Dating advice vs. gender equality

Post Reply New Topic

A big problem I have socially is learning to get by in the world of dating.

Because of the problems I have had, I have, on occasion, sought out advice on how to improve my love life.

The problem is, the advice seems totally sexist, whether we are talking about traditional "chivalry" advice or modern "PUA" advice. For example:

* The man is expected to pay for dates - at least the first one. The only (terrible) excuses that I have heard for this are the gender pay gap (widely discredited and irrelevant to an interaction within individuals) and the notion that the one who did the asking out should pay (non-sequitur).
* Many women don't like guys who earn less than them or can't drive.
* The man should actively communicate ambivalence about the relationship to portray himself as an alpha male with lots of options.
* The man should show that he is a "leader" (why is this necessary?) by making a point of "taking charge" over trivial matters like what restaurant to go to.
* Men should accept that most women simply will not communicate directly like they do and learn to "take hints"/read minds, putting almost no stock in their words whatsoever.
* Leading on from the above, make a point of laying the law down just for the sake of showing how macho you are.

When I have had luck in the past, it has been due to accidentally coming across as that "alpha i male" in some sense, e.g. because I am a lawyer. However, this can fall apart later because people tend to assume (wrongly) that lawyers are all loaded, and their interest sometimes wanes when they realise that I am in a fairly junior position with a ton of student debt.

The problem for me is that I really don't like being forced to go along with arbitrary social rules that I don't agree with. I see no reason why I can't just be my simple, direct, egalitarian self when interacting with women. But the depressing thing is that the mainstream dating advice that I call sexist is widely endorsed by women themselves. What is a boy to do?

Something I've noticed with some and probably a lot of women, no matter how together they seem, there's a part of them that only gets seen in a one on one situation where you're in a relationship with them.

Now with everything else they're ok, able to fully do anything a guy can, but for whatever reason, emotionally it's much more difficult for them to put themselves out there.

Maybe time will change that, but right now in this day and age, you will get much further in life if you simply buy into the gender stereotypes. Call it an evolution thing, it'll probably change as generations pass, but right now we're living in a time when equality is still a little behind in regards to human pair bonding, maybe simply because it's been the norm for so very long, and no wanting it to be different will change things any faster.

It's just, relationships are hard for everyone. You can spend your whole life changing yourself, but there's a part of yourself you only ever see in those first few weeks of a new relationship, and it's scary but it's like in that one small area we seem to revert to our base human natures and all thinking goes out the window. Taking that in mind will make it much easier to stop making excuses and jump in, because as a guy no one is going to get you into a relationship but you.

Just go along with things, play the game, you'll have plenty of time to show your egalitarian side, but until then keep your cards to your chest because it's very much a game until you get to a certain point, mainly because as humans we have an emotional side that very much rejects logic.

That's my take on it anyway. My take after a long time of seeing things the way you see things but then having my eyes opened for me.

Date more sensible women. Seriously. There are many women who enjoy being treated like human beings and who aren't out to play dating games. And who know what lawyers and student debt are. The PUA stuff is garbage.

The who-should-pay question's been hashed to bits here but you can always be straightforward about it, and also maybe a little flexible. Go to cheap places, take turns, etc.

One thing about "egalitarian" - be careful not to take that to mean "everyone is like me". There's a type of egalitarianism that's essentially "women and men are equal, in my mind, which means women enjoy the same privileges and have the same difficulties I do, and will do fine as long as they just behave as men do." And it'll get you in trouble, because that sort of thing renders you blind to societal problems women face and ways that women work and relate that -- when they're brought to your attention -- may seem silly or invalid to you, but are quite real. (The gender pay gap, for instance, is real, and it's made worse by much of the business world's attitude towards motherhood. Can give you an unhappy number of examples, personal-acquaintance and studies.) Sorry if this is advice you don't need.

Just find a woman different. Like Tarantella said.

I'm experiencing the same problem. I would prefer a down-to-earth and realistic female is even more difficult at a younger age.

To be clear, I do not say that *all* women buy into the stereotypes and games in all examples. But they are common examples, in my experience. I just wish there was some kind of screening process.



