All good feminist men mark women as their property.
The Feministe Feedback question from yesterday is too juicy not to tackle. M. LeBlanc has a good answer. Here’s the question:
Your most recent entry - on what a feminist relationship looks like - is primarily pitched at female feminists. I, as a well-intentioned but nonetheless male participant in relationships, would really like to know the answer to that question. i don’t commit the obvious sort of mistakes that non-feminist guys do, or at least i hope i don’t. Nonetheless there are certainly crimes of ignorance, so to speak.
In fact, you should write a book answering this question - “how to be a feminist boyfriend.”
I thought, “Hell, I could write that book,” but when I actually started to think about it, I found myself drawing a blank. There’s a lot of trite, obvious answers like, “Eat pussy and don’t make PMS cracks,” but I’m committed to treating people like they aren’t stupid and I don’t think anyone interested in this question is so stupid they haven’t thought of this. So I opened the comments and immediately found that I was disagreeing vehemently with the first comment:
Deference is a privileged person’s best friend.
I would have no patience with someone flopping around acting all guilty and deferential to me. It’s happened before, and I hate it. I want respect, and deference is not respect. If you really respect someone, you don’t tiptoe around them, deferring automatically, even when they’re in the wrong. Deference also comes across as pity all too often. For example, the reaction that makes me the sickest when I disclose to someone, say, that I’ve been sexually assaulted is when they get all quiet and deferential. I feel marked, like I’m some born victim, and that’s not who I am or how I feel. I feel like a normal, strong person who had some bullshit happen to her. But it certainly doesn’t give me some moral superiority. I want to be judged as a good person because I behave like one. Assigning someone some moral superiority because of oppression isn’t respect, it’s pity. And I want nothing to do with that.
Of course, the opposite of that is the assumption, that I’ve covered before, that everything a woman says is considered stupid and bimbo until proven otherwise. When you’re a woman, you find that you have to argue for things with men all the time that you shouldn’t have to argue for, because if they bothered to think about it, they’d realize you have a point, but they immediately disagreed before they even had time to process what you said because of this automatic assumption. Some can be convinced otherwise, some not, but either way, women quickly realize that it’s better not to have opinions rather than waste your time trying to defend every fucking thing you say, regardless of merit. Of course, my experience with this dynamic actually led me to blogging. It was so refreshing to engage with people who had taken the time to understand what you were saying before they disagreed, that I was immediately addicted.
So, from that experience, I can say that a huge thing men can do is to just take a moment to think about what your girlfriend said, and actually ask yourself what you really think about what she said, before you respond. And phrase disagreements in a way that makes it clear that you have a specific disagreement with what she said, not that you’re dismissing her opinions. I suppose you could say that I’m asking men to listen to their girlfriends, but unfortunately, the word “listen” is all too often used as a synonym for deference. So I’m trying to be more specific. Ask yourself if your initial reaction would be different if a man said the same thing. Make a point to validate your girlfriend when she says things you agree with. This isn’t for her—you probably don’t have the power to change her levels of confidence by your lonesome—but for yourself, because it forces you to have the thought, “My girlfriend is an intelligent person with important, useful things to say that I respect.” It sounds stupid, but basic cognitive psychology shows that practicing a thought means that it comes more easily to you.
What I’ve experienced in crumbling relationships was this continuing cycle where my now ex-boyfriends’ internal monologue about the worthiness of my intelligence degraded because they jumped on every little thing they could disagree with or correct, but they didn’t take the time to say, “Good idea,” or “You’re right” when that was true. And while they intellectually would say that I’m a smart, worthy person, they trained themselves into reacting to me like I was a straight up bimbo. It didn’t happen at once, but was a gradual and accidental self-training process that stemmed, I think, from the larger cultural pressure to assume a woman’s wrong until she proves herself right. My problem was that I was automatically deferential in most things—if you have to fight for everything you say, you’re only going to do so if it’s really important. Which created fights, because I would fight when it was in fact important, which would startle the man who had grown accustomed to thinking he was smarter than me and always right on every point of disagreement, and then things completely fell apart.*
And for the love of god, don’t get into semantic arguments with your feminist girlfriend. If I hear one more young feminist say that her boyfriend argues that it should be “humanist” instead of “feminist”, I’m going to….well, I don’t know. It’s not my business. But I think that semantic argument is grounds for dumping someone, though I’m still divided on whether you should dump him immediately or put some effort into fighting on it, though I can’t imagine that a guy who says things like that will allow a woman to change his mind. And don’t reach into your ass looking for reasons that she needs to changer her name to yours if you get married. The proper feminist boyfriend opinion is, “Why, I think that we should name the children after you, darling, because I’m certainly not going to be pushing them out of my penis.”
Also, be conscious that you let her pick the movie or evening’s entertainment half the time.
*The side note to women, I suppose, is that it’s important to fight on the small things, even if the effort doesn’t initially seem worth it. You defer on small things, and then your deferences get bigger and bigger and next thing you know, the only way you have of asserting yourself is passive aggression.
179 Responses to “How to be a feminist boyfriend: Your girlfriend is not a bimbo”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
There’s a lot of trite, obvious answers like, “Eat pussy”
Best. Advice. Ever.
The impression I got was that “deference” wasn’t meant in the way you’re suggesting, but more along the lines of “when it comes to being a woman in the patriarchy, her experiences trump yours.”
Like I said in the other thread, my general rule is to make a “stupidity saving throw” when I talk about the subject - take a mental step back and think about what I’m saying.
My suggestion for the males of the species:
Remind yourself, from time to time, that most of the time women are just guys (ie, default people) who happen to be female.
(I have to remind my opposite-sex other half occasionally that while his mother is a woman, and a largely stereotypical woman at that, I am definitely not his mother and he’s better off thinking of me as a guy with tits. This has been very effective when he gets frustrated that I don’t conform to his anticipation of the way women, ie, his mom, would do things.)
He’s sheltered, but willing to learn and cooperate. I can work with this.
And for the love of god, don’t get into semantic arguments with your feminist girlfriend.
This is SO important, because even if you (the dude) see it as a reasonable and interesting thing to nitpick about, she hears “i’m going to nitpick semantics because I don’t have the balls to actually listen to and agree or disagree with what you’re saying.” My husband’s problem was that he totally agreed with me, and would assume I knew that, then go on to nitpick semantics. Which drove me nuts because, of course, I didn’t know that. What fixed it for us is him remembering to preface every semantic nitpickery with explicitly affirming that he agreed with me first. It must be a common problem, because this post immediately struck home.
There’s a lot of trite, obvious answers like, “Eat pussy”
Conversely, don’t eat pussy just because that’s what you think all women want. You should, ya know, figure out what your partner actually likes, and with any luck she’ll do the same for you. Neither my husband nor I really gets a lot out of oral sex. Go fig.
I think Amanda has touched on a really irritating theme among sitcom-style men. “If you want to please a woman, just admit that you’re wrong all the time! Har har har.” Well, no, admit that you’re wrong when you’ve actually made a mistake, instead of cowering from your wife/girlfriend because you’re trying to avoid being “scolded” (i.e., listening to her express her negative feelings).
It sounds asexual at first, but treating your partner with the same respect as a professional colleague is a good start.
I think instead of “deference” one could say “understanding that our society is a patriarchy, and being willing to stop, think, and rethink your assumptions about what it means to be a woman.” But that takes up way more words.
Oh also - I’d say the only time deference IS appropriate is when she says something is sexist or offensive. Then you can show a tad by saying “huh, I don’t see it” or “really? why?” instead of “no it isn’t.” But anyone reading this site should know that much by now anyway.
Ask yourself if your initial reaction would be different if a man said the same thing.
I agree with everything except the implication here, but the result is completely the same: as Lovely in Pink pointed out, I do tend to nitpick without ever acknowledging that I agree substantively, though I believe that I do this to everyone, male or female (I’m trying to get better). I think it comes off like you said though because of the patriarchal dominance - when I nitpick something a guy says, it’s assumed to be argumentative; when I nitpick something a woman says, it’s assumed to be dismissive (I certainly never want to be dismissive - my communication is flawed, and the burden of fixing that is on me).
There’s still a huge difference in the perceived subtext, regardless of the intention, but it may not be due to an assumption that the woman is inferior and being dismissed. It does come off that way, though, and that’s something that I think all guys need to realize.
For example, the reaction that makes me the sickest when I disclose to someone, say, that I’ve been sexually assaulted is when they get all quiet and deferential.
I think I tend to react this way when I’m confronted with my own privilege, like when I’m talking to people who grew up poor or experienced racism when they were young, which hasn’t happened to me. I don’t really know what to say to them, because I can’t commiserate with my own comparatively petty problems or think of anything very sympathetic to say after I’ve told them how much I agree that their experiences must have sucked. I imagine it’s the same way for someone who isn’t likely to ever be raped to respond to someone who has. I’m just wondering what a decent reaction might be on their part.
he’s better off thinking of me as a guy with tits. This has been very effective…
But probably not so effective in the sack, as it might confuse him when he tries to take the most trite and obvious advice.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist!
On topic, I think ‘consider me a person/honorary guy/default’ is probably some of the best advice. And all of the men I have dated who weren’t jackasses were pretty good about doing this instinctively. I would much rather have to explain why my experience is different from yours than explain why I am not a stereotypical ‘chick’.
Another good piece of advice for men trying to be in feminist relationships — get over any issues you have with the female body, like yesterday. This goes for the obvious ‘eat pussy’, as well as having issues with body hair, makeup and clothes, fat or lack thereof, breast size, etc. Try to be aware of what an actual naked human looks like, as opposed to a heavily photoshopped model or a surgically altered (and then edited!) pornstar. Also know that female bodies and their parts come in all shapes and sizes (kind of like their male counterparts).
Don’t be that guy. And women, if you are with that guy, DUMP HIM. He’s not worth it.
I think ‘consider me a person/honorary guy/default’ is probably some of the best advice.
The person one, definitely, but for “honorary guy”, isn’t there a chance of that leading to viewing you as the only “worthwhile” female, without ever recognizing that all women are people too?
I mean view ALL women in that way. If you see women as basically the same as men, you’re 75% of the way there.
It’s simply the highest priority that he see me that way, first. And a really bad sign if he’s able to see every other woman that way, but still manages to hold me up to some ridiculous ideal of stereotypical womanhood.
And a really bad sign if he’s able to see every other woman that way, but still manages to hold me up to some ridiculous ideal of stereotypical womanhood.
Agreed… that’d be creepy.
If you see women as basically the same as men, you’re 75% of the way there.
I’m inclined to disagree, since I’ve observed a lot of men treat each other like assholes. In my last relationship, we had to clarify that I should not be treated like his male friends in some instances because
-I preferred not to be insulted in front of his friends,
-or at all, really; constructive criticism will do.
-I do articulate my feelings, and when I do, I mean what I say.
-I like porn, but I won’t watch degrading shit.
and so on and so forth.
Besides, I’m not so keen on honorary maleness. I know culture sees maleness as the default, but I don’t see why I should encourage it.
“Stupidity saving throw” — man, do I wish I got one of those in real life. And an undo key.
When I was in college I had this great lucid moment where I figured out that 95% of the time, even horny college students weren’t really sexual beings, so there really wasn’t all that much difference between guys and gals. Yes, drugs were involved: but it really helped put things into perspective.
Don’t freak out and take it personally when she gets angry while in your vicinity (i.e. not directly angry at you). React like you’d react if one of your guy friends was acting really pissed off — i.e. assume that maybe it’s not about you until proven otherwise, and maybe just ask “Dude, is everything all right?” rather than getting all pissy because her anger makes you uncomfortable. You give your guy friends the right to be pissed off sometimes without making them responsible for your comfort; give your girlfriend the same right.
Take the initiative to sit down with her and split up the household chores equitably. Come to the table with at least a short mental list of stuff that needs to be done and a starting proposal for how to split it up. It doesn’t have to be perfect, you don’t have to think of everything — just take the attitude that equity in housework matters.
Also, Anne Onne’s comment on the Feministe thread is the best encapsulation of feminism applied to housework that I have ever seen.
“Stupidity saving throw” — man, do I wish I got one of those in real life. And an undo key.
When I was in college I had this great lucid moment where I figured out that 95% of the time, even horny college students weren’t really sexual beings, so there really wasn’t all that much difference between guys and gals. Yes, drugs were involved: but it really helped put things into perspective.
Conversely, don’t eat pussy just because that’s what you think all women want. You should, ya know, figure out what your partner actually likes, and with any luck she’ll do the same for you. Neither my husband nor I really gets a lot out of oral sex. Go fig.
In my younger life a lot of my wrongly rigid ideas about “what women want” in the sack came from women who assumed a certain universality of physical pleasure for women, if not the other stuff, and wrote and talked about it accordingly.
Eventually I realized different things do it for different women. It’s a learning process.
