there's a growing confusion over socialization in general, largely due to the distant but intimate culture of the Internet.

 

sometimes we don't know how to interact in real life anymore.

 

also, fwiw, I don't get the whole women think this men think that kind of stuff cause I don't know the kind of people who think along particular lines based on gender or anything else.

 

I definitely can't make statements about what the average person the average feminist the average man or woman or American or anything thinks or does ... not only because I don't know enough people to form any statistically valid conclusion on any group of people but because I don't think there are many averages, or even well defined means, in human behaviour.

 

so I don't understand that whole turn in the conversation. it seems like a way of saying, "in my personal opinion which I beleieve must be objectively true and so will use phrases that makes it sound like a factual generalization."

[Ryrin]

I would love to live in the Utopia in which that unnamed author of that article seems to live in.

Yeah so would I and I'm sure women all over the world would as well....,especially those getting raped, stoned, and beheaded in honor killings.

[Barid Bel Medar]

I think you may have missed the point at some stage. Perhaps it wasn't clear, if so, I'll try and clarify.

 

The first part I agree, and perhaps that amplifies the situation. 

 

However, the diverse nature of people and the inability to generalize is in the centre of the problem itself. There is no way, and there has never been one way to act which satisfies everyone. 

 

If we want to go back that a ways from the point, the creation of acceptable social interactions -  a handshake, a wave, which everyone knows the meaning of - is a way to create understanding and prevent misunderstandings. Someone might be adverse to touching hands. However, when someone offers them a hand to shake, they don't explode in a fit of offence because they know that the person isn't trying to offend them. They know the meaning behind a handshake. 

 

Similarly, with interaction between men and women, society (I'm talking about western society) there has been standards and 'protocol' that dictate how both sexes 'should' act. Personal preferences are always subjective, but both men and women understood what society had deemed 'acceptable.' Even if they did not like a certain approach, they understood the motive and intention behind the act. 

 

Now that we have begun to challenge these ideals that our grandparents and great grandparents have adhered to for how many centuries, there is a window of transition where we haven't fully shed the ideals, nor have we come up with a 'new' set of socially accepted behaviours. 

 

As one might expect, it creates problems. Two examples to illustrate the point. 

 

We have an old fashioned man and woman who meet two "progressive" people. 

 

The old fashioned woman goes on a date, she expects the man to pay, pull out her chair and generally pander to her every whim to woo her. The man however, is progressive and takes a more egalitarian approach. He expects the woman pay her share, and wants to start a relationship based on mutual interest and compatibility. 

 

Both people are put out - the woman thinks the man is rude and disrespectful. The man thinks the woman is rude and her ideals are outdated. 

 

Second example - An old fashioned man goes out on a date with a 'progressive' woman. The woman feels it is ok to make a move on the first date. The man thinks this is wrong, and women aren't supposed to be so willing. 

 

We end up with the man thinking the woman too forward, and the woman thinking the man is a misogynist. 

 

Of course, on a personal level you say 'well, that didn't work out, our ideals weren't compatible, I'll find someone who is." That's fine, if it was left at that.

 

However, as pointed out, there is such a mix of what people think is good or bad behaviour that  people are finding it increasingly difficult to even approach someone. 

 

Speaking as a young man pretty much in the centre of this transition, I can tell you that it makes you feel terrible sometimes, wondering whether you will be told to 'get some balls' or that you might possibly be making someone feel afraid and offended. 

 

I can't exactly speak for the females, but from friends, they suffer a similar fear - whether they might be told they are a slut, or told they are a prude and need to loosen up. 

 

For me, I can live with it. I have a reserved approach, and if a woman tells me that I should be more forward and 'be a man' I don't give a crap. I'm not pressing myself on some poor woman who may very well be afraid. 

 

However, for others - particularly women, who, as usual, draw the harshest criticism in sexual behaviour - this uncertainty of how 'courtship' 'should be' can seriously affect their confidence and self esteem. 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

so is the problem that you're hurt or offended by how your advances are perceived, that you're told to get lost or that the person you approach feels harassed, or do you mean you're afraid it will become the norm to file a civil or criminal complaint of harassment if your advances cross an arbitrary line?

 

I don't think the second would happen very often. if your behavior rises to the level of harassment as defined by law, it's probably objectively out of line with the norms of your society.