Well, putting the pay gap debate to one side for a minute and focusing on blindness to the societal problems women face... This is another thing that gets me.

Perhaps you did not have this specific example in mind. But I am often told that the reason why women can't be as direct as me is because they have so much more to worry about than I do in terms of personal safety, and here I am, the 6 foot, 200 pound guy with the big booming voice - of course they assume that I am violent. But I don't accept that argument. I assert myself to guys who are bigger and stronger than me all the time, and I am far more likely to get attacked.

Yeah I see no reason why you can't just be who you wanna be. No one is forcing you to follow these advice. Yes, it's depressing those advice are "the mainstream" but if enough people are willing to go against them, it would not be so mainstream in the future.(hopefully)

That's where the issues lies Yuzu. Some of us Aspies feel a generation ahead of people our own age range when it comes to gender, sexuality, dating, relationships, gender roles, social rules, etc.

I just hope in a near-distant future people, men and women, would be more and better focused on qualities more deserving of appreciation such as openness, communication, compromise, understanding, negotiation, liberty, etc. and not like the boxing, restrictive and primitive gender-based mindset that is so strongly focused upon in today's world still.

For instance, in my opinion it is polite for the person, man or woman, to pay if they are the one who asked the other person out.

The mainstream however almost always place the role on the man to ask the woman out, and for the man to pay for the all or at the very least the majority of dates.

This is why I sometimes think homosexual or transsexual relationships have it easier. They almost always discard all the unwritten rules that straight men and women cannot let go of or at least be more flexible with.

I've been treated worse by a sensible girl that liked me than every girl that didn't like me in my life.

It's a weird truth. Even sensible girls have their moments.

@TimmyBoy, I am going to break my response into multiple parts because your post interests me, and I have much to write. Following are my values and practices. While social rules may appear completely arbitrary, there are some regional differences that at least at some point had some value, and these may vary, so keep that in mind when I suggest something. These are not "shoulds," they are suggestions. I recommend that you delete the notion of "shoulds" from your pursuit of information, because you may get better results from assessing your own needs and values and shaping standards into more practical actions rather than accepting what appears arbitrary.

In my culture:

*The issuer of the invitation often offers to pay for the meal. This may be indicated by the use of the word "treat," as in, "I'd love to treat you to lunch sometime. You were so kind to give me a ride last week, I'd like to do something special for you." Perhaps you are a house guest and want to pay for your host's meal. It's helpful to indicate your intentions upfront, e.g., "You are so kind to let me stay in your home. I'd like to take you out for a meal before I leave." In that case, you would pay for everyone's meal. If it's a date and you issued the invitation, then it's nice to pay, not because you are male or alpha or have a higher income, but because you are socially generous. Next time, the other person would be socially generous to invite you out and pay (the age-old key of reciprocation). Sometimes, people choose to have someone over instead of paying for a restaurant meal. That's perfectly acceptable - they are paying for groceries and the time spent preparing the food.

*If a person (of either sex!) is insecure financially, morally, socially, etc., then they might prefer a partner who makes more money. Some people prefer their partner make less money, because they also are insecure about other areas of their life and try to compensate in this silly way. The notion of a female selecting a male who signals security is biological and training residue, but there are plenty of women who have evolved past these previously necessary survival tactics. At one point, a car was an easy signal to see, so it was included in "The List." If the female is an environmentalist, she may be turned off if you own a car

TBC...

Why care about being loyal to an ideology that has done nothing for you? Follow what works rather than the demands of a secular religion.

Over a hundred thousand years of major cultural differences and restrictions has resulted in a semi-permanent evolutionary gender differentiation on both a psychological and biological level.