The whole problem with “default guyness” is what was mentioned above- I don’t want to participate in stereotypically male pissing contests.
I think the problem is that we (as a society) don’t have a very good idea how to treat people like “humans”. We’ve fell into this gender bianary, and it’s really hard to fall out of it.
Tanglethis, it sounds like your boyfriend was just a garden variety asshole.
While I like to be seen the same as any other guy / default human being, I also don’t want to be with someone who treats all human beings like shit. I also think you can tell a lot about a potential partner based on how they treat their friends, and just like I don’t tend to be attracted to back-stabbing drama queen women, I also don’t tend to be attracted to guys who have so little ability to bond and show emotion that they have to insult everyone all the time.
I also don’t date anyone who likes porn I find offensive (which I find to be a whole separate issue). I think that implies that the way they see me, or what they think about sex, is ultimately going to be offensive.
It must be a common problem, because this post immediately struck home.
It’s a way to keep the upper hand, and on this specific question, it’s a way to erase the specific gendered nature of certain kinds of oppression.
Thea, interesting point. Without, you know, tip-toeing around a woman, it’s probably best to realize that jumping on everything a woman says is contextualized, in our culture, with dismissing her completely and encouraging her to be seen and not heard.
Men shouldn’t be afraid of women who speak their minds. They should fear those that don’t.
Okay, maybe “fear” is too strong. How about “be wary”? I have a long-term, healthy relationship with my wife, because we have fun, informed, silly, serious, goofy, outraged, intellectual and anti-intellectual conversations. Because she is smart, funny, and more than willing to let her opinion be known. And stubborn? Woman is a brick. But so am I. I respect her opinion, she respects mine -even, or especially when we disagree. She has strong knowledge areas; me, too - and that’s where deference (properly understood) come in.
I’m not trying to toot our horn, because we have had bad times, too (what with being fallible humans and all.) But it is important to reflect on what makes a relationship work. And why het men are better off with het women (and vice-versa) that they can communicate with.
Here’s my feminist boyfriend dilemma: paying for dinner. I fully understand all the problems with it, but my girlfriend definitely appreciates it. Thoughts?
React like you’d react if one of your guy friends was acting really pissed off — i.e. assume that maybe it’s not about you until proven otherwise, and maybe just ask “Dude, is everything all right?” rather than getting all pissy because her anger makes you uncomfortable.
Absolutely. Excellent point.
… jumping on everything a woman says is contextualized, in our culture, with dismissing her completely and encouraging her to be seen and not heard.
Yep… Took me a while to become aware of this.
Trade off. If one of you is richer than the other, the one who’s paying chooses the restaurant. Rich person buys dinner at Le Cher Rosbif, poor person buys dinner at Sbarro. No one feels taken advantage of.
Some of us cannot help freaking/tuning out because angry displays, especially loud temper tantrums tend to trigger traumatic memories of abusive authority figures like some older relatives or some of junior high and high school teachers, especially when the anger was caused by something that we had nothing to do with.
To some extent, this sounds like the “No matter what, it is your fault” BS my cousins, classmates, and I had to put up with growing up.
Moreover, I was raised to believe it is wrong to subject another person to one’s anger unless s(he) is the cause/reason for it.
Absolutely. I wouldn’t even say fight, exactly–just don’t get in the habit of being silent just because it’s a *little thing*. You teach people how to treat you; I tend to think of speaking up on the little shit as nipping potential problems in the bud.
That is a very uncharitable reading of what you are responding to. In fact the whole point was to assume it wasn’t your fault!
Here’s my feminist boyfriend dilemma: paying for dinner. I fully understand all the problems with it, but my girlfriend definitely appreciates it. Thoughts?
Minor league.
Ugly In Pink has it right. Either take turns or split the bill, whichever makes y’all more comfortable. Unless of course one of you is ‘richer’ (for lack of a short and to the point term) than the other, in which case that person should pay more often. But not ‘always’ unless the other partner is absolutely shit broke and you’d never be able to go out otherwise.
If your girlfriend expects you to always pay simply because you have a penis, you might be barking up the wrong tree in terms of desiring a feminist relationship. Takes two to tango.
Tanglethis, it sounds like your boyfriend was just a garden variety asshole.
Eh, he treated me more like a human being than most. No one can completely emerge unscathed from toxic gender constructions, although some do better than others.
That was my point, actually. Aside from the obvious qualifiers (that not all men fall into this category and many men define masculinity in their own way), current culturally coded masculinity is very, very troubled in part because it doesn’t value equal humane relationships. I wouldn’t say “treat me like one of the guys” for the same reasons I wouldn’t say “I’m a girly-girl”… I think both terms refer to an equally problematic construct.
Some of us cannot help freaking/tuning out because angry displays, especially loud temper tantrums tend to trigger traumatic memories of abusive authority figures like some older relatives or some of junior high and high school teachers, especially when the anger was caused by something that we had nothing to do with.
If you are so sensitive that any display of anger, frustration, or moodiness will send you into a panic attack, you should probably seek therapy. I don’t say this flippantly, I’m quite serious. That’s a little beyond the pale in terms of typical human behavior.
I’ll also add to the ‘feminist relationship guidebook’ that guys should remember that their girlfriend gets to have a hard day, be in a bad mood, or need to vent just like they do sometimes. And in relation to that, your girlfriend does not exist simply to be a receptacle for all your negative energy (with added feature — blowjobs!). This can especially be a problem when you live together.
@ Tanglethis — I don’t know, maybe I’ve just been with really atypical men, but I haven’t really experienced that whole ‘mah boyz’ thing. And anybody I was interested in who had those sort of sitcom-stereotypical relationships with other men would set of serious alarm bells for me, because I don’t think you can really separate someone’s mode of dealing with other people from how they deal with their partner. Regardless of the gender of either set of people.
And for the love of god, don’t get into semantic arguments with your feminist girlfriend.
That certainly makes sense. Though it’s always a struggle to keep myself in check when a freakishly large part of my professional training is in how to do semantic arguments right. I remember getting into a tiff with litbrit over the word ‘about’ back when we were starting the new blog. Was embarrassing.
exholt, I don’t mean passively accepting her taking out her bad mood on you, or accepting responsibility for her bad mood when it’s not yours. I’m talking about when she’s ranting about something else that happened that day, or shouting at a bad driver on the road. Does that make sense?
And Margalis, yeah. My whole point was “Assume it isn’t your fault and don’t react like she’s accused you personally of pissing her off.”
If your partner of whatever gender is violent and abusive towards you in their anger, then you have the right to leave and not put up with that. I’m talking about responding to any female anger as though it were automatically over-the-top.
A classic Doonsbury parable from thirty years ago . . .
Thanks to Title Nine, a quarterback is quizzing his football team: “What would you do if you realized that the snarling, raging linebacker charging at you was female?” Voted answer: “Try to calm her down.”
Don’t treat a woman’s anger like it was a unnatural act requiring intervention. Treat it like you would a man’s anger, by basing your actions, for or against, on the cause.
A classic Doonsbury parable from thirty years ago . . .
Thanks to Title Nine, a quarterback is quizzing his football team: “What would you do if you realized that the snarling, raging linebacker charging at you was female?” Voted answer: “Try to calm her down.”
Don’t treat a woman’s anger like it was a unnatural act requiring intervention. Treat it like you would a man’s anger, by basing your actions, for or against, on the cause.
When my friends are moody or frustrated, I would do the above.
If they are angry, especially enough to yell or throw tantrums, no. When friends/roommates are angry enough to throw tantrums/yell, I usually withdraw so they would eventually cool off first before uttering a word.
If they continue to yell/escalate after my attempt to leave them along to cool off, I usually quip a statement such as “I understand we all have bad days, but that does not give you the license to take your anger out on me.”
In my experience, it is rarely helpful/productive to talk to someone who is angry enough to be yelling/throwing tantrums, especially when they are in the midst of one.
Agree. With venting, however, I cannot help feeling that venting is doing friends/partners a grave injustice unless s(he) is a direct cause/reason for the anger in the first place.
Exholt, to be fair, I don’t think anybody here is talking about temper tantrums. Not counting huge relationship-breaking earth-shattering fights (which WERE about that person, not just taking shit out on them), I think I’ve yelled or thrown a tantrum in the presence of a girlfriend/boyfriend maybe 10 times ever. And I’d consider myself of typical temperament.
I read the “gets angry in your vicinity” comment and subsequent discussion as being about the person snapping, whining, bitching, nagging, venting, being visibly pissed off. And, well, it happens. Especially if you live with someone. When you live with your girlfriend or boyfriend, you can’t really be angry or in a funk without the other person having to deal with it on some level. Keeping all your emotions bottled up just because you share living space with another person is not really a viable option.
Noah April 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Here’s my feminist boyfriend dilemma: paying for dinner. I fully understand all the problems with it, but my girlfriend definitely appreciates it. Thoughts? ”
unless the lady ask not to, she feels uncomfortable or might lead to uncomfortable situation, the gentleman pays. ALWAYS.
i always have backwards problems.
my boyfriend jokes that he dates me for my memory. he sometimes introduces me as his brain. now, a LOT of this is poking fun at his epic goldfish memory (i am so beyond joking… he can’t remember what he watched on TV 10 MINUTES ago) and a lot more is because he really really likes that i am smart.
which then bothers me because of the whole cultural atitude that smart women aren’t sexy.
and, conversly, when he tells my i am sexy, i am bothered because sexy women aren’t smart.
YES, this is my problem. stupid, no?
its just i spent years and years being treated as a barbie doll and shocking people when i opened my mouth. hell, my ex husband divorced me because he hated that i was smarter than he was. now, i have a guy who wants me for my brain. who thinks is erotic when i say “ellucidate”
i fell into Bizzaro World. and i can’t get him to UNDERSTAND why it freaks me out. because he has never ever treated me as a “bimbo”; to my knowledge (and we have been together for 4 years and i have known him for almost 7) he has NEVER treated anyone that was. so he doesn’t get it.
i know, i know, stop bitching about (almost) perfection. but he doesn’t understand sexism. he sees it, and it confuses him, and he always thinks its on a PERSONAL leval. i don’t know how to show him that its institutional. (to be fair, he feels the same way about racism, and he’s black. sometimes i just think he’s the most sheltered and naive man EVAR)
he doesn’t understand sexism. he sees it, and it confuses him, and he always thinks its on a PERSONAL leval.
It’s not just you.
A lot of people, whether inside or outside the oppressed group in question, will not let themselves see that this stuff is institutionalized. In the case of guys and sexism, I think a big part of it is just that they haven’t experienced it, so they can’t possibly know. Although there are also many women who don’t see the way they’re treated as being anything more than personal.
I find dealing with these folks frustrating sometimes, because it causes me to call my own sanity into question (especially when the person considers her/himself a feminist!). Am I just completely nuts to see sexism in my daily life? Can all the people who say the revolution has come and gone be right? Maybe I’m just paranoid.
I think that, in the case of your boyfriend, this is a situation where deference really is the best friend of the feminist man. If your girlfriend says it’s sexism, then it is!
He does? Why?
Because squashed is posting from 1926 again!
He does? Why?
Because if he doesn’t pay, he can’t blackmail her into having sex with him, or call her a gold-digging bitch to his friends when she dumps his sorry ass.
Actually, when I read the thread of feministe, and saw “deference is a privileged person’s best friend” I read it as a critique of deference, in other words, that privileged people /bold choose /bold to be deferential, instead of doing the work on their own, like they would if they really cared. But perhaps I misread it.
Amanda, sometimes you are just good, and sometimes you are great.
This was you being great: “I thought, “Hell, I could write that book,” but when I actually started to think about it, I found myself drawing a blank. There’s a lot of trite, obvious answers like, “Eat pussy and don’t make PMS cracks,” but I’m committed to treating people like they aren’t stupid and I don’t think anyone interested in this question is so stupid they haven’t thought of this.”
Talk about a concise overview of the issue!
OT - I do hope you comment on the sexist, cruel, stupid, rightwing prosecution of the D.C. Madam, as reported in the Post Friday. The righwing establishment has two modes: massive cruelty and small cruelty. The small cruelty involved in humiliating those women in the courtroom sickened me beyond the usual sickness. This has the mark of the Regency University Justice Department all over it.
Beside this problem:
, if the fool who is being deferential is an emotionally whole being, this is an act and a strain…and eventually something snaps.Thom April 12, 2008 at 8:59 pm
unless the lady ask not to, she feels uncomfortable or might lead to uncomfortable situation, the gentleman pays. ALWAYS. // He does? Why? ”
It saves time negotiating. What kind of guy gonna make a scene with his date after a dinner? Unless the lady says something, the gent should always pick up the tab. End of story. It’s the protocol. (assuming this is not some accidental dinner, but he did say “g/f, dinner, etc)
End of story. It’s the protocol.