 

not to say someone mightn't attempt to go that route but it would be a very rare, odd instance where they'd succeed.

 

if it's the former, well, people can feel any way at all about their interactions with others. and they may be just as confused as you as to what's going to be met with poor grace.

 

but everyone has the right to his or her feelings. and those feelings will be a bit more visceral in the presence of alcohol and in the context of sexuality.

 

I think that's not the same as political isms.

[Barid Bel Medar]

I am not trying to make a legal issue, or a political issue. 

 

I think my point was quite clear. 

 

IN case you missed it from my original post on the topic:

 

 

 

 

My point is that the transition in gender roles and dating culture has created a confusing period where people are unsure of how to approach another. 

 

 

 

I don't particularly care about making political isms, legal cases or otherwise. 

 

I see a great many friends and acquaintances from various parts of the western world having a lot of trouble and getting hurt by this phenomena.  

 

 

 

 

I'm not looking for an answer, and I don't expect one. Nor am I blaming anyone. Just making the observation, and seeing what other people's thoughts are. Perhaps you have seen or read something that might help clarify general boundaries or acceptable approaches. 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I didn't miss your point and I won't debate a debate master.

 

my point, which I doubt you missed, was that hurt feelings happen in such pursuits and they're not about feminism, they're about people being people.

 

men got snubbed and slapped for making moves long before women had the vote. I won't try to explain what women go through in similar situations.

 

peace and I'll back out of this one again cause it's just a flame waiting for tinder.

[Ithillian Turambar]

men got snubbed and slapped for making moves long before women had the vote.

indeed

 

[Ithillian Turambar]

and again ...

 

 

Even Mr Darcys get turned down. It happens because people are people, like Cindy says.

[Barid Bel Medar]

 I won't try to explain what women go through in similar situations.

I am quite aware - quite well in fact, considering it is a large part of my history degree - of how women were treated throughout history.

 

Since it seems to be getting away from the intended topic, I'll just clarify that my point isn't about people getting snubbed, men or women. 

 

I posted it here, because it is the effect of a phenomenon.

 

Feminism = changing social dynamics and challenges gender roles. 

 

Gender Roles = plays a part in 'courtship' of the opposite sex. 

 

Challenge of gender roles and dating dynamic = people are unsure of how to approach the subject. Leads to many mistakes. 

 

"Darcy Era" = men approach women in a specific, socially constructed way. People get snubbed because they are assholes or their attention is not wanted. 

 

Current era - With the advent of feminism (a good thing, this isn't saying it is bad, it is simply an effect of the movement to be considered) society is split in a thousand different ways of approaching the subject. People aren't affected simply because they are snubbed, but the way they choose to approach the subject. 

 

Many young men and women are not sure how to act, creating a lot of confusion and tension. 

 

Forgive me if it seemed like I seemed hostile, that wasn't my intention. I tend to be blunt and try to clarify as best I can. 

 

I simply mentioned the issue as another aspect that hasn't been discussed here. I think we can all agree that we are against all the rapes, murders and oppression, there are dozens of articles or news items I could bring up every day about it.  I thought approaching a different issue of the subject might be interesting. It is kinda abstract, but while it might not be a pressing issue, it is one that exists. 

 

Edit: Eh, sorry about the crass reference to my education. I don't mean to sound like a pretentious ass. I just wanted to clarify that there was no need to explain, I know a few things about the issue. 

[Loranflame]

 

I would love to live in the Utopia in which that unnamed author of that article seems to live in.

Yeah so would I and I'm sure women all over the world would as well....,especially those getting raped, stoned, and beheaded in honor killings.

 

The point being made by the author... is not that Feminism has largely succeeded in its goals all over the world. But rather that it has come very far, in many parts of the Western world. Nobody can deny that there are plenty of places where Feminism still has a lot of work to do. In fact... even in the western world it still has a role to play. 

 

The Author admires and respects the 1st and 2nd Waves of Feminism.

 

The author is very clear about how important the First and Second Waves of Feminism were, and how much he respects and agrees with what they did and what they stood for. He may not have pointed it out clearly... but some parts of the world are still working through those stages. That would include places with lots of rape, beheadings, stoning, and honor killings. Obviously such places are far from fulfilling the successes of the Second Wave of Feminism. Once could rightfully say that Feminists in those areas, or those supporting women's empowerment in those areas, are very much in line with what the Second Wave of Feminism stood for. And this author has nothing but respect for that. 

