Feminism in dating (Updated)

[Els]

 

Interaction between two people should be 50-50. Stop with the stupid old invisible rules that the guy needs to do 80-90% of the work. More women need to follow RedRobins lead, but you will see a huge resistance from both men and women fighting it till the death, because theres so many of them that resist change.

 

You're just attempting to create more invisible rules. The whole point of gender freedom (which is one of the main things that true feminism aspires to) is not 50-50 in all romantic relationships, but rather 100% freedom of choice. If a man wants to support a SAHM and both are happy, yay for them. If a woman wants to support a SAHD and both are happy, yay for them. If a man and woman want to split everything and both are happy, yay for them.

 

Telling people, "You should stop listening to what these people tell you to do and instead do what I tell you to do!" is rather stupid and pointless. What's the point of tearing down a societal norm only to establish one that is equally rigid and unfree? People should just do what feels right to them and hold out for compatible partners, end of story.

[thefooloftheyear]

Maybe if I confess where my fears and preferences come from it will make more sense.

 

I am not looking for a "walking wallet". In fact, I want someone who is equal to me.

The reason being I've seen more than one man in my immediate and distant family being a complete failure at making money to even pay basic bills and make a living. And I've seen their wives having to work triple (14 hours days or more) for 30 years because of it, to put food in the mouths of 4 kids and have a roof.

That's what I'm trying to avoid. I took care of my life professionally and I can make a good living. I want a man who is at least in the same level as me - which means more than a 6 figure salary. Because if push comes to shove, either me or him should be able to pay the bills until the other gets back on their feet.

I don't want a man who is a dead weight as the ones I've seen very closely. Paying for dates can be one of the indicators of financial stability (of course can also be that they're lying and getting into debt because of it. But I am a relatively good judge of character and can perceive it soon.). So for me, I feel protected and less anxious by someone who has their life together, as I try to do with mine. It goes both ways.

 

Is there more "equality" than this? Boo to you downers who don't care about a man's financial stability. If you're willing to work like a dog to pay for a dead weight, good for you. I'm not. Prefer to be single

 

Before I say what I am going to, please understand that I personally have no issue what you, or anyone else does...Heck, I have some requirements that most women would think are absolutely ridiculous....So I understand...

 

That being said, why would, say, a welder or cop that makes like 75K/yr be not enough to support a lifestyle-if you were combining incomes?

 

And this may be another area where there really isn't "true" equality...

 

Most(all?) guys I know, especially those of us that are high earners, really worry about what will happen if we lose the capability to earn and having to be carried by a partner..They certainly wouldn't go into a relationship with that logic...Never seen it...

 

There are millions of guys that work long hours and carry "dead wood" women that don't have the capacity to earn big money..They don't necessarily get resentful, because they love the other person dearly and don't see that as a detriment...

 

Maybe the wildcard there is kids...I think some women feel on some level that even if they don't see themselves as mothers or SAHM's at the time of making the decision to choose a partner, that at least they want that option...If they have a guy that cant carry that type of lifestyle than they may see themselves as "trapped" into the breadwinner role and don't like it, even though guys have been "stuck" in this role for eons..

 

.02

 

TFY

[oregon0011]

And this may be another area where there really isn't "true" equality...

 

Most(all?) guys I know, especially those of us that are high earners, really worry about what will happen if we lose the capability to earn and having to be carried by a partner..They certainly wouldn't go into a relationship with that logic...Never seen it...

 

There are millions of guys that work long hours and carry "dead wood" women that don't have the capacity to earn big money..They don't necessarily get resentful, because they love the other person dearly and don't see that as a detriment...

 

 

This is extremely obvious..

 

We are supposed to be "equals", yet if a man doesn't work, he is "dead weight" to be dropped. However, the millions of women who take money from men their entire lives are never "dead weight".. It is the man's roles to be a provider. A gentleman. A real man..

[Imajerk17]

I agree with this, but don't you think this is their own problem and they should look within and try to change their own lives if they are unhappy with them, rather than blaming women for everything?

 

It's the same thing as women who are blaming the entire male gender just because a few men cheated on them or used them, really. Yes, those guys were *******s, but at the end of the day the onus is still on her to move on from them instead of blaming all of mankind for what happened to her.