And he should always make sure to ask her father for permission to propose to her. It’s the protocol.
junk science April 12, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Because if he doesn’t pay, he can’t blackmail her into having sex with him, or call her a gold-digging bitch to his friends when she dumps his sorry ass.
did he say business dinner or dinner with g/f? If it’s date dinner with g/f the basic protocol has been set. If the lady is not comfortable with it, then she would have said something. The guy should take note. At any moment until the bill is being paid.
After that, if the guy says, “I paid dinner, where is my sex.” Then dump him pronto. He is a creep.
If the girl can’t decide what she wants, how she wants it outside the basic protocol, then she is giving a grand case. Time to move on. (unless this is middle school pizza party.)
(Anyway this is dinner with g/f right? not accidental casual dinner with random somebody. Even then the guy should casually offer as a simple gesture. And the lady defines how the situation should be maintain.)
junk science April 12, 2008 at 10:36 pm
End of story. It’s the protocol.
And he should always make sure to ask her father for permission to propose to her. It’s the protocol.”
Unless she says something. Which she should if she wants to do it differently. It’s the default setting.
(obviously, marriage/family is whole different ball game than paying dinner. ..I mean if the two haven’t figure out how to deal with dinner bill, dealing with integrating family, tradition and personal believe are way too advance don’t you think? …)
I’ve got an amusing anecdote about the last part with the name changing. I really wanted to do the hyphen-thing, but she wanted to change her name to mine, because she hated the idea of writing the full, hyphenated name. Then we decided on adding her last name as second middle names to both of our names, so that we could hyphenate when we felt like it. Then we got married. Then we were really lazy, and decided to just keep our names different.
Then she got a check for her birthday with my last name on it. That lead to sitting in the Social Security office, changing her name to match mine, because she didn’t want to ask her uncle for a new check. Now, we both have my name, and there is no way we are going back to the fucking social security office anytime soon. That. Was. Horrible.
Poor Squashed - he’s so addicted to security of those hoary old rules that he can’t see the awesome inherent in two adults navigating a relationship as equals without falling back on all that bullshit. I mean, come on, what guy wouldn’t jump all over the part of feminism that has women throwing money at them for dinner and entertainment? If you both have enough money for two people to have fun, then you can have twice as much fun as if only he paid, right?
Sure, a guy does have to think more in that situation, and actually communicate with his girlfriend, as opposed to waiting for her to reset from default and make him stop blinking 12:00 over and over again, so getting half your meals free isn’t exactly free. But I think it’s a good trade.
“Then she got a check for her birthday with my last name on it.”
My bank has yet to have a real problem with me depositing a check made out to my first name + husband’s last name, provided I sign it both ways. The manager once said I ought to bring a copy of our marriage license in if I was going to do that, but nobody’s had issue with it since then.
Apparently when a friend of mine who just got married went in for her name-change paperwork with the SS office, the woman who finished it up announced that her maiden name no longer existed. As in “Jane Smith no longer exists!”. Creeped her out to no end.
Kyso K April 12, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I mean, come on, what guy wouldn’t jump all over the part of feminism that has women throwing money at them for dinner and entertainment? If you both have enough money for two people to have fun, then you can have twice as much fun as if only he paid, right? ”
I am giving a default solution for a vague case.
anyway … sure. I am all for paid expensive dinner. But how many expensive dinner have you gotten that way? Down economy and all. Unless the lady asks not to, the gent pays for dinner. (we are still taking about first or second dinner with gf/bf type of situation right?) If it is business dinner, whoever invites pay. And bring that corporate bling. Casual lunch, mostly dutch these days.
Squashed:
I could have been more specific. I mean, “Why would a gentleman always pay, barring your specified exceptions?” I understand that you take it to be protocol, but the question is going to be why it is good to follow this protocol in the first place.
I’ll grant that it saves time negotiating, but the same would be true of the woman paying all the time, so that only leads back to negotiating as both parties reach for the check. Selecting one gender as the default payer doesn’t seem fair, since there are other selection methods (whoever invites, whoever didn’t pay last time, etc.) More problematic, I’m bisexual feminist–when I take guys out, “gentleman pays” means one of us won’t be a gentleman. And even if none of these problems existed, this is an argument for why a method is effective, not whether the method should be effected in the first place.
So, why does a gentleman pay?
I like the “don’t just defer” advice. Deference for its own sake, deference of the “yes dear, whatever you say dear” variety is the very essence of patronizing.
The “who pays for dinner” question is a genuinely hard one, because even if you’re a genuinely feminist and egalitarian guy, you also don’t want to come across as a cheapskate, or as someone who will nickel and dime the people they’re close to. And ideas about gender roles are often entrenched enough that you might not want to automatically exclude someone from consideration as a long-term girlfriend if they don’t start picking up the check unprompted some of the time, early on.
I think if I were a guy I would plan on picking up the check, but not argue if the woman did, at least for the first couple of dates.
Andrea Dworkin’s husband?
My general rule has been to always offer to pay on early dates, with the following subtext: “I’m regarding this as a date, and I’m interested in you, and I’ll use paying as a conventionalized way of signalling my interest and the dateness of what’s going on, since it’s what guys traditionally have done on dates.” If I weren’t terribly clumsy with other ways of expressing my interest early in a relationship, maybe I’d do something else. But I am, so that’s what I’m stuck with doing.
If she says “Okay, but I’ll get the next one”, I’m thinking — “there’s going to be a next one? wooo! victory!” unless she’s really boring and I don’t want a next one.
If she says that she wants to pay for her share, it’s unclear whether she sees the thing as a non-date or whether she just doesn’t like having people pay for her. So I try not to draw any conclusions, though my natural swings of hope and hopelessness will inevitably bring me to some conclusion or another.
I know what you mean. My girlfriend made a friend at school–really interesting guy, brilliant artist–who escaped a rather horrifying childhood, and I’m ridiculously nervous about having him over because I have no idea how to react to that kind of thing. (I mean, I’m still going to have him over, because, y’know, brilliant and interesting, but I’m going to be nervous.)And here’s something I haven’t seen mentioned, though I might have skipped it somewhere. I learned it the hard way ’round, and I learned it far more slowly than I should have.
Our culture gives so many fucked-up messages to women about their bodies that if you, as a dude, say absolutely nothing about her body, she’ll almost certainly think she’s a freakish beast. If you tell her she’s not, frequently and in great detail, she may feel a bit less like a freakish beast, but don’t count on it. Seems unfair? Blame the patriarchy; it’s not her fault.
When I was just a kid, back in the late ‘’60s, early ’70s, I saw a couple of TV commercials for oral hygiene products that I’ve never been able to forget. Crest toothpaste, I think, featured two very different spots, one with a girl and one with a boy, in which the on-camera announcer had a kid brush their teeth, ask them if they did a good job and then gave them a red chewable tablet that showed they did a shitty job, despite what they thought they did.
The announcer asked both the girl and boy if they thought they did a good job of brushing their teeth, and both kids said they did. The girl said, “yes, why?” in the most delicate, subdued and curious manner possible, showing great interest in what the announcer had to reveal to her.
The boy said, “yeah, why?” in the most obnoxious, aggressive and uninterested manner possible, daring the announcer to challenge his brushing abilities.
When the tablet revealed the equality of their lousy oral hygiene, each kid was upset, but the girl was mortified and the boy was pissed.
One other oral hygiene commercial still sticks with me to this day and I have no idea what product it was advertising. A little girl, probably about 8 or 9, but definitely pre-pubescent, has just finished brushing her teeth, and as she rinses her mouth, spits blood into the sink. Oddly, her brother and mother are both standing behind her when this happens and when she gets upset and wonders how such a thing might be, both of them get really nasty and in the most bitchy, accusatory tones possible for the time, say “It might be gingivitis, young lady!” with a fucking mind-blowing, hands-on-hips-, I-can’t-believe-you’re-such-a-foul-and-disgusting-thing sort of a look going on. The little girl is obviously very bad for having gingivitis. I was definitely old enough when this piece of shit aired to understand the menstrual connotation, but not to understand the media power structure that made it possible to be on the air at all.
It’s late and I just wanted to put something in here, because this is such an important post. Sexual differences can kill us if we let them, or they can provide endless comedic fodder. We get to choose which, maybe, if we can take the media away from the rich assholes that own it.
Regarding who pays for date, this is highly dependent on the woman being asked out. IME, I offered to pay as i was the one who usually asked her out, especially if it was the first date.
This is somewhat complicated by the fact i was raised in a Chinese-American home where it is considered always polite for an individual to insist on paying the entire check in any social setting….which makes dates with some Chinese/Chinese-American women interesting as we would both be insisting that each of us pay for that dinner and that the other should pay next time out of utter politeness. Contrary to conventional social custom, sometimes I pay and sometimes she pays…something which would cause some older relatives to wonder if my sense of social etiquette has faded into nothingness. I’m betting her older relatives would feel the exact same way about her if they were ever to find out.
Heck, this social convention always occurs every time my family or Chinese family friends get together for a social occasion….except it would be older relatives, each of whom would politely insisting on paying the entire bill (Unless specified, the young’uns are expected to defer to the elder generation on this.).
Would not surprise me as I had a similar experience…though in a different context.
On one check I received as payment for some contracted computer services, the payer made it out to my Chinese name as that was what he saw when he received emails from one old account I had.* Though I was concerned as all my official records use my English given name, the bank accepted the check without any complaint and the funds showed up.
To this day I am still shocked that the bank never followed up to ask why the check was made out to a wildly different firstname than what was on my account.
* That’s what I get for experimenting with using my Chinese name on my old email account.
Speaking for myself, it is too late to worry about that. Stopped caring if I came across as a cheapskate when I found mostly upper-middle class dude co-workers at my first corporate job would label me as such merely for not conforming to their spendthrift lifestyle of replacing their high-end furniture, electronics, computers, and cars every 3-6 months.
Better a contemptible cheapskate than an overentitled quasi-obnoxious upper-middle class consumer-drone who has the chutzpah to label me a cheapskate while whining about why they are having financial problems.
squashed sez:
I thought we were talking about further into the relationship…although now that I think about it, it’s right at the start of a relationship that “who pays” would be an issue–hopefully after you’ve been going out more than a couple of times, you’ve worked out a system that works for both of you. I still think that if you can actually talk to each other about it and not freak out because it’s omg money (hard to do, I admit), that is best. Paying half the time each sounds fair, to me, too. With friends, especially good friends, I often do the, “I have money this week so I’ll pick up the tab,” thing, or they’ll say the same when they’re doing well. But “guy pays by default” just brings up the question of WHY that is the default, and the answer is that it’s just because it’s traditional–which does not mean it’s logical necessarily.
In reference to the above, I find nearly ANY strong expression of emotion as strange and have a hard time dealing with it. My father, who I love deeply, always showed emotion in a very moderate manner, and would only be either angry or effusive when shitfaced to the gills.
It means I’m slightly afraid of such people, male or female, and assume they are not in their right mind. I also think I’m correct in this last assumption–I don’t have a high opinion of people who can’t hide their feelings.
temporis, for the record, I don’t have a high opinion of people who can’t SHOW their feelings. It strikes me as symptomatic of deep psychological damage, and I don’t find it acceptable for people to demand that others act as if they have the same damage, lest they be accused of not being in their right minds, just for the high crime of showing human emotion.
Bast
Heh. I never bothered to go to the SS# office when I changed my name. Every year after they’d send a letter once a year, complaining that my # belonged to someone else. I’d send ‘em a letter back, explaining that I’d changed my name. Eventually, after about 4 years of this, they got the message.
As for banks, unless you get a new teller, they are usually happy to take anything you give them. I’ve gotten more grief on wrong years, which inevitably happens in January, than I ever did with names.
Btw, I think I’ve found a fairly good method for dealing with the anti-spam filter. It’s worked reliably a few times now:
1. Type your post.
2. Hi-lite it, so it’s in your buffer or clipboard, or whatever.
3. You can try typing the numbers in the box. I always do, hoping against hope, but it’s probably not necessary, because when you
4. blaspheme, you’ll get an error message.
5. Use browser’s back button. With luck your post will come back. Hi-lite and delete. Or if it doesn’t, just paste in.
6. Type in the numbers.
7. Blaspheme successfully.
IOW, I think there’s a time limit built in somewhere, so if you can stick your post out there immediately, it will work. Caveats: I’m using firefox 2.0.0.13 running under Ubuntu 7.10 (gutsy gibbon), and my situation may not apply to yours.
woodland sunflower, that’s exactly what I do. (And hey, eleven days until Hardy! ‘Course, I won’t be installing it for a week or two after the release, just so they can get the really nasty bugs out.) I just hit reload before filling in the captcha–my comment stays in place, and the image is updated so it’ll be fresh when I fill it out.
Because we have a pretty skinny cash flow, my girlfriend and I don’t go out regularly; when we do, it’s when one of us offers to treat. (If one of us is really short on cash, we’ll ask the other to get it, but this is a rare exception.) It seems as obvious and straightforward a method as any, and I don’t see why it couldn’t be extended to first dates as well–the person who did the asking does the paying.