 

I do think he is wrong in saying that the all that was needed after the second wave was to become a watchdog, maintaining the successes of Feminism. There is of course more to be done, and men and women certainly haven't come to a place yet where we all feel equal. He does however say the following about the average modern feminist:

 

 

Your common, every day, self-identified feminist probably does not support any of the crazy coming out of the Third Wave.  They probably just believe that men and women should be equal. That’s it.[/size]

After saying the above, he again says something I don't quite agree with, when he claims that it is the more extreme Feminists who define the movement. He is however right that some of the big name Feminists get an unfortunately large amount of publicity, that is to the detriment of the movement if those Feminists happen to be extremists. 

 

I haven't really followed her stuff much since her MTV Youtube Channel thing... but I follow Laci Green and I think she is an example of an awesome big name Feminist. I very much agree with much of what she says,... though she occasionally says things I would happily debate her on. At any rate... I don't think the movement is defined by extremists alone, and he was wrong in saying that. 

 

As he mentioned the 2nd Wave of Feminism has achieved a lot! And his points are not a Utopia or Dream.

 

Now for the part you seem to be referring to. First read through the list that he wrote about the achievements of the Second Wave of Feminism and tell me how many are wrong in the Western world. I'd say very few are disputable... with The main debatable "achievement" being the one where he says that men and women are paid the same. For the rest... I'd say he is right that most of the points in the list are pretty much covered in many parts of the Western world. 

 

It definitely would not be acceptable to commit honor killings, stoning, beheadings anywhere in the Western World as far as I know. Any fool who did any of the those would be lynched, mobbed, or at the very least spend a significant amount of time behind bars. So what he said isn't actually a "utopia" at all in the Western world. By all means... things in the western world are not perfect yet, I have already acknowledged that much. But what he said about the achievements of the Second Wave are very much evident and realistic... not dreams. 

 

If you dispute this... then I would like to see the specifics from the Second Wave that have supposedly not been achieved (not including equal pay). 

 

I'm not looking for an answer, and I don't expect one. Nor am I blaming anyone. Just making the observation, and seeing what other people's thoughts are. Perhaps you have seen or read something that might help clarify general boundaries or acceptable approaches. 

 

To state my personal opinion, I think that if I am going out to a pub, bar, club or social event which people of both sexes use to meet each other, I am at 'risk' of being approached myself. As long as the person accepts the 'yes' or 'no', I see no problem. In other situations, it is more difficult. Random approaching on the street or public place is not the right place to approach someone. I'm sure that there are people who wouldn't mind, and if it works out, that's cool for them, but it shouldn't be used to approach people in general. 

 

Places like university where you share a class or lecture with people I think is in the middle. It's a progression thing I think. You don't go up to someone on the first day. However, after spending weeks/months in the same class, interacting, I don't see a problem with people approaching someone they are interested in.

 Dude! One of my favorite topics of discussion right there. *Pats Barid on the back* Nice!   

 

I could talk about this stuff all day long. But yeah, I'll try not to get carried away haha. 

 

First of all... there is a lot at play when it comes to this issue. Not only in terms of traditions, customs, and Feminism that you have rightly brought up... but also media. It is also important to be aware that men and women are different, particularly as far as sexuality and attraction go. This is something we occasionally seem to lose sight of these days, due to Feminism and the focus on equality. 

 

Some people wrongly assert or think that equality is going to be some kind of condition or circumstance under which men and women will act and be treated the same. This is a flawed and unrealistic view and expectation of equality. The fact of the matter, is that men and women are different and equality is not going to erase or change that. What equality will hopefully do is create true freedom of choice. It will allow every individual, regardless of gender, to choose how they want to define themselves, what path they want to take through life, and how they will walk their path. And it will allow everyone to do this with minimal judgement, allowing and accepting that individuals make different choices. In a sense this does come down to treating people the same regardless of gender... but the expectation that men and women will also act the same is going a bit far.