Basically we've been doing this crap since the dawn of our existence. In the time of hunter/gatherers most men where restricted to being the hunters, and most women where restricted as gatherers. This caused early evolutionary change in our diets, most men would eat large portions of the meat they would hunt, and most women would eat large portions of the vegetables, beans, fruit, and other such foods. This caused great amounts of sensory and even emotional changes in human evolution. This form of culture was not super-restrictive; if say a women was strong and cunning enough she could have joined the men on the hunt, and if a man didn't have the strength to hunt he probably assisted the women with there labors, but these occurrences where most likely very rare. Of course diet was not the only cultural significance that produced many evolutionary changes. I sound like I'm giving a lecture, but my point is this all happened a VERY long time ago, and we as a species have come along way. So much so we started producing chemicals that affected not only our own evolution but that of the earth. Now I think where finally coming out of that phase, and in the past hundred years we finally achieved the science, mathematics, and many other studies that give us a more logical conclusion to our existence. I mean we couldn't even prove a third of what I just said less than 20 years ago, but now, for some reason we know. The problem that you see, and most others see, is that where still at the early stages of these first steps, and yes many of us do revert to primitive behavior in times of emotional height. So what it all stems down to is what it always has since the beginning of humans: we feel a biological and psychological need to reproduce, cause if we don't we die.

So I say keep looking at it logically, like your still doing. I'm sure you'll find a girl who will meet a majority of the characteristics you want.

@TimmyBoy, unless you are worried about challenging an alpha over a food, shelter or sex option, then you are more likely to thrive if you behave normally (there's plenty to go around). And, please, please, ignore the pundits who try to teach one "alpha" tricks, which are simply a way for them to take money from the gullible. Real alphas (male and female) take care of their community, and smart, potential partners take notice of them.

Also, people want attention and need love. Ambivalence, real or fake, is impolite-cruel. Being too clingy may be a turn-off, because people do avoid signals of neediness, but if you require more than average attention, it's up to you to learn new skills that would increase your standards of living and happiness, with or without a partner.

People get together for many reasons. If you don't like to make decisions and find someone who does, then it's fine not to always step forward first. My husband gets extremely uncomfortable when faced with certain types of decisions, and I've learned it's most helpful to either initiate that information gathering or to take the lead on those occasions. He takes the lead when we are making other types of decisions. When you find a good partner, you will find your stride and needn't worry about faking anything. Constant pretense is exhausting.

So, if you want to find a strong partner, I suggest you (strongly hope you will) ignore the macho BS still too much fed into our culture. Be your beautiful, unique self. We have enough drones with which to deal... snore....

@TimmyBoy, it takes time for people to adjust to new cultures, and direct or indirect communication styles can be a regional signal (formerly important for survival, identifying tribes, etc.). It has taken me YEARS to change my southern U.S., indirect style. We might say, "When you have a chance, if it's not too much bother, if you happen to be passing the kitchen, and see there's plenty of pepsi's for everyone, take a sec to bring me one?" Well, if you weren't culturally attuned to such language (as my husband was NOT), then you may wonder how to determine a worthy chance, how to gauge "too much bother," why you can't just go to the kitchen if needed, how to know the number that qualifies as "plenty" and how many may want a pepsi, not to mention that it would take more than one second to fulfill the request. And, am I expected to answer a question or being told to bring you a soda?

Also, especially in the past, women have been punished, often severely, for being too "forward." They might be called pushy, obnoxious, low-class, bitchy, etc., while men are called authoritative or assertive for using the same, direct statements. Some women are ostracized for being even a little independent, and this includes action in their own social circles of women, not just at work and home. So, please be kind to women (and men) who feel so insecure they choose to act timidly or speak indirectly.

And finally, if, "the mainstream dating advice that I call sexist is widely endorsed by women themselves" then you are selecting poor sources. Branch out, as you did by posting here. Well done

Thanks for your responses, particularly oddlyeffective.

I can understand expecting the other person to pay if they expressly said that they would, e.g. that they would "treat you to dinner". But if we agree to "go out for dinner", then this sentence doesn't imply that I am going to pay merely because I came up with the idea, any more than inviting my mate to the pub implies that I am going to buy his beers all night.

The advice I get here is good because at least you guys see where I am coming from logically. But my worry is that most people just don't think like you guys, and that these other sites (e.g. plentyoffish, enotalone) are more representative of society at large. So then I wonder if I have to just accept the world the way it is if I don't want to be lonely forever.