Noah @ 22: Here’s my feminist boyfriend dilemma: paying for dinner. I fully understand all the problems with it, but my girlfriend definitely appreciates it. Thoughts?
Fit the solution to the problem. Is this about money, about traditional expectations, about her not having to carry a purse, about something else entirely? Is the situation uncomfortable for you or for her?
Here’s some feminist boyfriend advice: if your girlfriend points out that your ideology makes you a feminist (while wearing a feministing t-shirt), don’t freak out. It makes you look like before she pointed that out, you treated her beliefs like a cute little delusion that never applies to you.
squashed, protocol depends on where you are (the “when you are” joke has been made), and who you are with. I’d accept that the guy should not be surprised if he gets stuck with the bill, unless it was agreed on beforehand that he would not, because post-hoc debates about money are a miserable thing…
Thom April 13, 2008 at 12:15 am
I’ll grant that it saves time negotiating, but the same would be true of the woman paying all the time, so that only leads back to negotiating as both parties reach for the check. Selecting one gender as the default payer doesn’t seem fair, ”
Because it’s the default position. If nothing else is known… yadda yadda.
Like I say, if somebody already says “dinner” and “girlfriend”, at the very least some parameters are known for the dinner event, since a person already have a label for said relationship. (gf)
The default position merely the simplest solution in a situation where nothing else is known. (somebody gotta pay the bill? who?) Usually first or second encounter. The point is to solve awkward situation quickly when nothing else is known. (absolutely nothing. which is very rare occasion.)
naturally each dating scene has it’s own rules. But most people already have general idea before going out to a “dinner” how things will play out.
take your example. If you “take” somebody out, it means somebody initiate, made the invitation, and made the effort. that person is THE HOST. He or she pays. That’s the default, in case of nothing else is known and everything else is presumed equal. (I mean I assume you know enough about that guy to know that this is what you want and he knows it too?)
Of course the very point of who pays for dinner, is just that. What is the social context, default frame work of agreement if both person can’t decide.
If the more traditional ‘guy pay’ mode is bad idea, then go business mode, or estimate who wears the pants. (I mean, there is simply ask, raise the issue you know. if this is such a big deal to party involved, then the dinner is exactly the place to figure it out. That’s the point of dating right? figure out the relationship framework.)
If one wants to reject a framework, then alternative framework agreement should be provided. And both party involves better know what. (informed, both party thinks it’s fair, etc.)
If a person doesn’t know what framework to use and insist everybody else must use rules that nobody else can possibly know and not bothering to let other people know what the rules are. Then MOVE ON. You know right there you are dealing with biggest clueless bipeds in the planet. Doesn’t know what rules to use and can’t negotiate what rules are good to use for party involved.
Not only you are dealing with somebody who doesn’t know what the rules are, insist to insert some new rules that he can’t elaborate, incapable to estimate what is acceptable in each part involves,… AND he also misses the entire point of the event that takes place (have a good time at dinner)
You are dealing with very basic thoughtlessness and zero idea what being ‘just’ means, let alone social grace.
that’s not a date. that’s masochist heaven or social experiment gone wrong.
inge April 13, 2008 at 8:37 am
squashed, protocol depends on where you are (the “when you are” joke has been made), and who you are with. I’d accept that the guy should not be surprised if he gets stuck with the bill, unless it was agreed on beforehand that he would not, because post-hoc debates about money are a miserable thing…”
that’s what I say inside the long caveat. I only give “default” protocols. (I mean, in a boy-girl dinner date, if the girl hasn’t defined how the dinner payment suppose to go. And a guy has no reason not to pay. He should pay. That’s just the way it goes, unless he plans to make a scene.)
In such situation, clearly the relationship is so new nothing is defined. Or it’s accidental dinner date, where nobody has a plan. (hence the need for ‘default’ protocols.)
Actually, the first answer that occurred to me is “Ask a gay man.”
It took us awhile, but we’ve sort of started getting a handle on egalitarian relationships, and that’s really what it’s about, no?
Ack! The who-pays thing drives me mental! I have a boyfriend who is really, really good about everything else but was raised in the man-always-pays mindset, and he will. not. let. me. spring for dinner! In fact, once he gave me back the money I gave him to help with the price.
And that makes it difficult when he asks me to choose where to go out, or what I want when I get there, because I know I won’t be paying the tab.
[Disclaimer: we haven’t been together for that long, so we’re still working it out, this isn’t a multi-year setup or anything]
I hate to nitpick such a generally great article, but I disagree with one small point.
““Why, I think that we should name the children after you, darling, because I’m certainly not going to be pushing them out of my penis.” “
While this would be an awesome thing for my boyfriend to say, on one level…
I want equality, dammit, not special privileges in childrearing based on my vagina!
Which means I, and any hypothetical father to my children (who has a role in their lives), will be deciding on our children’s names together. Because it will be a partnership.
I have a question for men. Why is it so hard for you ? What is wrong that it is so hard to treat women as decent people ? Do you say how do I be a good friend to my men ?
And for the love of god, don’t get into semantic arguments with your feminist girlfriend.
See, this is a perfect example of how nothing is universal. My boyfriend and I argue semantics. All. The. Time. It’s entertainment for us.
Of course, I must specify that our nitpicking is overlaid on a foundation of respect for one another’s opinions. If the semantics argument were a way of disrespecting one another, it wouldn’t be fun.
What I found difficult in the beginning of our relationship were my boyfriend’s Southern manners. He opens doors, holds chairs, opens car doors, wants to carry everything, always wants to pay for everything. This is deeply ingrained in him. I’m an independent northern girl, and I was not used to this behavior, and I didn’t trust it at first. I assumed that it must carry some sort of agenda or assumption that I couldn’t take care of myself.
I have seen how “chivalry” can translate into “I paid for dinner, now give me sex” thinking and how it can translate into scary control freak issues. It took me a few months before I really trusted that wasn’t the case with him. In our case, it was complicated by the fact that he makes gobs more money than I do, and I was uncomfortable with that disparity.
What makes the relationship work is respect.
Everything comes down to that. You want to be a feminist boyfriend (or girlfriend) show respect for your partner. And respect for yourself. And respect for the dynamic that is the relationship.
It really is that simple. And that complicated.
Data point:
Middle and working class black women in Atlanta are strongly in favor of guy pays for the dinner.
It just seems pretty evident to them that guys who expects sex for dinner is a creep.
Let’s just say I got into a workplace argument.
I think it’s the whole they want R.E.S.P.E.C.T, and not deference thing.
You know. There aren’t any rules. You actually have to figure them out as you go along, with empathy to others.
“I have a question for men. Why is it so hard for you ? What is wrong that it is so hard to treat women as decent people ?”
Societies (almost all, all over the world) are absolutely saturated with messages: How different men and women are from each other; How completely different women and men think; How difficult/impossible for men to understand women; How men’s “natural” role is provide/protect/lead/control/act, whereas women’s “natural” role is to nurture/care/be-passive/be-acted-upon, etc. Both genders are programmed with these messages.
Men in most situations probably think they ARE treating women well/decently, not seeing that many of these behaviors are really unfair, insulting, and counter-productive.
I think what gets lost in these discussions is these ideas/behaviors/roles were probably valid/helpful/advantageous before modern medicine, birth control, technology, and industrialization allowed women to neutralize their biological differences with men.
While human cultures change much more rapidly than human genetics, it still takes time to make major shifts - and moving from a general belief in women’s difference/inferiority to believing women are equal to men can’t/won’t happen quickly.
Just my perspective, and I could just be talking out of my ass without realizing it…
It’s difficult because men, like women, are raised in a patriarchal society that encourages them to treat women as second-class humans and punishes them for treating them as decent and equal folks. Moreover, a lot of the objectionable treatment of women is presented as the proper way to respect them as persons; chivalry is a perfect example of this, and you need not look any further than the debate over who pays for dinner to see how things get confused.
Women feel the oppression of patriarchy most directly and so are more acutely aware of the various modes of the patriarchy’s oppression. But not even all women become feminists; some make their careers by reassuring men (and other non-feminist women) that there is no patriarchy. By being one step removed from much of this direct oppression but subjected to its pernicious socialization, men largely start in the dark with regards to feminism, or even the need for it.
NONE of that is to excuse men for not treating women as full human beings of equal worth. There are no shortage of books or actual women who make the problematic existence of patriarchy plain. But reading books and listening to women is also something that, in a patriarchal society, men are not encouraged to do. Again, that’s no excuse–no more excuse than systemic racism excuses unreflective (or even well-intentioned) racism.
So, yes, it is ridiculous that “treat women like human beings” is so hard for many men to grasp–though I would add that even feminist women disagree over how this is worked out in the details–but the simplicity of the demand runs up against a lot of competing ideology that the hearer must (and should!) work through before it can really sink in.
I really don’t mean this as an apologia for non-feminist men; however difficult socialization makes becoming a feminist, it doesn’t make it impossible, and there is no excuse for continued blindness to complicity in the oppression of other human beings. That is, though, my answer for why so many men have problems with the simple dictate to treat women as decent people. No one is born a feminist, and there’s a lot of unlearning that must be done before even getting to step one.
On preview, MikeEss beat me to it.
I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been said, but my advice is the following:
- Don’t automatically negate what she says when she talks about examples of sexism that she’s experienced in her life. Nothing pisses me off more than when someone tells me something didn’t happen when they weren’t even there.
- Don’t treat her anger like it’s irrational. Don’t tell women that they are more emotional or more gossipy. That’s just not true.
- Don’t automatically judge women on their attractiveness. One thing that pisses me off the most is when men (and women as well sometimes) call a woman in the news “ugly.” Why does that matter? Does it have anything to do with their prominence? It seems almost automatic when a woman is in the news that a discussion of her attractiveness ensues.
- As for paying - the person who initiates the date should pay. I usually offer to split the check but it’s not a source of angst for me (of course I’m married so perhaps my advice doesn’t count here).
OK why is it so easy to men to believe the patriarchal society ? Some men ask how to be better and still find it too hard !! My grandmother would have an answer for you (to naughty children):
“would you like it if someone did it to you ?”
“Don’t automatically judge women on their attractiveness. One thing that pisses me off the most is when men (and women as well sometimes) call a woman in the news “ugly.””
If I had a buck for every time I’ve heard a guy snigger while judging some woman they’ve seen, work with, etc. And I would be lying if I said I’d never done it myself.
Facing up to the reality of how wrong this is may be painful, but it’s necessary if males are to recognize this as inappropriate behavior and take steps to eliminate it…
I’ve wracked my brain all morning trying to think of some advice that hasn’t been said already in this thread, and all I could come up with was this:
Never try to explain away a difference in taste by saying, “It’s just a guy thing.” In our society, maleness is equated to superiority; she knows this. When you say “It’s a guy thing,” you may THINK you’re saying something mild, but it will most likely come across as, “Where we differ, my opinion is always better because I have a penis.”
Unstable Isotope, I agree. I am going to split the check everytime I go out with a woman.
I am going to add that Tanglethis (April 12 @ 16:07) have some more great points out there as well.
All in all, if we are going to change this society for the better, the patriarchy needs to die.
when they get all quiet and deferential. I feel marked, like I’m some born victim, and that’s not who I am or how I feel.
Not knowing how to respond, but wanting most of all not to be hurtful, I would be quiet as the default response. Maybe the purpose of their deference is just to avoid probing a sore spot, or avoid peeling the scab off a healing wound. I would be looking for you to set the boundaries for any discussion. (”I can talk about it now”; “it still hurts too much to talk about”, etc.)
Nothere:
I don’t know what you’re looking for. Yes, it is supremely fucked up that so many men buy into the patriarchy. It is supremely disturbing that it is apparently so hard to reject (or easy to embrace, depending on your perspective). But if the long socialization answer doesn’t satisfy, I don’t know what to say. It certainly isn’t the case that there is some biological fact about maleness that makes men predisposed to patriarchy–some males reject it, some women embrace it, and patriarchy takes a variety of forms across time and culture. It’s easy to believe the patriarchy because that’s what we–both men and women, but especially men in this respect–were taught to believe, much in the way that the outrageous claims of religion are easy for people to believe because that’s what they were taught to believe.
“Would you like it if it were done to you” only can break through once the hearer recognizes that the oppressed is being oppressed and is similar to zirself in the relevant ways. That’s exactly what the patriarchy denies.
“No one is born a feminist, and there’s a lot of unlearning that must be done before even getting to step one.”
I think everyone IS born ‘a feminist’, and then is indoctrinated into the patriarchy, THEN has to unlearn it. So, it’s like step 3, maybe 4.