 

Also, it's pretty untrue that "all the choice and power" lies with women - men make choices too, every bit as much as women do. Just in different ways.

 

I agree with the above 100% Elswyth. I even said in that post that guys do indeed have a lot more power and choice. (Here on this thread in that post… And plenty of places elsewhere on here too--as you know, I've had a lot of rotten tomatoes thrown my way by plenty of guys on here )

 

But, I do get the emotional place where the guys on this thread are coming from. Look at how dating appears from their eyes--take woman after woman (who nowadays often is earning close to what he is earning) out and try to entertain/wine-and-dine her and hope she is interested (she usually isn't), only to have said woman vanish after the date with hardly even a thank you. These guys are only dating as they were taught to growing up (e.g., moms). That plenty of otherwise loving and giving women seem to think that this sort of thing is OK too does seem disconcerting, even not considering how much the woman is earning.

 

Now, guys on here may throw around crass-sounding terms such as ROI and whatnot, but I think what they are really asking is, if this how dating really is supposed to be, why would a dude put himself through this. It's a fair question.

 

The answer for a guy in this situation is not to be blaming society, it is instead much simpler and more effective. No now is making him spend a lot of money for a woman he hardly knows. (Even though, if his mom is as mine and many of my friends' are, that is what she told him to do (you're still awesome anyway Mom).) Truly, the right women actually don't even want your money anyway, they want to feel a connection and then after that, that you have your life together. Just, make the first few dates inexpensive--use creativity to keep costs low and the date fun and interesting. The main event should be the connection the two of you are sharing.

 

FWIW, I know that women do not have all the power and choice in dating. Many a young woman in many a big city are lamenting the hook-up culture, where they feel they are lucky if they get the guy they slept with to get them breakfast in the am. They feel (and wrongly so I may add) that the only way to keep a guy around is to sleep with him from the very beginning and be "easy-going". There is also the issue of basically being stuck with th guys who pursue them (or stay single), guys coming on strong and then vanishing, and so on.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Imajerk17

[sambolini]

It's essentially gambling. I'm gambling my time and money that a woman will like me.

 

I don't like gambling. Gamblers always lose in the long run; it's a statistical inevitability.

 

Women who are truly for gender equality will have no problem paying for themselves. Those women who want me to pay aren't truly for equality (no matter how much they claim otherwise) and are of no interest to me.

 

Truthfully, dating and relationships in general don't really interest me anymore. I just don't see what value they can bring me. All I see is a list of expectations.

 

Nah. Not interested.

[thefooloftheyear]

It's essentially gambling. I'm gambling my time and money that a woman will like me.

 

I don't like gambling. Gamblers always lose in the long run; it's a statistical inevitability.

 

Women who are truly for gender equality will have no problem paying for themselves. Those women who want me to pay aren't truly for equality (no matter how much they claim otherwise) and are of no interest to me.

 

Truthfully, dating and relationships in general don't really interest me anymore. I just don't see what value they can bring me. All I see is a list of expectations.

 

Nah. Not interested.

 

I guess the other side of that argument is "no risk-no reward"....

 

 

TFY

[sambolini]

I guess the other side of that argument is "no risk-no reward"....

 

 

TFY

 

I don't see how "Pay for everything I want" is a reward. More like an obligation.

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

Are you implying that the only employable women, and the only women who have jobs, are feminists? That's quite misogynistic towards the large number of women who choose to be SAHM's.

 

Of course I'm not "implying" that. That's quite a stretch! Your frequent laments about women having a baby and then thinking that the daddy has to support HER for the rest of her life leaves no room for doubt - you certainly won't be dating any feminists, even if you wanted to! Which you don't, so it's a win/win!! :laugh:

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

Your post makes me very sad for all of the women (and men) who have spent their lives working for gender equality and fairness...

 

It doesn't make me sad, at all. There are guys who want to treat women like princesses, I hope a girl that wants to be treated like a princess finds them!! That is not unfair, or unequal. It's just a preference. There are girls who won't allow a man to buy her a sandwich (you!!) because that is heretical to feminism, in their opinion - and here are the guys right on this thread who think that girls who accept sandwiches can't be feminists and, worse, are moochers ... a perfect match!