 

Anyway... I should get back to the matter at hand hahaha. It is interesting to note that the media tends to reflect society back upon itself, and we don't always like what we see. Like a real reflection... the media changes and shifts along with the times and that is happening today as well. Also like a real reflection... we tend to use the media as a reference point for our society and ourselves. You may be wondering where I'm going with this... but bear with me.

 

Both men and women, especially when they are much younger, learn a lot about the world through the media these days. No too long ago that meant television and movies for the most part but now we also have the internet. Particularly when it comes to relationships, courtship, dating, and sexuality we tend to learn from the media as much as from our friends, or society at large. 

 

The media these days in far more fragmented than it used to be. Various television channels, movies, games, and websites all target and cater to different groups of people. One moment you may be watching a tv show with a macho protagonist, who sweeps women of their feet with his dangerous charm. The next moment you may be watching a movie where the loser, finally wins the girl over by being her friend. One moment you see women swooning all over James Bond types, the next moment you're watching something where such a guy is being called a jerk. One moment the very fortunate nice guy has a gorgeous girlfriend who leads him around by the nose, and the next moment you're watching gorgeous girls laugh in a geeks face. It gets very, very confusing.

 

In the midst of all these different and confusing scenarios... society generally approves of the nice guy, and expects you to be a gentleman e.t.c. But at the same time it seems as though the jerks are quite successful with women somehow. How do you reconcile these very different approaches. It happens at different times for different people, but most guys get to the stage where they try to experiment and figure things out.

 

Society will generally pressure men into following the nice guy approach, and I'd say that most men do this. This is the origin of the "friendzone" problem. By being a nice guy and by being a friend, many guys expect to get a girlfriend. That's what society has lead them to believe. So yes, some men end up identifying very strongly with the whole "friendzone" thing because they think that they're following all the rules in the book... and they never seem to make it.

 

To get to the point. The problem is the generally accepted and society approved "nice guy" approach is not the most effective. On the contrary, it seems that those who go against the grain tend to be more successful with women. As far as approaching women go, the nice guy will rarely do it... and when they do try... they will try to be nice and socially appropriate. This can work if the attraction is mutual. So it's not bad actually... the problem is that there will be many cases where the attraction is not immediately mutual. Why?

 

Well... it comes down to one of the significant differences between men and women. Men tend to be attracted very easily based on appearances. This is why we have an absolutely mind-blowingly gigantic make-up industry which overwhelmingly caters to women. This is also why women are so sexualised and objectified... and to a much greater degree than men. Unfortunately... Feminism and many women presume that this makes us shallow. This is incorrect. It is merely a result of biology and evolution that we are attracted to certain physical traits that suggest fertility and a high chance of successful reproduction. Of course... when it comes to having relationships, we men are far from shallow. Many of us look deeper than appearances, but it would be a blatant lie to claim that appearances are not important to the average guy. 

 

Anyway... so what about women then? For starters, they are not stimulated as much by appearances. They do of course appreciate various physical traits, but it isn't particularly important. For the average woman it is a very different type of characteristic that triggers attraction. It is not easily described but... I would say that women are attracted by something that has elements of behaviour, status, and security. This too is a result of biology and evolution. Without security, women may not have been able to live, let alone be able to successfully raise a child. The greatest security in the past came from those with strength, and status. It came from dominant and powerful men. These are still very powerful and primal triggers for attraction in women. This is why celebrities, athletes, rock stars, and the rich and powerful tend to have their pick from many many women. It is also why... Lan is for instance hugely popular among female readers of WoT. Of course... many of the guys in WoT have the necessary traits and characteristics that trigger attraction. But yeah... if you take some time to mull things over you'll know I'm right. 

 

Just like men though... women are not as shallow as to care about things like that on their own. Other things also matter, but the above is a very significant difference between men and women. It is one that is not understood, accepted, or even well known by people in general. And yet... it comes back over and over again in both media and real life. 

 

So what does this have to do with approaches? To come back full circle, the nice guy approach does not emphasize strength of character, confidence, or other attractive qualities (Physical attraction mind you... women do of course like the flattery and all the approval they get). This is why it tends to be the less effective approach, especially if she is not physically attracted to begin with.

As a rule of thumb I'd say that regardless of how, where, or when you make an approach... it needs to be done with confidence. This doesn't need to mean being macho or anything like that. Unless you want to haha. What it does mean, is that you should not be afraid to approach and talk to a woman you are interested in. Ideally you should do so in an appropriate setting of course... but no matter where or when, do it with confidence. 