My problem was that I was automatically deferential in most things—if you have to fight for everything you say, you’re only going to do so if it’s really important. Which created fights, because I would fight when it was in fact important, which would startle the man who had grown accustomed to thinking he was smarter than me and always right on every point of disagreement, and then things completely fell apart.*
Oh RIGHT ON, Amanda. I keep having this problem exactly, but not with romantic partners — I’m happily and very luckily married to a feminist man who is more than comfortable with my opinions and my breadwinning — but with male colleagues. And I keep wondering why people who were ostensibly work friends let fly in such an ugly way the first time I politely disagreed with them.
Thank you for reinforcing my growing understanding of that messed-up dynamic . . .
I am going to have to be braver in dealing with them on a day-to-day basis, it seems.
No matter how helpful and kind and hardworking-at-scutwork you are, it suere as hell never buys you an ounce of respect. It’s very strange to know this on a perisnal lavel and only be waking up to it slowly on a professional level.
Is a 2-second interaction about who gets the check after dinner really that hard? So hard that you should just default to patriarchal idiocy rather than actually bring up the heinous topic of money? Srsly?
Most of dates, especially early on in things where there’s no pre-established ‘protocol’, are pretty casual. I mean, not White Castle or anything, but we’re not talking an amount of money that would break the bank if either of us were to pay our own way or if one of us were to end up with the whole bill. You don’t drag a first date to Chez Stuffée, on principle. If I went out with someone who suggested something way out of my price range, and then expected me to pay for it (especially if they know what I do for a living, where I live, and other clues to my financial situation), I would probably not go out with them much longer.
And if I invite, I usually make sure I can foot the whole bill if need be — I think this is actually where the ‘gentlemen pay’ thing comes up. In heteronormative patriarchy, the man initiates. And it would be genuinely rude to invite a woman out to dinner and then expect her to pay for the whole thing.
At the same time, once things have been established as a date, and not just a friendly outing, I have no problem with just going dutch.
Agreed. Will own up to doing this as a child/adolescent….
As I grew older, however, I slowly realized appearance has little, if any bearing on whether someone is capable.
It is one reason why I cannot stand watching news with parents/older relatives when I visit them. Moreover, whenever I ask them what bearing does a reporter’s looks have on whether they are a good/bad news anchor, they reply dismissively that I am “taking things too seriously” and that I need to learn how to “stop trying to overthink/overanalyze things.”
As far as I can tell, almost no one but Caroline has brought up housework. For me, this is possibly the single biggest thing, given that I generally assume a man who identifies as feminist and respects that I’m one as well will already bring a baseline level of respect to the table.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEWORK. (Building on what M. Leblanc said.) This will mean different things to different couples. But what it should NEVER mean is “I will do half of what I notice as being necessary to keep up my low standards, and if she doesn’t want to live in a messy house she can do the rest.” Nor should it mean “I will do chores when she tells me to do them.” Because that is still putting the responsibility for noticing and initiating on her, and it is NOT FAIR. What it means is figuring out what levels you both can live with and be happy with, and splitting them equitably. You don’t have to split every chore - maybe one of you hates cleaning floors and the other hates cleaning bathrooms, so you each take responsibility for the one you don’t hate. But it shouldn’t mean that you do “male chores” like yardwork or trash, which typically take far less time over the course of a week or month or year, and she takes all the indoor chores like dishes and counters, etc., which take way more time. That is not being fair.
And, once more with feeling, don’t put her in the position of needing to tell you to do your chores. It sucks. No one wants to feel like the mother or the nag. Just do them.
Thom, excuse me. A man knows there is a problem “how can I be a good boyfriend” but then it is really too hard to think of a woman as a decent person like himself !!!!!! You do not have to explain any more.
Thom, excuse me. A man knows there is a problem “how can I be a good boyfriend” but then it is really too hard to think of a woman as a decent person like himself !!!!!! You do not have to explain any more.
nothere: No, I don’t, because it doesn’t seem like you’re actually asking a question, or, if so, not listening to the answer. I *agree* that it’s inexcusable and unjustifiable. I *agree* that such a guy is an asshole. If you want to know why such assholes abound, I don’t know another explanation that passes the smell test.
I understand (I think) that you’re referring to the other person’s reaction over time, i.e. treating you like you’re fragile and refusing to interact in any meaningful way, but I’d really like some help on what would be an appropriate initial reaction.
If someone I knew (especially if it was someone I cared about/had a relationship with) told me that had been assaulted, I really wouldn’t know what the right reaction would be. I’m sure I would have no idea what to say other than “Oh my god, that’s terrible. I’m so sorry that happened to you”, and then wait to see how the person wanted me to treat any further discussion.
What should one say to differentiate empathy from pity?
Regarding housework — this is hard, because I, the female, am a total slob. It’s not exactly fair for me to make a lot of noise about a 50-50 split on chores, and then not hold up my end of the bargain.
The only thing that annoys me about housework is if I feel like the guy expects me to be a live-in maid, shrink, and whore. That ain’t cool. I also get sensitive to things that only I ever do — living with a male roommate right now I’m always on him about why I’m the only one to buy toilet paper. Which isn’t really housework per se, just something I’ve noticed. I swear he cuts down to one sheet per poo when he sees us start to run out so that he can weasel out of buying it when it’s his turn to buy groceries!
That said, there are things I absolutely abhor and will wiggle out of ever having to do, like emptying the bucket that collects our sink leakage.
In general, as long as things are relatively equitable and I don’t feel like a servant, I’m flexible on the housework front. This would probably be different if I had actual standards of cleanliness.
What should one say to differentiate empathy from pity?
I think the approach you described is just fine. It’s about what I do when I’m confronted with anyone’s personal tragedies.
It’s funny, the reaction I hate from men, regarding my own sexual assault, is the almost universal statement that if they had known me then this guy would be dead, or such men should be castrated, or some other show of cookie-cutter masculinity combined with an obvious “rapists suck” stance. It’s like men feel that they have to assure me they’re not cool with that, but they have to do it in a way that doesn’t emasculate them. The whole dynamic is really fucked up.
Anyhoo - the deference that annoys me when sexual assault comes up is more about victimhood than empathy. Some people will treat me like some kind of delicate flower after they find out this one teensy detail of my past, and it annoys the shit out of me. I think this is actually one reason I almost never talk about my own sexual assault in front of people I don’t already know well.
Wow. I remember who-should-get-the-check conversations 20 years ago. And people are still saying “guy” is the default in absence of income disparity. Wow.
Here’s another one along the lines of the deference discussion: Don’t expect her to read your mind just because she’s been socialized to understand “how guys think” for 20 years, and don’t imagine that you can read her mind either.
It’s a sad commentary on how guys are raised that failing to exercise Male Answer Syndrome when your girlfriend says something you disagree with but really know next to nothing about is considered “deference”, but there it is.
Oh, and another one: No Tootsie Syndrome (there, am I dating myself?). Don’t be More Feminist Than Thou, just because guys are better at everything, including being or thinking like women.
squashed, no one ever says “I paid for dinner, now where’s my sex?” Most assholes have the subtlety and decorum to at least be passive-aggressive about trying to shame women into fucking them.
Having the “default” position be that the guy picks up the check does have the advantage, for people like squashed, of not requiring thought. It also provides an easy way to let both people realize that they’re on a date and not just a friendly outing. It’s appealing to people who find it gauche to actually talk about what they want or expect.
Just my $.002, as I don’t date anymore: now being happily married. When I did date I came to the following two conclusions:
1) Treat women as human beings! - for all the f*cking talk of women are this and men are that, the reality is is that we are far more similar than different.
2) We are socialized with sexist/patriarchal beliefs: be aware of them. Re. the “who pays for a date” question: there is an inherent patriarchal signifer in a man always paying for a date; payment suggests some form of indebtedness or helplessness of the woman participating. When I dated I almost always paid — it simply it the way I was socialized, but I did it with an understanding of the patriarchal context. Being aware of the contexts of inequalities in social gestures means you are far less likely to see yourself as privileged over your date.
No Tootsie Syndrome (there, am I dating myself?)
It’s ok, I first read that as “no Tootie syndrome” and wondered what it would be like to date a guy who apparently thought he was a tiny black girl on rollerskates. Interesting… I wonder if he would wear those hair thingies with the rubber band and plastic balls on either end?
Opopomax, exactly. That’s why I said that it would vary from couple to couple. The important thing is the equitable part and the agreeing on standards part. (And “agreeing on standards” can’t be “guilting her into accepting the very low standards that I want to adhere to” even though it will make her unhappy/embarrassed about the home.) That’s not to say that compromise isn’t important; but make sure it’s BOTH of you compromising, not just her. “Compromise” doesn’t mean that she lowers her standards to yours and you grudgingly agree to do half of that. (Have i been there? Yes, I have. Why, could you tell?)
iirc my trackbacks are fuxxored, so I just wanted to let you know I wrote a bit of a rambling response here. Essentially, I don’t think we disagree — I was just sloppy in my wording. Please do at least let me know if I make any sense at all
Regarding housework: all my best friends are really messy, including one of my best female friends — and it turns out that her mother is really messy too.
If you are a messy guy you should probably not attach yourself to a woman who appears to be living in a model home, with the doorframes ready to pass a white glove inspection at any time.
Couples should divide the housework in any reasonable manner. I like washing things (pots and pans, floors, bathrooms, kitchens) and operating machinery (vacuum, rug shampooer). I can do any laundry as long as it is “machine wash warm tumble dry”. Dusting and hand laundry are unappealing to me.
On threads like these I’m always taken aback by hearing the level of condescension and just outright belittling women face as a matter of course. I’m chagrined to be reminded that we men collectively have a LOT of work to do.
Bah, I get a life for a couple of days and you people fill up the comment thread…
(so I missed the whole train about “honorary guyhood” and I realize that language disturbs some folks - it won’t work for every situation obviously but in case of my particular guy, we have a Big Sweet Shy Nerd who has no sisters, majored in a guy-dominated field, and never dated until I showed up, which is entirely another story. I think he’d decided being single was better than ending up with someone like his mama…)
He’s the neat freak, I’m the slob. The house we live in is 1000% tidier than any place I’ve ever lived by myself. He does most of the housework, mostly because he gets annoyed by the cat hair and dust blobs long before I notice there’s a problem. I feel slightly guilty about this, because I don’t want to dump it on him, but I just don’t NOTICE.
We have a system for dishes. One person cooks dinner, the other one does dishes and cleans up. Rotate by whoever’s home first or has something else to do, etc.
Speaking of which, it’s my turn to go make the mess.
junk science April 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm
It also provides an easy way to let both people realize that they’re on a date and not just a friendly outing.
Is it casual dinner with friend or is it a courtship date? pick one. The dynamic is different. Or is this one of those weird “humping-pal” situation.
There is entire philosophical treatise written analyzing friendship and lovers.
You know…this deference and no pity thing isn’t just for rape victims, you know…
The blind, deaf, and deformed also have heard it all, already, and when you date them as well, treating them like normal human being tends to work pretty well, even though it can take more work–such as repeating what you say to me often after my fourth Say Again?
nothere: In great part it’s because many women are taught to behave in ways that invite contempt, even if they are disguised or spun as “good manners”… such as expecting the man to pick up the check every time, with no discussion ever.
Another example: As a gesture, opening and holding a door for someone perfectly capable of opening her own door has always seemed to me more condescending than gracious. Expecting the door to be held for you thus (subtly, to be sure) invites contempt.
Likewise is speaking in what my wife and I call “little girl voice”, which seems epidemic among women lately.
This contemptible behavior, of course, does not excuse any abuse.
The semantics thing really hit home. That’s totally me. I just assume she recognizes my agreement with the substance of her agrument, so I move on to points of disagreement. I don’t know if I do this preferentially to woman. I think it’s just my way because I generally find agreement to be boring. You don’t get anything out of agreement. You learn and grow from hearing and discussing points of disagreement, so that’s where I tend to focus.
I will definitely try to explicitly state areas of agreement before moving to points of disagreement in the future, though.
If who pays for dinner is a major sticking point in your relationship that can’t be worked out without major hassles you’re probably fucked.
I suppose I’ve been lucky in that sometimes I offer to pay and sometimes my date does and it works out both evenly and amicably.
I would say have pity on guys who open doors, pull out chairs, etc., unless they persist in doing it after you ask them not to.
I agree with others that the most important thing is to treat people as individuals and respect what works for them.
Betsy @ 95, heh, I had actually started to write a paragraph about housework — beginning “Seriously, notice when the goddamn dishes need to be done. Go in the kitchen and look in the sink.” — but judging by the reaction to what I said about anger, I’m inclined to think it’s a good thing I didn’t.
I still think Anne Onne sums it up.
My boyfriend and I split the responsibility for the housework 50/50. We’re both equally lazy, but I still had a sense of responsibility for it that he didn’t have, so I spent a lot more time feeling guilty. Then we sat down and assigned who was responsible for what. I don’t know that things get done any more often, but I’m not the only one who does them anymore, and that makes a huge difference. Just knowing I don’t have to figure out dinner every night is a huge load off.