As for the PUA thing, well... It does seem to work, as much as I wish it didn't. The only reason I don't follow it is because I don't like playing games, and those guys are full of it.

The odd thing is that I am, in fact, very decisive and assertive. But I don't agree with the idea that I have to make token gestures just to show off how decisive I am as part of my gender role, and I fully expect women in my life to be just as tough. Some girls insist that they want the man to "take the lead" all the time just for the sake of it, e.g. by choosing the restaurant, and I just don't see the logic behind that. Why don't we both just talk and come to a joint decision that we both like? It's like how I am not a wuss merely because I don't go around starting bar fights.

I wish I could believe I will find happiness with someone truly on my wavelength, but based on my track record, I just don't think she exists.

A lawyer, eh? OK?before I say another thing?GET RID OF YOUR DEBT. Even at an entry level you're doing pretty good I'll bet. You don't need the car or the 5-bedroom house. You need a place for a bed and a kitchen. $3000 will get you a car that works. Don't pay for ANYTHING beyond basic survival needs before you pay off that debt. No credit cards. NOTHING. I like to go to Sam's Club and buy bread baking supplies (yeast, bread flour, salt, canola) and rice in bulk. We haven't gone out for pizza at my house in MONTHS--cheap pasta sauce for pizza on sale at Kroger, 5 of the small jars, will last us over a month making two pizzas a week, and I bake 2 loaves a week besides. Keeps sandwiches in our kids' lunch boxes and we haven't bought bread in a month, either. Rice, beans, and occasionally a whole chicken on Manager's Special will keep you going for a long time, and our grocery bill for a family of 5 barely tops $300/month?and we're NOT receiving any kind of "assistance." You could be out of debt within 5 years, man! Hang in there, pay your dues, and you'll be ahead of the game in no time.

As to dating advice--this is strictly MY OPINION, but for me I've found these kinds of things helpful.

Well, SOME advice is either sensible or it's rooted in something sensible. "Traditional" dating is dead, though, and I wouldn't put much stock in PUA advice. Here are my thoughts on the whole thing...


There's nothing wrong with a man paying for any/all dates, though. It's not a BAD thing. It's the mentality that goes with it. Some people take the mindset that whoever pays is OWED something in return.

Yes, I'd insist on paying for dates as a man. The reason WHY I'd insist on paying is this: She's doing ME a favor by keeping me company for some 90-120 minutes, give or take. I owe her at least a decent dinner, entertainment, or some combination of the two. Even if she decides she never wants to see me again, or if I never want to see her again, at least she got SOMETHING for her time.

And before we start the "sexist" accusations here, let me be clear about this: If I'm not asking you out, it very well could be I can't afford it right now. Speaking as a man, if you want to go out with me and I haven't asked you out, feel free any time to ask me out. If my lack of funds isn't an issue for you, I won't turn you down!! !

I also don't have a problem going dutch, but what I dislike about it is that there's no give/take. Chronic dutch treats, for me at least, is going to keep the relationship in the friend zone. If I'm dating, I'm really looking for something that will move towards a LTR. I'm not crazy about NSA or ONS, and in my whole dating career I've met MAYBE two women who were ok with that sort of thing. Extreme attitudes regarding who picks up the check are a huge turnoff for me. If you cannot politely and graciously accept a gift from me as thanks for your company, we're probably not going to get along very well.


Yeah?not sure about where that myth comes from. However, it doesn't hurt to be independent and financially responsible. If you aren't independent, you'll likely end up being a bum. Nobody--don't care if you're a man or woman--WANTS someone who is going to be totally dependent on them, assuming they have a choice. If you aren't responsible with money, that's symptomatic of other potential relationship nightmares.

Admittedly, I don't have much of an income at the moment. But basically while I'm NOT working, I operate as a mini-daycare while their mother works. I get about a 3-hour break from kids between her getting off work and story/bed time. And the one part-time job I DO get money from, I never see a penny of it. When I DO ask for money, it's for fuel and groceries. I RARELY get the luxury of being things for myself, and when I do, it's absolutely necessary. If you're a man and you're not going to be bringing in any money, you HAVE to show you are a capable contributor to a relationship. Working a full time making $40k+ shows you at least have a work ethic (my own income is variable, but I can count on slightly better than $7.2k. It is an issue I'm all too aware of, and I'm working to fix it, but at the moment it is not straining our relationship). But as far as women who won't be with men below a certain income, I'm living proof that's bogus.