 

Confidence... is the one thread that runs through almost everything that generates attraction in women. Just like appearances are an important element in generating attraction in almost any man (and don't deny it cause we both know you're lying). I already spoke of the huge make-up industry that is a testament to this fact, but the adult video industry is an equally good indicator. As far as women go... watch almost any movie, even the type where the guy is a typical nice guy... and you will see that she becomes particularly attracted when they do something with confidence. 

 

So ehm... what is the right place and way to make an approach? To be honest... there isn't one. Go with whatever makes you most comfortable, and be confident. If she says no, then politely leave it at that. And yeah, sometimes you should read the physical cues she may be sending. For instance crossed arms, turned away from you, not making eye contact, a poker face, and tightly crossed legs may when put together indicate a significant lack of interest... so yeah, I wouldn't bother approaching. 

 

At any rate... one of the advantages of making the approach, is that it happens on your terms, when you choose. So you decide the right or wrong place... though there are some places which would obviously be very inappropriate. Like approaching during a funeral procession, or trying to approach the bride at a wedding, or going to the ladies restroom to make an approach. But yeah... you'll know whether it is right or wrong in the moment haha.

 

Anyway... I'll leave it at that since there'll probably be an opportunity to say more, or clarify anyway.

Do you think the womens' 'oh my gosh I can't believe that guy asked me out' giggles and conversations with friends might be down in part to the perception that women and girls are not expected by society to be 'open to offers'? It might be that they were flattered and understood what was going on was just normal, but they couldn't be perceived to be asking for interest and so go on the giggle and omg offensive to their friends once the encounter is over.

 

I think the 'view of the tribe' on women's responses to male overtures definitely affected me, and so maybe it affects other women too.

 This is very true. I mostly talked about guys above... but women have an awful lot to deal with from society and media as well. Certain behaviours and actions tend to be frowned upon, both in real life and in media. And women have the added layer of being far more social, and having far greater expectations to conform to what society approves of. 

 

It takes a truly courageous woman, to go against the grain and show obvious interest even today. It will be a while yet before women can be making approaches, but that will eventually be a great indicator of progress towards equality. And like me, there are plenty of men who understand, and will not judge a woman for reciprocating interest. Unfortunately... we are still in the minority. Your fellow women can be among the harshest judges btw... so not only guys who are guilty. But yeah... I do see Feminism claiming ground in this area... and that's a great thing.

 

I don't get the whole women think this men think that kind of stuff cause I don't know the kind of people who think along particular lines based on gender or anything else.

 

I definitely can't make statements about what the average person the average feminist the average man or woman or American or anything thinks or does ... not only because I don't know enough people to form any statistically valid conclusion on any group of people but because I don't think there are many averages, or even well defined means, in human behaviour.

 

so I don't understand that whole turn in the conversation. it seems like a way of saying, "in my personal opinion which I believe must be objectively true and so will use phrases that makes it sound like a factual generalization."

Well... for the sake of discussion, illustrating a point, or explaining oneself it is generally acceptable to make such statements. They may be wrong in their entirety, or only wrong in certain cases... but they may also be true, and they may serve their purpose in a discussion or explanation regardless. Furthermore in certain cases such statements are generally true on the basis of logic alone, while in other cases they may be based on generally accepted research or facts. 

 

A person is under no obligation to speak the absolute truth, and also doesn't need to be able to claim with 100% certainty that something is true, in order to say it or make use of it in discussion. The truth and merit of what is said, is to be decided not by the speaker but by the listener anyway. Above I have mentioned what triggers attraction in women... and while there may be science and logic backing it up. It is ultimately up to you as an individual to decide whether or not you agree with or believe what I'm saying, and whether or not it applies to you. 

 

In my belief and expectation that people are capable of thinking for themselves, I do make such statements. And as such, I place the responsibility of critical reading on the reader... without burdening myself with the need to qualify and justify everything I say. Some things can not be researched, and the merit of what is being said need not be contingent on the absolute truth and certainty of the premises or assumptions used. 