So yeah. I’d advise a guy who wants to be a feminist partner to take the initiative to suggest to his girlfriend that they sit down and split up the household responsibilities equitably, and bring a starting list of stuff that needs doing, and a starting idea of how you might split it up. She’s going to have issues about whether to ask you to do more or not — guilt because “maybe I just care more about having it clean,” or because she was raised to believe it was her job to take care of you, exhaustion from having had to try hard to socially engineer a guy into doing housework in the past without nagging him, worry that she’s going to turn into a nag. So take the emotional weight off her, and bring it up yourself.
A good time to do this is when you move in together, not years later.
notthere: I have a question for men. Why is it so hard for you ? What is wrong that it is so hard to treat women as decent people ? Do you say how do I be a good friend to my men ?
I’m not a man, but I think it’s a case of people not seeing (and reacting to) what is right in front of their eyes, but to what they think they should be seeing.
It’s a useful shortcut: Being constantly aware of all the details of your surroundings is tiring and not exactly compatible with actually having a life.
But when idea and reality diverge too much, you get effects like men not realizing women are people, and not patterns in their heads.
Not having to be aware of one’s surrounding is part of privilege, whoever, so I guess women might be better in seeing men as people than the other way round. Not perfect, mind: just better.
So, my take on your question: All you can do is to give reality checks to people willing to adjust idea to reality. The work of seeing, and adjusting, is up to every person themselves.
Dealing with the mental strain of household stuff is almost as big a deal as the tasks themselves. Don’t leave your partner to always figure out what’s for dinner, make the grocery list, decide when to clean the bathroom, tell you what needs to be done, buy windex, etc. Figuring out how it’s all going to get done is a large part of the battle, and feeling like the housekeeper is only a tiny cut above feeling like the maid.
Also, regarding chivalry — I have no problem with guys who instinctively do this stuff, but it ticks me off when I tell them to quit and they start justifying, especially if they use guilt or shaming tactics. No, I do not actually have to feel flattered that you pulled my chair out. Requesting that you drop the formalities is my prerogative. STFU.
wapsie, re: opening doors: I have learned that it was bad manners to close a door (or have it close) into anyone’s face, no matter the gender of the persons involved. So, if I go through a door and someone is close enough behind me to talk to them without raising my voice, I hold the door open. So far, no one has complained…
Is a 2-second interaction about who gets the check after dinner really that hard? So hard that you should just default to patriarchal idiocy rather than actually bring up the heinous topic of money? Srsly?
This may vary by region. In Minnesota (where I live), you don’t talk about money if you can possibly avoid it, especially with someone you’re just getting to know. I know there are many regions that are less neurotic specifically about money than Minnesotans are. On the plus side, you’re much less likely to get well-meaning but asshatted advice from total strangers than in other states.
I understand not talking about money, but it seems pretty easy to say “I’ll get this one”, or simply take a look at the bill, pull out your wallet, and hand over your share.
That said, I’m not from Minnesota, and the city where I live now is one where people are considered to be better at talking openly about money. It really could be a regional or cultural thing.
The idea that we shouldn’t question the idea that the man pays simply because it enables us to avoid talking about it seems hopelessly Victorian, to me. What’s next? Breaking up with someone via flower arrangement?
One of the reasons I usually don’t do the whole ‘formal dating’ thing is that horrible moment of uncomfortablity that comes when I pull out my wallet, assuming the default will be that two people who make a decent living should obviously split the bill, and dude waves it off, insisting on paying. I blush, am uncomfortable, and never ever want to do it again.
If a man wants to do the whole ‘traditional date’ he should say something like “I want to take you out to dinner/treat you to dinner” not “We should go out to dinner” or anything neutral like that. This allows a woman to accept those terms and all they entail BEFORE they go out. I believe that romantic relationships should naturally arise out of regular relationships & perhaps people should just be more perceptive of sexual interest instead of relying on patriarchical traditions to inform them. If a woman wants to spend time with you, smiles at you with her pupils dilating, you’re in, for instance.
I realize that a lot of women don’t feel this way so feminist men should be prepared to pay, I suppose, but not ever INSIST on paying, or wave off a woman’s motion to pay. It forces a redefinition of the relationship and may actually hurt their chances.
Naomi April 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm
This may vary by region. In Minnesota (where I live), you don’t talk about money if you can possibly avoid it, especially with someone you’re just getting to know. I know there are many regions that are less neurotic specifically about money than Minnesotans are. On the plus side, you’re much less likely to get well-meaning but asshatted advice from total strangers than in other states.”
not exactly where people go for fine dining either tho’. The challenge of who is picking diner tab is infinitely less daunting compared to Manhattan, Nola or Tokyo..
One tip: never pay for somebody’s dinner in Tokyo. ffs. just don’t.
I don’t know why people are so outraged about somebody picking tab for dinner, as if everything is about $200 bucks dinner bill. If I can’t read the menu, no price and I don’t even know what’s the currency exchange at dinner time ….. I WANT SOMEBODY PAYING for the nice dinner.
And I am picking the first item up top with the longest description, and bring me the chef!
junk science April 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Having the “default” position be that the guy picks up the check does have the advantage, for people like squashed, of not requiring thought. It also provides an easy way to let both people realize that they’re on a date and not just a friendly outing. It’s appealing to people who find it gauche to actually talk about what they want or expect.
THAT would be the POINT.
not everything is worth bickering about power analysis or gender role. Dinner is an ancient ritual. Exquisite dinner is rare, specially with people you like.
If your bf call you up for dinner at expensive gala in an invite only japanese restaurant downtown with so and so. I think you would be a total ass arguing about who picks up the tab.
MONEY and POWER pay the dinner. And it is costing a fortune.
I’ve never had trouble asking about who was paying the bill. I’d rather know one way or another, because I want to be prepared if I have to pay. And if I have to pay either for myself or myself and date, I do kinda need to know that up front, as sometimes that determines where we can go. I also prefer to pay for my own meal, as then I can order something expensive for myself, without anyone else worried about what they have to order so that they can afford the meal.
And no “letting” me pay - if I offer to pay, I’m offering to pay. No “Well, I guess I can let you pay”. Gee, thanks - I’m so sorry I’ve put you out because I’m paying!
All I know is, I’m never going to dinner with someone as rude as squashed. Sometimes a meal is just a meal, and not a contest as to who has the bigger
ballswallet.Sporkey April 13, 2008 at 8:15 pm
All I know is, I’m never going to dinner with someone as rude as squashed. Sometimes a meal is just a meal, and not a contest as to who has the bigger ballswallet.
At the heart of “who pays for dinner” IS about wealth and power. Hence why feminism concerns itself. It relates to women’s position in society. (if woman gets a fair shake or not within a social structure)
It is not about who order the cheeseburger with extra fries for $14.99 + tax. And should one split the tip. Or if buying somebody a meal means selling out/sex. It IS about who one is and how that manifest itself in dinner ritual. It is an ancient rite. That’s why empire is built. That’s why a sprawling empire owns colony and slaves.
It is not about how can we eat? or why do we eat? but it’s about “Where shall we have lunch?”
The problem with some rigid thinking, one is limiting the possibility of experience.
MONEY and POWER pay the dinner.
So men = MONEY and POWER? You’re slipping into incoherence, and this is all I can discern from your ramblings.
It IS about who one is and how that manifest itself in dinner ritual. It is an ancient rite. That’s why empire is built. That’s why a sprawling empire owns colony and slaves.
…Right.
Also, misquoting Douglas Adams doesn’t make you look smart and makes him roll around in his grave.
junk science April 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm
MONEY and POWER pay the dinner.
So men = MONEY and POWER?
most of it at the base, yes. It’s that raw and crude. What? you think feminism is not about money and power? You don’t think it’s about freedom and self enlightening do you? Otherwise people wouldn’t bicker about who is washing dishes or picking up dinner tab.
You’re slipping into incoherence, and this is all I can discern from your ramblings.
no. I think BS is waste of time.
Yes. I do. Which is why I disagree with you and, possibly, why I’ve never had a problem with who picks up the check.
Thom April 13, 2008 at 9:25 pm
You don’t think it’s about freedom and self enlightening do you?
Yes. I do. Which is why I disagree with you and, possibly, why I’ve never had a problem with who picks up the check.
If you observe. “dinner” in this conversation mainly about college students dating each other. Everybody draws from that experience. Everybody have fairly similar income, educational background and understand common frame of mind. etc, etc …
But trying to derive generalized rule that is adaptable to real world without looking at wider combination (even for narrow activity like who is paying for dinner) obviously is dubious.
for eg. business dinner is common way to forge alliance. In the ritual one learns a) what social rules is at play b) are the participant flexible enough to work together with clashing rules c) what is the shape of wealth and power flow. (basically: are these people going to screw me over either through incompetence or bad business deal. Do one sign that massive business contract afterward)
That’s just common business dinner. I think dating dinner is even more complex. It is about two persons trying to forge relationship in very fundamental way.
squashed:
And by declaring that man-pays is a rigid, unassailable default position, you’ve come down squarely on the side of “women should have no wealth or power in society”. Good job.
Well, the rest of us think that “the man pays is the default” is BS, and that the only waste of time in this thread is you. Being a willing accomplice to 1950s-style sexism doesn’t make you a feminist, so you’re going to have to buy your own damn cookie, this time.
Don’t display some aspect of “chivalrous” behaviour (or at least the modern manifestations thereof). I dare you. I pretty much guarantee that the majority of the complaints that result will be coming from women, and not men.
Good example is my own marriage. She proposed, and she bought herself an engagement ring. The greatest reaction I’ve seen from men who hear about it is “Enh”. It’s women who are scandalized (and indeed, that my wife keeps telling the story is somewhat telling in its own right).
Opening doors for women, picking up the tab (although that’s a lot less an issue than it used to be)…in my experience I’ve had women lecturing me on proper (condescending, if one wants to get down to it) behaviour toward women.
So I suppose the question is this: is it really a manifestation of a patriarchal oppression or is it simply a rational response which is taking advantage of it? In other words, are women really being oppressed by much of this behaviour or are women merely taking advantage of “chivalrous” behaviour in a totally understandable and self-interested way?
Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster April 13, 2008 at 10:32 pm
And by declaring that man-pays is a rigid, unassailable default position, you’ve come down squarely on the side of “women should have no wealth or power in society”. Good job.
If default is not rigid and the common denominator, it wouldn’t be called “default” !
It is unfortunate that the position is a shadow of what is (that society is largely organized in patriarchy order.) But all event and negotiation has to start from somewhere. Otherwise without some sort of initial framework, no interaction is possible.
*shrug*
I wish this applied to lesbians too–but not–we need some nods here in the future — not just lesbian politics, but sex, emotions and all the dirty
Tip for feminist boyfriends, which I learned the hard way:
Women, like men, are not monolithic and have a variety of opinions and preferences. Some are kind, some are not. Some are shallow, some are not. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are enthusiastic about feminism, and some prefer a return to a nostalgic vision of the 1950s. Just because one woman praises or criticizes you does not mean all women feel the same way.
I don’t doubt there are women who get upset that a door is being held open. It has never happened to me, but I’m sure they are out there somewhere. If you are getting complaints about door-holding a lot, it is worth asking yourself why that might be. (Hint: women are crazy and oversensitive is *not* the answer, but is instructive of how you can change your view of women if it was one of the first things that occurred to you).
Thom April 14, 2008 at 12:36 am
Tip for feminist boyfriends, which I learned the hard way:
Women, like men, are not monolithic and have a variety of opinions and preferences. Some are kind, some are not. Some are shallow, some are not. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are enthusiastic about feminism, and some prefer a return to a nostalgic vision of the 1950s. Just because one woman praises or criticizes you does not mean all women feel the same way.
Yet you demand everybody to understand your prefered certain ritual from the get go. modern life is vast and complex. It is impossible to learn entire sub culture just to in case one encounter this or that.
So one has to adopt some sort of default position that is the most flexible. Everybody recognize, yet with enough latitude for player to alter it reaching quickly to comfort equilibrium.
In case of standard male behavior, being chivalrious is NOT meant to signify women are weak, with no income or incapable of defending oneself. To put the slave in place so to speak. To large degree is largely a choreographed ritual, cultural interface with some practical value of smoothing out how an event proceed.
It’s like judge wearing robe and false hair piece. It’s has nothing with 19th century fashion. It has everything to do with signifier of an institution.
Trying to recalibrate the entire society is failed modern project. (hello?) So expecting people at large to reach certain codified behavior is not going to happen. conversation can’t even start that way.
It’s a little like expecting anybody who declare oneself a feminist to be able to deconstruct Agnès Varda’s script on a random conversation.
What’s left is just interaction and how to start one. And it gotta start from somewhere…
“In case of standard male behavior, being chivalrious is NOT meant to signify women are weak, with no income or incapable of defending oneself.”