Ambivalence? Wrong choice of words. And I wouldn't "actively communicate" this.

Good advice would be not to display any eagerness regarding any relationship or potential relationship, and not to look "alpha" or like you have "options," but just so you don't creep anyone out. If you want to be all masculine about it, I'd say the first few dates aren't the big game; save some for the playoffs. In other words, keep options open until it's evident that a relationship really is moving in a more intimate direction.

"Lots of options"? Well?I don't think it's anyone's business about how many "options" I have. Think of it in probabilistic terms. If you manage to casually "go out" with 100 women in a year's time, the statistical probability that none, 0, ZERO women will take any relational interest in you whatsoever is extremely low. If I actually go out with 100 women in a year's time, I'm not exactly going to advertise that. All I'm trying to do is meet women, get to know them, give them the opportunity to get to know me, and gradually narrow my "playing field" to those few I genuinely enjoy spending more time with and ultimately ONE that could go beyond the "friendship" status. That's 100 women I'd be keeping in my "friend zone" for a considerable amount of time.

It's not about having "options" to push/pull a certain woman into submission. It's not even bragging rights. Obviously you're searching for someone to be more than a friend, else you wouldn't ask them all out in the first place. It's just at the beginning stages there's no pressure to be more than just friends and, consequently, no shame in keeping options open. You're eliminating your options as you move forward, so the fact that you have "options" to begin with is something you can just keep to yourself.

And I have to point out that the whole thing about there being "no shame" in it is not just about you (as a man). If you are keeping your options open, so are the women you're dating. You have to remember that. That IS egalitarian.


Two angles to this one:

1. If I really want to get to know a woman, I might do a little homework first to see where she likes to hang out and set up a date there. If I know it's something she likes, meeting her on her own turf might make accepting a date more likely.

2. If I really want to know if she's interested in ME, I'll ask her to my favorite place to see if we share a common interest.

Being wishy-washy is unattractive. I don't like women who act that way, so I imagine women probably don't like that in men, either. There's no reason why a man SHOULD show that he is a "leader."

However?

Anyone, man or woman, who goes to the trouble of taking the initiative to ask someone out BETTER have a plan--"hey, I got two tickets to the game and my buddy bailed on me. Would you like to go?"


I'm totally lost on this one. People in general tend to be subtle and drop hints. I'm usually totally oblivious to this kind of thing. I have a couple of rules for dealing with this, which boils down to a 3-strikes kind of thing. If we're talking about asking someone out, 1st strike is accept an excuse at face value, BUT do NOT try to fish for a good day/time to replace the date that got shot down. Wait a week, come up with a different, cool activity, ask again. 2nd strike, accept another excuse at face value. Wait a week, repeat. 3rd strike, the girl doesn't want to see you, her excuses are LIKELY disingenuous, and she'll call you if her excuses are legit and she's really interested. Beyond that, there's absolutely no point in harassing someone.

And that's only my rule because I do have such a hard time taking hints. The truth is sometimes excuses are legit. Sometimes people end up in the hospital, or friends/relatives get married or die--or both in the same day. Whatever. My experiences in this area have been largely negative, so I go to the 3-strikes test over a long period of time. The way I see it, that's a hard one to screw up.


That's just dumb.

There DO need to be clear rules/boundaries in relationships, though. "No cheating" is a good rule in a serious relationship. Agreeing on roles within a relationship is a good thing. It's that whole "macho" thing that's utterly stupid.

I've only dated one woman who allowed me to "lead from above," and it was mostly she was young and very inexperienced when it came to relationships. Neither of us had a problem with our arrangement. I'm just the kind of person who wants to keep the relationship moving forward. For the most part, though, I feel that I was merely expected to carry my own weight within a relationship and to allow my gf to carry her own as well. Even when I was more of an active leader, neither of us felt the other was purely dead weight or that I had to prove my manhood.