 

Feminism, in the context of dating, means to me that being a MAN or a WOMAN needs NOT dictate how you handle your personal life. It's easier and more comfortable for many to remain in traditional gender roles. The best case scenario, IMO, is for people who prefer that to find each other and for people who prefer to function outside of boxes to be together. We CAN pick and choose which parts of tradition we want to live. It really doesn't make me a hypocrite that I love it when my guy brings me flowers or fixes my flat tire.

[BlueIris]

This is extremely obvious..

 

We are supposed to be "equals", yet if a man doesn't work, he is "dead weight" to be dropped. However, the millions of women who take money from men their entire lives are never "dead weight".. It is the man's roles to be a provider. A gentleman. A real man..

 

50-60 years ago women didn't have much power to earn, but we do today. I'd say, marry someone with earning ability (and inclination).

[thefooloftheyear]

50-60 years ago women didn't have much power to earn, but we do today. I'd say, marry someone with earning ability (and inclination).

 

True...

 

I guess the point some are making is that now that there is equality, why do guys generally still not care too much, yet for women its mostly a deal-breaker??

 

Are guys just the more generous of the genders??

 

Understand I have no dog in the fight, just curious...

 

TFY

[Woggle]

Just don't date women who look at men as walking wallets. They never got past date one with me and I never had trouble finding a woman. Just say no to gold diggers.

[oregon0011]

50-60 years ago women didn't have much power to earn, but we do today. I'd say, marry someone with earning ability (and inclination).

 

Actually maybe with all of this "equality" I should be able to work part time, spend the money on myself, and have my future wife pay all the bills.

 

I mean this needs to even out. For every woman that has this situation, one man should have it.

[sambolini]

Actually maybe with all of this "equality" I should be able to work part time, spend the money on myself, and have my future wife pay all the bills.

 

I mean this needs to even out. For every woman that has this situation, one man should have it.

 

Absolutely.

 

That lifestyle could never work for me, but men should have the choice of that lifestyle if that's what they want.

 

And since divorce culture is rampant among women today, I'd say it's in a man's best interest to let the woman be the earner if he wants to marry and have kids.

[xxoo]

Absolutely.

 

That lifestyle could never work for me, but men should have the choice of that lifestyle if that's what they want.

 

And since divorce culture is rampant among women today, I'd say it's in a man's best interest to let the woman be the earner if he wants to marry and have kids.

 

Men do have this choice. Or rather, families have this choice, should they choose it, thanks to feminism. I personally know families structured this way. Most men don't prefer it, and that's fine. What's important is that families DO have this choice, supported by fair wages for women and family leave for men.

 

Thanks, feminism

[sambolini]

Men do have this choice. Or rather, families have this choice, should they choose it, thanks to feminism. I personally know families structured this way. Most men don't prefer it, and that's fine. What's important is that families DO have this choice, supported by fair wages for women and family leave for men.

 

Thanks, feminism

 

I disagree. Women who are looking for a provider (and there are quite a few feminists in this thread who said they are) don't allow room for men to make such a choice. Societal expectations that men be the provider still exist in by far the largest number.

 

One can't say there is equality if one doesn't have the opportunity to make that choice. And considering what feminists in this thread say they want, a SAHD isn't one of them.

 

"Thanks", feminism.

[xxoo]

I disagree. Women who are looking for a provider (and there are quite a few feminists in this thread who said they are) don't allow room for men to make such a choice. Societal expectations that men be the provider still exist in by far the largest number.

 

One can't say there is equality if one doesn't have the opportunity to make that choice. And considering what feminists in this thread say they want, a SAHD isn't one of them.

 

"Thanks", feminism.

 

It's a couple's choice. I personally sought a provider-type, and my provider-type man sought a nurturer-type. Other couples choose otherwise. Not a whole lot of men wish to be a SAHP. But it certainly is a choice, if the couple chooses it. I personally know couples who have chosen it.

[sambolini]

It's a couple's choice. I personally sought a provider-type, and my provider-type man sought a nurturer-type. Other couples choose otherwise. Not a whole lot of men wish to be a SAHP. But it certainly is a choice, if the couple chooses it. I personally know couples who have chosen it.