 

You just made a generalization yourself btw in saying "I don't think there are many averages, or even well defined means, in human behaviour." Of course you did state that it is your personal thought, but with or without that not only am I aware that it is your thought/opinion... but I have no problems forming my own opinion on the matter and deciding the merit of your statement. I think what you said would qualify as something believed to be objectively true but phrased as a factual generalization hehe. 

 

When you say "I don't understand that whole turn in the conversation. it seems like a way of saying" you are presuming to know or at least making a statement about what you think people are "saying" (or maybe thinking  ) when they make generalized statements. In doing so you are again guilty of making a generalization about everyone who supposedly makes generalizations. 

 

I point this out... to make you aware of the fact that you have personally used generalizations to make a point. And you did make a good point by the way, but I hope you understand and see the necessity and purpose of using generalizations. Hopefully you also see how impractical it would be to have to, not only limit yourself to your personal opinions and what you know to be true, but to have to explain everything as being a personal opinion. These are things that are already assumed and understood by the reader... and the important thing isn't those specifics, but the message behind them. 

 

But yeah... this is a bit of a semantic debate that is going off topic. So I'll stop here... I do hope you can understand a bit now though. If not I would be happy to clarify some more... as an aside or extra to the main topic of course. 

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/31693252

[Elgee]

Hopefully she does well! I can't see how your gender would influence your ability to play snooker.

[Guest]

here is a short little blog entry by a friend in a primitivist group/forum im part in, gives the very smallest introduction to origins of gender roles/division and a critique of why conventional feminism falls short of creating egalitarian conditions:

 

http://janosbiro-en.tumblr.com/post/112996874773/the-origin-of-the-social-difference-between-men

[Elgee]

I think the word "Feminism" should be gotten rid of altogether. I don't see why there should be a word to describe someone who stands for equality of gender and not killing women because they wear short skirts. Someone like that should be the norm. You should just be considered a normal, average person.  Instead, there should be names for people who DON'T support equality.

[Barmacral]

Instead, there should be names for people who DON'T support equality.

 

Sexist, bigot, ***hole, etc.

[Elgee]

 

Instead, there should be names for people who DON'T support equality.

 

Sexist, bigot, ***hole, etc.

 

 

Those work *nods*

[Ryrin]

Gender Inequality: Pay Gap Still Present Among Male, Female Nurses.

 

New findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that male and female nurses are not paid equally. A new salary analysis revealed a trend of registered nurses (RNs) in the United states between the years of 1998 and 2013 that showed male nurses are paid more across multiple settings and specialties.  Researchers found that the salary gap was about $7,678 for ambulatory care and $3,873 for hospital settings, which was seen across all specialties, excluding orthopedics. Salary gaps also ranged from $3,792 for chronic care to $6,034 for cardiology.

 

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/23646/20150324/gender-inequality-pay-gap-still-present-among-male-female-nurses.htm

[Elgee]

It's frigging unbelievable ... *sighs*

[Barid Bel Medar]

So it's been all over the news and stuff the boxing match that just happened, and I laugh at how smug and arrogant we 'Westerners" are about being progressive and civilized. 

 

Yet here we had a guy who is a violent offender in both public and domestic cases, beat his ex-wife with a fridge door and spent time in prison for it. 

 

People spend literally thousands of $ to get a seat and millions watch a violent felon and another guy beat the crap out of each other for $200m and $120m respectfully and love it. 

 

Two points. 

 

1) It isn't right that the guy gets so much money and fame while he is such a violent person. He is a brilliant boxer, no doubt, but no way should he be glorified getting so much out of it. I call crap on people who say "but it has nothing to do with the boxing." 

 

It damn well does. You ignore his violent past and give him fame and money, you are ignoring a crime for the sake of your own pleasure. It's not right. 

 

2) We in the "Western" world have no right to be so arrogant in our civility. There are worse places, definitely, but we  are far from great, and are savage in our own way. Reality TV we are entertained watching people go through pain (mentally or physically) as entertainment. I don't have a problem with boxing in general, or any of these other things, but when people deny the innate 'barbarity' of it, it's hypocritical. 

[Guest]

its a safe assumption i've learned that anyone who brags about "progress" (a near-psychotic fantasy of the domesticated human brain) and "civility/civilisation" is suffering from the effects of the smaller brain and inculcated infantilism that comes with extensive domestication. being called a barbarian, savage, relic, animal, etc. is by and large a complement next to that