Actually, I was in a relationship once in which I was EXPECTED to "lay down the law" and be "manly." I got out of that relationship because what I THINK she wanted me to do would have been abusive if it had been anyone else. Throwing her down for some bizarre rape fantasy just simply isn't my style. But if you're pushing my buttons just so I'll yell at you, you don't get to fall all to pieces about how I scared you.

Honestly, I have no idea what she really wanted or expected me to do exactly, but as best I could tell she wanted me to "prove" to her just how macho I am. I don't play those kinds of games. Women don't really WANT to be with an abuser, and laying down the law and proving all of your great machismo is abusive.


Look, just forget about all these "rules." You already intrinsically know the PUA stuff is crap. My attitude is there is a time and place for everything, so where SOME of this stuff is coming from, I can kinda see a point.

The PUA stuff starts with the assumption that women are objects to be won by alpha males.

If I were the one giving advice, I'd look at it from the perspective that people are people and only secondarily men or women. Start with that. How do you want to be treated by other people? Treat women that way. Forget about who owes who what. Nobody owes anyone anything. Don't look at dating as some zero-sum "game."

Conventional dating is crap, too, in my opinion. The reason being that "normal" dating in today's sense involves asking strangers out on dates and getting your heartbroken when a relationship doesn't develop. It's either that or you suffer severe self-esteem issues when you can't sleep with someone on the first date. And don't get me started on Facebook and online dating (whether CL or a dating service). If that's "normal," I'd rather be weird. Start by making acquaintances/friends. Spend lots of time with them getting to know each other on a casual basis. If you ask someone out on a date, don't think of it any more than just a couple of friends hanging out for a while. See who out there likes spending as much time with you as you them. Take your time, don't get in a hurry. You'll get into a serious relationship with whoever you spend the most time with. It's that simple.

Forget about being "egalitarian." There's nothing wrong with being egalitarian, but you shoot yourself in the foot overanalyzing it or working to hard to achieve it. Just let people be people, let you be you, get out there and meet some folks.

As for my preface, I'd strongly recommend you keep your nose to your work and get out of those student loans as quickly as possible. Dating is going to cost money, and you'll feel a lot better about it the sooner you can earn your freedom. Trust me on this?I have a master's degree in music and I've got 18 years to go before I can get my loans forgiven out of IBR. You do NOT want to be where I am right now, and I certainly would have made different choices if I'd considered one day I might be here. What I'm hoping for is some upcoming projects generating some REAL income and paying off all my loans and my wife's loans all at once. We're barely surviving as it is, but we refuse to give up. If you don't want to be repeating my story, fix your financial mess FIRST before you even think about seeing someone.

@TimmyBoy... So, you may want to try to be more precise in your language. As a lawyer, you should be good at that

Don't agree to "go out for dinner." Be magnanimous and offer to treat someone. If they balk, then at least they understand and their expectations won't be let down. It could also be a method of getting a better chance at a second date. Perhaps say, "Well, okay, how about if I pay this time, and you can decide if I'm worth a treat the next time."

If you have a small budget, get creative and still provide the treat. Unless they are gold diggers, young women expect other young people have student loans and entry-level jobs. If they ARE assessing you as a possible mate, they are looking for potential, and sound financial practices are a good sign.



Do you really want an average partner? If not, why are you looking for something "more representative of society at large" instead of at exceptional people? Surround yourself with excellence, including moral integrity and independent thinking. It's okay to play with a wide circle of people (better not to cut yourself off when you may find a gem in the rough), but once you are serious about forming lasting friendships, make and act upon a sensible plan. And BTW, my husband was 38 years old when we met. Looking too strenuously may be part of the problem. Relax a bit if you can and have some fun.

And, writing of fun, sometimes women do want an active partner in the bedroom, so their wish for such a connection may appear to be what they want in other areas, but rather it's just sort of happened that they had to take the bad with the good. That is, an alpha may be attractive for stimulation, but she really doesn't want to worry about him alpha-ing other women, so it's likely a short-term arrangement in her mind.