 

You act as if it just "happened" that way. You're conveniently ignoring that men are under significant social pressures to be the provider. This thread alone confirms that.

 

Because of those pressures, they will do what society expects of them so they can successfully mate. This is not equality, nor is it just random. This is how our society works.

 

I buck that trend by refusing to provide for anyone. But to say "men have choices" is disingenuous when there are more men who wouldn't mind being a SAHD then there are women who would mate with him as a SAHD because of the current social paradigm.

 

I do not see how feminists (who largely want men to provide for them, if this thread is any indication) are doing anything to get rid of the paradigm. In fact, they seem to be actively continuing it.

 

As for paid leave, I'm honestly not sure about that. Do women get a separate maternity leave from FMLA? My guess is that would vary from employer to employer, state to state. Is it usually just FMLA?

[BlueIris]

True...

 

I guess the point some are making is that now that there is equality, why do guys generally still not care too much, yet for women its mostly a deal-breaker??

 

Are guys just the more generous of the genders??

 

Understand I have no dog in the fight, just curious...

 

TFY

 

I was responding to those who do care, so actually I thought it was odd that someone would complain that they’d married someone without considering earning ability, work ethic, attitude about work. I think that people should talk about money and career prior to marrying and throughout marriage and be each other’s best cheerleaders and supports. Some people don’t want that, don't even want to talk about money or it freaks them out at some level. Maybe some men are very generous, just as some women are. But there are other reasons that SOME men (and women) support a partner.

[readynow]

 

I do not see how feminists (who largely want men to provide for them, if this thread is any indication) are doing anything to get rid of the paradigm. In fact, they seem to b actively continuing it.

 

 

Sorry, I seem to have missed some posts... Which feminists on this thread want men to provide for them?

 

Name them specifically because I haven't found even 1.

[xxoo]

You act as if it just "happened" that way. You're conveniently ignoring that men are under significant social pressures to be the provider. This thread alone confirms that.

 

Because of those pressures, they will do what society expects of them so they can successfully mate. This is not equality, nor is it just random. This is how our society works.

 

I buck that trend by refusing to provide for anyone. But to say "men have choices" is disingenuous when there are more men who wouldn't mind being a SAHD then there are women who would mate with him as a SAHD because of the current social paradigm.

 

I do not see how feminists (who largely want men to provide for them, if this thread is any indication) are doing anything to get rid of the paradigm. In fact, they seem to be actively continuing it.

 

As for paid leave, I'm honestly not sure about that. Do women get a separate maternity leave from FMLA? My guess is that would vary from employer to employer, state to state. Is it usually just FMLA?

 

Feminism is all about opportunities for people--including men and women--that may go against society's gendered expectations.

 

The opportunity does not guarantee a partner who is willing to support you. It's still the woman or man's job to find a partner who shares their vision.

 

Feminists aren't standing in your way. Finding a partner to support you is not the job of feminists.

[sambolini]

Feminism is all about opportunities for people--including men and women--that may go against society's gendered expectations.

 

The opportunity does not guarantee a partner who is willing to support you. It's still the woman or man's job to find a partner who shares their vision.

 

Feminists aren't standing in your way. Finding a partner to support you is not the job of feminists.

 

I never said it was their job. What I'm saying is that opportunity doesn't exist because of the continued preference by women for men to adhere to traditional gender roles.

 

Which is a load of ****.

[CrystalCastles]

I never said it was their job. What I'm saying is that opportunity doesn't exist because of the continued preference by women for men to adhere to traditional gender roles.

 

Which is a load of ****.

 

Which women?

[Woggle]

I think the big issue for some men is not that women want to be treated like a princess but if we want to be treated like a prince we get shouted down and called a misogynist. It is hypocritical to refuse to do anything for a man or do anything traditional then expect a guy to be a gentleman and court you.

[xxoo]

I never said it was their job. What I'm saying is that opportunity doesn't exist because of the continued preference by women for men to adhere to traditional gender roles.

 

Which is a load of ****.

 

 

Feminism doesn't seek to control preferences. It seeks to open opportunities for individuals regardless of gender. Individuals may still prefer whatever they prefer, and each individual is free to seek a partner with compatible preferences.