Really? And here I thought that the guys who cut in front of me in order to beat me to the door - just so that they can be the ones to hold it open - were simply being hypersensitive to insults to their masculinity.
i quit reading after a few, i’m falling asleep at the board, bt i wanted to say thanx to the opoponax for getting it, and reminding me its not just him, either
squashed:
You’re the only one who has actually called it the default. Try again.
But since, as your first posts in this thread so clearly indicate, you’re arguing for “ought” rather than for “is,” this is a completely irrelevant observation.
Actually, the whole fucking point of “chivalry” is to assert that women are weak, helpless, possibly stupid, and necessarily reliant on men for protection. The fact that some (I won’t even say “many”) of the rituals of “chivalry” have, over time, sublimated into garden-variety gender-neutral politeness does not negate the actual history of chivalry that in any way.
I put “chivalry” in scare-quotes, by the way, because what you’re talking about isn’t chivalry. It’s just sexist condescension, of which you are a willing accomplice.
That’s like saying that baseball isn’t really derived from cricket, it’s just a bunch of guys hitting a white spheroid object around with a cudgel. Appending a true consequent to a false antecedent doesn’t make a true statement.
Seriously, you’d have to be a complete idiot with absolutely no concept of historical cause and effect to suggest that modern judicial dress in England and much of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the actual fashions popular among the English aristocracy in the mid-to-late 18th (can’t even get that right, can you?) century.
And where better to start than with some unapologetic patriarchal condescension taken straight off the very first pages of Self-Serving Lies You’ll Need to Convince Yourself That You Don’t Really Hate Women, No Way, No How (©1953)?
“The man pays, unless otherwise specified” may be what most people in our culture consider to be the default.
That doesn’t mean it’s the default we, as feminists, should or have to start from.
squashed says, “Trying to recalibrate the entire society is failed modern project.” That so many of us are surprised at the idea that what used to be the default (guy pays) should still be considered the default is evidence against this argument, not to mention many other major cultural changes in the last twenty, thirty, eighty years. The entire society IS being recalibrated. Like it or not.
Keith: So I suppose the question is this: is it really a manifestation of a patriarchal oppression or is it simply a rational response which is taking advantage of it? In other words, are women really being oppressed by much of this behaviour or are women merely taking advantage of “chivalrous” behaviour in a totally understandable and self-interested way?
Yes.
It’s a self-perpetrating cycle of enforcing stereotypes, and from stereotypes spring expectations, expectations are easier to follow than to upset, especially if there’s cookie for “good behaviour”, but that readily feeds into oppression, which enforces stereotypes…
A woman who (e.g.) insists on paying for her own dinner upsets expectations, demands that the man who was prepared to pay sees himself as impolite, and has to pay for her own dinner, i.e., gains no immediate advantage.
The worth of upsetting expectations becomes visible only in context, and may seem abstract for a long time. Yet, in the end, defusing expectations on all sides and actually talk about things like adults, or develop a code with better motivation than gender makes everyone feel less as if they are being taken advantage of: it’s win-win.
And upsetting expectations by asking beforehand “who pays?” is less costly than it might seem: either you are not serious about the person you’re going out with, than it does not matter much, whatever the answer is (you, me, dutch, screaming fit), or you are serious, than you really need to know how they feel about these things.
Mickle April 14, 2008 at 3:10 am
“In case of standard male behavior, being chivalrious is NOT meant to signify women are weak, with no income or incapable of defending oneself.”
Really? And here I thought that the guys who cut in front of me in order to beat me to the door - just so that they can be the ones to hold it open - were simply being hypersensitive to insults to their masculinity.
do you also yell at all doorman, door greeter or somebody who hail taxi for you? (ah, that’s right …
——–
Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster April 14, 2008 at 4:51 am
Actually, the whole fucking point of “chivalry” is to assert that women are weak, helpless, possibly stupid, and necessarily reliant on men for protection. The fact that some (I won’t even say “many”) of the rituals of “chivalry” have, over time, sublimated into garden-variety gender-neutral politeness does not negate the actual history of chivalry that in any way.
True, then we have to eradicate a lot of ritual in the world because almost all of them involves putting people in “places”. Military ceremony, state event, church mass, sport event, etc. (jewelry and peripherals? wedding ring? Money/financial papers?) One way or another they are all meant to remain people of power relationship. Somebody is more powerful than the other.
We can reduce a person to merely “functional” value, whereby applying pure power in the structure. I can guarantee power association gesture such as opening door will be sorely miss. Everybody will be in equal footing and reduced to jungle rule. The bully rule the playground.
don’t be a pleb. What’s next? tearing down all symbols and signs with foreign words in it because they are un-american and corrupting cultural purity?
inge April 14, 2008 at 8:02 am
The worth of upsetting expectations becomes visible only in context, and may seem abstract for a long time. Yet, in the end, defusing expectations on all sides and actually talk about things like adults, or develop a code with better motivation than gender makes everyone feel less as if they are being taken advantage of: it’s win-win.
but what if by missing all those dinner due to symbolism, the woman involved IS actually forgoing access to various venue?
state dinner certainly is replete with symbols and gestures that signify power and control. (I mean what you suggest that expectation arising from symbols and gestures are actually more disadvantage than actually not having access to places and people.)
Hell even most big academic ceremony in old university is about power display.
It seems to me, this rule ultimately makes a perfect device to marginalize women from actual access to event and people.
Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster April 14, 2008 at 4:51 am
Seriously, you’d have to be a complete idiot with absolutely no concept of historical cause and effect to suggest that modern judicial dress in England and much of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the actual fashions popular among the English aristocracy in the mid-to-late 18th (can’t even get that right, can you?) century.
call me an idiot, but I don’t think those judges wears those robe and wigs to look hip as King george.
But to imply the court is as grand as the empire and all its might. (it is not about being hip (fashion statement at particular time) but to remain people what such time has brought us.) eg. if a kid as. why is that judge dress in funny way. Then a father must recount all event starting from where the rob was first made and how it comes to be….therefore unfolding the historical lesson and reinforce history of the institution.
so yeah, I suppose you do have a point that chivalry would remain women of the shadow of patriarchy society.
But if the object is to simply run away and create new symbols (eg. valentine cards, or new fangled walmart gifts) It’ll still be about man projecting power and wealth to get what he wants … I mean EVERYTHING can be analyzed to that end.
It’ll be like saying we should BAN Olympic because all the ceremonial gestures ARE reminder of our savage past, war and destruction… not to mention PAGAN…
Squashed
1) Being annoyed at the guys who practically run me over so that they - not I - can be the ones to hold the door open does =/= yell. Although sometime I think it ought to.
2) Since the other people you mentioned never do the whole making me stop in my tracks to avoid a collision thing. I really don’t have reason to.
See how that works?
And for the love of god, don’t get into semantic arguments with your feminist girlfriend. If I hear one more young feminist say that her boyfriend argues that it should be “humanist” instead of “feminist”, I’m going to….well, I don’t know.
Yes. A dozen or so of these arguments with my ex husband amounted to grounds for divorce. (Naturally there were other problems as well. But being threatened by my reading of feminist texts, for fear of hearing himself implicated? That was about when I started apartment-hunting for reals.)
So, note to feminist boyfriends: face your insecurities and deal with them; don’t use them to pick fights with your girlfriend when she’s reading de Beauvoir.
inge: I wasn’t talking about holding the door for someone *behind* you. Of course one does that. That makes sense and there’s nothing sexist about it. It’s the ceremonious opening and holding the door *from the outside*.
“chivalry” = mendacious nonsense; as false as the Victorian medievalism to which it’s attached.
squashed: Most ceremonial outfits and practices inherited from the 19th century are totally absurd. Many are better done away with, or modified in the direction of something more functional. Or do you have a problem with democratic culture?
Chivalry — always more imaginary than real — sucks in principle because it represents aristocratic culture. Powdered wigs blow for the same reason. That the Brits hold on to these and to monarchy does not speak well of them. (Cue the Sex Pistols.)
Loosen that bow tie and let the blood flow. Or are you the full-windsor-knot-wearing sort of democracy-hating young fogey? I mean really… “pleb”!? Who says that?
Squashed,
This isn’t an anti-pagan blog. It is an anti-sexist blog. So, if we see sexist practices that we think are harmful, we’re gonna call ‘em out. This is not about the power that undergirds all human interactions, this is about a particular (and in our minds, particularly insidious) form of power.
Miss Manner’s rule is that whoever asks, pays. I think that is a better default rule then “the man pays.” Personally, I have paid for half of all dates with every man I have dated.
(In one case, he wouldn’t let me pay for every other date, it became a wrestling match for the bill, so I would insist on every third or fourth date, taking him somewhere more expensive. Thwarted!) Including the man I am about to marry. As the relationship progresses, I think both people should pay, regardless of who is asking. (Perhaps with some adjustment based on differential earning power.) That way both people get the chance to treat. Which is fun.
In the interests of equality, I bought my fiance an engagement gift. It was going to be an OED (we’re geeks) but he decided he didn’t want one yet, so he got something much more prosaic.
My point is, we should do our best to change things to the way they should be, rather than just accepting the way that the presently are.
Keith, shocker of the day for you: there are women who are non-feminist or anti-feminist. Using them as an excuse to be an ass is not a good step towards being a feminist boyfriend.
Ismone April 14, 2008 at 11:03 am
This isn’t an anti-pagan blog. It is an anti-sexist blog. ”
that would be war and enslaving women … nevermind saying women is too weak to open a door.
oh yeah, and squashed? I don’t need to be paid for by Teh Menz in order to have “access to various venue”.
Turns out they’re allowing unescorted women to appear in public these days. even at those symbol-laden formal business dinners. Went to one last year, all on my lonesome…because I WAS THE ONE WHO WORKED THERE, dumbass.
Even the best men I’ve met often fall into this trap. It’s hard to have relationships with people who’ve learned to doubt your cognitive abilities. Even my boyfriend, who considers himself a feminist, does this sometimes. I feel like he’s dismissing everything I say by attacking my basis for having said anything at all, especially if it sounds feminist. Last night, after my name, a new game we’d popped in asked if I wanted to be a man or a woman. I said, “Isn’t this how it is? No in between, no acknowledgment of androgynes.” He laughed at me and said, “That’s like, what, .02% of the population?!”
And I just stared at him and said, “And that makes them irrelevant? Look, all I’m saying is ’see, this matters more than anything else. The contents of my pants.’ I’m not attacking the game, just making and observation.” He seemed defensive at that point, so I let it go and stewed by myself, angry that he didn’t seem to share my awe at the importance of biological sex.
I know he gets it, but sometimes he fails to treat me like I do.
The One True Vegan April 14, 2008 at 11:15 am
oh yeah, and squashed? I don’t need to be paid for by Teh Menz in order to have “access to various venue”.
The power center is largely men’s world. (media, publication, financial, etc.)
If your idea of “access to dinner” is buying delicious meal. Yeah, you are not missing anything.
But we are talking about getting into that invite only event where power and wealth are being generated.
You don’t get to control wealth and power by being a fringe player and thinking you create new world and rulez the planet. You actually going to need the power and wealth.
unless of course you know… your idea of freedom is paying for $14.99 cheeseburger on your own. That’s trivial symbolism. All you got is bunch of disposable slogan.
Am I wrong in my power analysis?
Squashed,
I’m not understanding your response to me. At all. What is the connection between either anti-paganism or anti-sexism and war or enslaving women?
Squashed,
Whoa, moving target. First you are talking about the default on the first date or two in a bf/gf situation, and now you are talking about secret society business dinners?
Mmmhkay. On threads that are actually about women’s professional advancement, instead of about relationships and negotiating who does what, you might have a point.
But we aren’t talking about that here.
and i’m saying those invites come with MY name printed on them, not some boyfriend’s.
so f*ck your power analysis, because it’s predicated on women being perpetual second-class citizens. The, uh, OPPOSITE of feminism?
WTF are you ever doing here, anyway? You clog up every damn thread with your nonsense rambling, when you’re not posting endless links and comments in triplicate.
Your blog etiquette is atrocious.
The One True Vegan April 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm
and i’m saying those invites come with MY name printed on them, not some boyfriend’s.
so f*ck your power analysis, because it’s predicated on women being perpetual second-class citizens. The, uh, OPPOSITE of feminism?
At least you indirectly admit that this is about money and power. Access.
using boyfriend name is not even the central issue. It is dogmatic view how to interpret gesture and symbolism. That creates higher barrier of entry to real power and wealth. If that is your receipt for not being second class, that’s a pretty interesting theory.
I’ve seen this happen with (my) female roommates, nevermind in a dating situation. Which leaves me wondering, is this a common occurrence with women generally (the passive aggression, etc), or is it a problem with people generally …
The thing that pops to mind here for me is that people who habitually get walked all over, are more prone to this (duh!), and that perhaps (perhaps, mind you) women are more susceptible to this than men, generally. But that could be complete BS, and I’d not know it!
Though my dating experience took place in the deep, dark early ‘90s, I think what a lot of young men who have aspirations of dating smart feminist women run into is that neither they nor a lot of the young women they court have completely thought through what it means to be feminist.
I dated a woman once who prided herself on being feisty, opinionated, and intelligent, things other women in my small town eschewed. For this reason, she considered herself a feminist. But as it turned out, she was simply a pragmatist. The bits of the patriarchy that served her, i.e. men covering dinner, opening doors, buying her expensive things, were all expected nonetheless, and didn’t diminish her idea of herself as a feminist at all. Eventually it started to dawn on me, though, and we didn’t last long after that.
There’s a tiny morality play in this, though. Shortly after our relationship ended, she wound up with a Wranglers-n-Skoal-n-yes-ma’am cowboy type who promptly knocked her up and put her in a trailer next to the truckstop. Somewhere in her head, the patriarchy had gotten a foothold, and opened the door wide enough to let the baubles turn into bait hooks.
As I said, this has been nearly two decades ago, but I’ll wager there are youngsters now who may appear progressive at first glance, but unwittingly carry the seeds of their own oppression within them.
At least you indirectly admit that this is about money and power. Access.
i never said it wasn’t. YOU are the one arguing that we should stick with the “default”, which excludes women from the “money and power” end of the transaction, all because it hurts your little head to figure out a more equitable solution to “who pays for dinner on A DATE.”
and, your last sentence is pure garbled nonsense. make it resemble a thought, and not the same stuff that Spambots spew into my junk e-mail every day, and I might respond to it.
Who pays for dinner is about money and power, yes.
That’s why I generally pay. When I was dating, I invariably ended up dating men who were younger and poorer than I was, and I was usually the one to pay for dinner. Right from the beginning the message you want to send men is “I am your equal or your superior. Live with it or get the fuck out.”
Sometimes they get the fuck out. Sometimes they live with it. The ones who live with it, I can live with.
When you pay, there is no guilt, there is no sense of obligation, there is no need for gratitude or indebtedness, there is no feeling of powerlessness. There is, possibly, pissing the guy off. Tough shit. If he’s pissed off because you paid, then he’s emotionally invested in Man As Big Strong Provider and he will probably try to sabotage your career if you end up together. DTMFA. Other than that, no, there are no downsides to paying for the date yourself.
But then, I’ve always been quite happy to weed out the people who I am totally uninterested in very rapidly by being totally uninterested in them. For a woman who needs everyone to think highly of her, even assholes who are not worth her time, I see there may be an emotional difficulty with doing something that might piss men off. I strongly advise those women to get over it. In this world you are a woman and people hate you. Either they will hate you with contempt for being a doormat or they will hate you with resentment for standing up for yourself. Standing up for yourself gets you more happiness in life and either way someone will hate you, so make sure they hate you for the things you do to protect yourself, not the things you do to destroy yourself.
Alara, amen. And i think we’re just so far beyond the pale of Squashed’s (appropriately) flattened understanding, that our points fall on deaf ears.
Awesome turn of phrase there …
The One True Vegan April 14, 2008 at 2:52 pm
i never said it wasn’t. YOU are the one arguing that we should stick with the “default”
WTF. I said, default is to cover for unknown, which involves VERY small numbers of dinner encounter. It is squarely for convenient purposes. Default is by definition rigid otherwise it won’t be called default anymore.
and, your last sentence is pure garbled nonsense. make it resemble a thought, and not the same stuff that Spambots spew into my junk e-mail every day, and I might respond to it.
no, you are copping out. That much is obvious. You want to show me I am wrong. I give you what I was thinking.
Amanda,
It might not always be deference regarding the subject of sexual assault.
I had a girlfriend for who was raped before I had met her. When the subject came up, about her or anyone else’s experience, I always felt consumed with white hot anger, A blinding rage that short circuted my cognitive abilities. It was a very lizard-brain reaction but it made any communication on the subject challenging. I had the same reaction when a platonic friend disclosed her assault.
Anyway, for me the response is always: “let’s go find the fucker and kill him.” and then: ” I cannot understand why you didn’t go to the police.” It’s the last part that I think causes the real deference. But sometimes it’s just anger, and sadness, which can look like pity I suppose.
wapsie April 14, 2008 at 11:00 am
squashed: Most ceremonial outfits and practices inherited from the 19th century are totally absurd. Many are better done away with, or modified in the direction of something more functional. Or do you have a problem with democratic culture?
I didn’t say it’s not absurd.I am just pointing out it is a signifier that changes its meaning over time. Hence various chivalry gesture might evolve that way too.
Chivalry — always more imaginary than real — sucks in principle because it represents aristocratic culture. Powdered wigs blow for the same reason. That the Brits hold on to these and to monarchy does not speak well of them. (Cue the Sex Pistols.)
oh please. if you observe in this thread. Do you really expect I can get away screaming link a punk ? The blog etiquette cops are already demanding I say what I want to hear so their heads doesn’t explode.
Loosen that bow tie and let the blood flow. Or are you the full-windsor-knot-wearing sort of democracy-hating young fogey? I mean really… “pleb”!? Who says that?
I don’t know, how are those tattoos, hairstyle and piercings going? (oh that’s right, every sub culture have their own absurd symbolism)
Therefore everybody uses various forms of gestures and symbolism. Everybody uses them to express something, status, wealth, occupation, etc…
This should be a no-brainer, but never act as though you’re putting up with your girlfriend’s presence. I’ve been on the receiving end of this, I’ve seen other men do it to their girlfriends, and I’ve rarely seen straight women do it to their male partners. It’s the ultimate in male privilege — pretending that you don’t really want to be around some woman and acting as though it’s some sort of horrible burden.
Also, when taking care of basic responsibilities of a relationship, such as reciprocating intimacy or foreplay, don’t act as though you’re doing it begrudgingly. Do it enthusiastically or don’t do it at all (making it easier for the girlfriend to dump your ass).
Actually, I don’t. We just discuss it. Shocking, eh?
A-fucking-men, Alara. A-fuckin’-men.
That rocked so much I’m copying-pasting into my LJ. And MSN. I really don’t see why most women don’t get the “people are going to hate you anyway for some reason or another… do it for reasons that’re good for you” message much.
I generally, I pay if it’s a fancy restaurant and I invited the guy out. I’m usually there ‘cos I can afford it, and usually, he can’t. The first boyfriend I had, when I first offered to pay, wouldn’t stop asking me, “you sure? You don’t mind?” NO I DON’T MIND. SEEING AS I PAY TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TUITION AS YOU DO, I’M SURE I CAN HANDLE THIS ONE BILL. Gosh.
No, you already say what you want to hear all day long, and THAT is what makes our heads explode. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
You can think I’m copping out all you want, but the fact remains that you somehow took “who pays on a date” and turned it into some rambling diatribe about how if women won’t let dinner be paid for by their boyfriends, they won’t have access to secret power player gala events held in mystery mountain caves and FOR REALS, you’ve been there and THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW…and then when i said, “so what, I don’t need a boyfriend to have “access” to “power,” i get invited myself, you somehow thought i was agreeing with you. Which takes some incredible brain gymnastics. Kindly share your drugs.
You sound like that video of Tom Cruise where he rattles out a crazed diatribe on Scientology.
The Sense. You don’t make it. I believe you really may be a spambot.
Thom April 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Actually, I don’t. We just discuss it. Shocking, eh?
true my fault. been in this thread too long.
The One True Vegan April 14, 2008 at 6:42 pm
you somehow thought i was agreeing with you.
actually you were disagreeing with yourself and you don’t see it.
that by saying it is about “money and power” you have to consider the entire structure instead of menial symbolism. That there is priority instead of rigid interpretation of symbols and gestures that lead to reduced access to money and power.
Weren’t you also the one say evolution theory doesn’t exist or something?
The One True Vegan April 14, 2008 at 2:52 pm
all because it hurts your little head to figure out a more equitable solution to “who pays for dinner on A DATE.”
in which part did you propose an equitable solution? (in your own words. if you use sock puppet, reprint your idea. I want to see your proposal. Don’t just cowardly take other people’s idea.
And you better be able to defend your proposal coherently after you admit “money and power” bit.
This I got to see. You gonna have to lie, backtrack and make up a lot of stuff to square it.
Squashed, the egalitarian options for “who pays for dinner on a date” are:
a) the person who did the inviting pays;
b) the person who is, or feels, richer pays.
It’s really not that hard.
I can promise you that when my husband of going-on-nine-years and I were dating, he did NOT always pay.
squashed: state dinner certainly is replete with symbols and gestures that signify power and control.
With state dinners, the question of who foots the bill takes a whole different form. If you have been including in your default everything from a college bottle party to the President dining with the Queen, then the topic is too broadly defined to be worth talking about sober.
Waspie: I wasn’t talking about holding the door for someone *behind* you.
OK. The first question that came to my mind on this was “what other ways are there?”. While I can think of some if I give it a try — thanks for the clarification.
Stephen, about (not) fighting about the small things: I’ve seen this happen with (my) female roommates, nevermind in a dating situation. Which leaves me wondering, is this a common occurrence with women generally (the passive aggression, etc), or is it a problem with people generally
It seems to be more common in women, but my pet hypothesis is that women have, in general, more small things worth fighting about. It would be interesting to test that hypothesis by looking at men rooming together.
JupiterPluvius April 15, 2008 at 12:37 am
Squashed, the egalitarian options for “who pays for dinner on a date” are:
I thought the question was anachronistic and useless, anybody would have guessed that it’s nothing more than contemplation of social structure.
In real world, does blind date even exist anymore? I don’t think there is ever a situation where one needs to wonder who will pay for dinner. Simple IM/text message questions such as: a/s/l, what’s your major, what we gonna eat, will answer ANY aspect of dinner situation. One would know cultural background, income level, taste, and interaction level to be expected, anything from common cultural frame and how the entire dinner event is going to happen are answered. A true blind date simply doesn’t exist unless both party involved actually “plan” to be offline. Technology has rendered the bargaining anxiety pointless. Everybody has credit card, even. So all in all in worst case scenario out of a blind date these days is the waitress placing the wrong order on the table. Everything else is known.
I mean really, who still wonder about picking up a tab for dinner. Even the thickest neandhertal can google the question if he can’t figure it out himself. The true significant of “who picks dinner tab” was in the 70’s. Nearly 4 decades ago. It’s a relic from bygone era. It’s about as useful as asking should I still buy blank cassette?
To me the uselessness of the question is what makes the conversation worth having. Sort of a save line to ask odd questions and home made deconstruction. (tho admitedly, if one asks stupid question, one deserves stupid answer. heh.)
inge April 15, 2008 at 6:17 am
With state dinners, the question of who foots the bill takes a whole different form. If you have been including in your default everything from a college bottle party to the President dining with the Queen, then the topic is too broadly defined to be worth talking about sober.”
Who needs a guide for common events? Everybody already knows the solution for most commons problem right? I mean, that’s what google is for.
The question of state dinner was merely an extension of “symbolism” idea. (that any symbols which reminds a woman of patriarchy should be avoided, regardless of present meaning or situation. If practical gesture meant as a simple method to decide is an insult, certainly state dinner which is replete with myriad symbolism of power and position are undeniably oppressive. Basically what I was asking, how rigid a dogma should be carried away? How far a symbol or gesture should be avoided. Because to me, the basic points seem to be forgotten within the triviality of dogmatic interpretation.)
I suppose ultimately one should answer the challenge: write the guide and test it in real world.
But I think that semantic argument is grounds for dumping someone
Unless, of course, you’re married to a semanticist. He wasn’t one when I married him, though he displayed clear semanticist tendencies.
“So, from that experience, I can say that a huge thing men can do is to just take a moment to think about what your girlfriend said, and actually ask yourself what you really think about what she said, before you respond. And phrase disagreements in a way that makes it clear that you have a specific disagreement with what she said, not that you’re dismissing her opinions.”
I like this a lot. It’s sound advice for every single human interaction, though I admit that it is disproportionately necessary by men listening to women. It is an amazingly difficult and yet powerful thing to tap into *what a person actually said* and make them see something is amiss or wrongly assumed. I think this transcends any political considerations of gender, race, class or whatever. It’s not that these things aren’t there, but that pointing them out is not the same as pointing out the specific literal words a person says as meaningful in a way that seems unnoticed by them.
In this way, I think it’s fair to say that everyone, men and women alike, has in their responsibility to police their own wild assumptions the responsibility to respond to people’s assumptions in ways that make them explicit. This is really fucking hard, because it’s not as simple as stopping them mid-sentence with, “stop being such a dude.” A dude who warrants such response is probably not going to know or understand, when put to him that way, the significance of “being such a dude” as it occurs in speech. They don’t listen to their own speech as much as they don’t listen to women’s, which means that any effort to make it apparent has to come from the dude’s speech.