Are women supposed to take initiative nowadays?

[mr_marvel]

Are women supposed to take initiative nowadays?

I don't see why not. Because isn't that the whole point of all the arguments/discussions about "gender equality"???

How come women demand "equality" when they seem to whine and complain everytime their male counterparts actually let them do what have always been supposed to be the "male's jobs"???

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by mr_marvel

[basil67]

8 hours ago, rjc149 said:

And there are plenty of instances, from plenty of female posters, attempting to directly challenge my advice by stating “no, you’re wrong, many women happen to like needy, insecure behavior” etc. to that effect.

And if you scroll up, you'll find a male poster who disagrees with the idea that men are attracted to beauty and fertility.  Why aren't you mad at him for saying 'no, not me'?   

As a woman, I never speak for what women want.   And I'd even less speak for what all men want.   Why?   Because we all want different things.   I'm not sure why you feel qualified to speak for all. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by basil67

[regine_phalange]

8 hours ago, rjc149 said:

You assume that confidence is something that is inherent. Either you have it or don’t. There are confident men and there aren’t. Be true to yourself, right?

For a lot of men who struggle with confidence, it’s not inherent. It’s learned, and practiced, and grown. Men want to become more confident.

You condemn the process of learning, practicing, and growing one’s confidence as fakery. You hijack threads where I give advice to men on how to improve and build their confidence, illustrating what confident behavior looks like to men who are genuinely clueless about it, and make it about misogyny and PUA manipulation. These guys ask for advice, I offer them what I know, it that’s your cue to hijack it. The advice part is tossed aside. Happens pretty reliably.

And there are plenty of instances, from plenty of female posters, attempting to directly challenge my advice by stating “no, you’re wrong, many women happen to like needy, insecure behavior” etc. to that effect.

Now I’m always game for some heated debate, but sometimes, it’s actually about giving good advice, not about putting someone in their place. And too often it seems, it’s about putting me in my place, not advising a male poster on how to behave more attractively around a women he’s interested in.

That has come to aggravate me.
 

 

I always found confidence an elusive term. I think it's more of a selling point for wellness gurus, than something that is tangible. I think that all HUMANS are more comfortable around people who are calm (some nervousness is also sweet, but after a while it normally goes away). HUMANS tend to respect other humans who know what's in their own head. HUMANS are often intrigued by other humans who like doing different things with their time. HUMANS like other humans who see them as people and actually get to know them. If I had a son, this would be the dating advice I would give him.

Edited July 9, 2020 by regine_phalange

[Giovane]

1 hour ago, mr_marvel said:

Isn't that the whole point of the entire "gender equality" discussions/arguments???

No, it's not. The point is other things.

As for the OP: there's nothing wrong with taking the initiative yourself.

If you don't want to, it's your prerogative to expect men to do it, that's fine. What you should be aware of, however, is the extent of your competition. It's huge. So in order to stick out, your profile needs to be engaging - you need to give men a good reason to write you, other than just being available. (Maybe you do, and I just don't know it because I haven't seen your profile. If your profile is amazing, just skip the rest of this.)

For one, you need several good pictures, ideally there's at least one close-up of your face and one full-body shot. In your pictures, you should be smiling and look like a happy person with an active life and interesting things to do in your free time.

Furthermore, you need a profile text that is friendly, upbeat, interesting and actually informative about yourself - it can't be just a rant about what you don't like about Tinder (I'm assuming) or the guys you find there. To spice it up, you should also include a joke or two! (edit: Being informative about yourself does not mean telling us that you like to travel and eat good food - everybody digs that! )

Drawing from my own vast experience on Tinder and Bumble (I started on Monday ), I can tell you that "liking" a person by swiping right (thus possibly provoking or triggering a "match") really doesn't mean a lot. It has been well described in a parallel thread here on LS:

https://www.loveshack.org/forums/topic/596154-cant-figure-out-what-is-wrong-with-me/?do=findComment&comment=7844607

Having "matched" in OLD isn't much of a goal reached, it can probably more accurately be described as part of the filtering process.

Tinder has a "super like" feature where you can actually send a message along with your "like", before you even match. After swiping like a madman for three days I used a total of five of them. They cost me actual money and I've now run out (of super likes, not money ), but I wouldn't have needed more of them, because out of hundreds of women, there really were no more than a handful that I really would have liked to message or meet with. All the others were probably wonderful women, but they...

• just weren't my type
• didn't really give any information about themselves (seriously, how am I going to react to a name, an age, one picture of your legs and a "message me if you want to know more"?)
• were kind of samey and much too similar to sooooo many other profiles... edit: Assorted emojis fall into that category as well. Really? An airplane, a meal and a glass of wine again? If you want to get a good impression of what you're up against, and see what it takes to stick out, I think it's always an interesting experience to create a fake profile of the opposite gender, and then have a look at your competition.

Those that interested me enough to actually spend a "super like", paid for with hard-earned €, had engaging profiles with pictures that gave me a good, reliable impression of how they look (+ they looked attractive to me), interesting things to say, they made me laugh and they "opened the door" with something in their profile that I could actually reference in my first message (e.g. "That's a cute dog. What's her name, and why are you being mean to her?"). Had they responded (), I definitely would have been interested in initiating a real-life date, too.

An original, interesting and engaging profile does require a bit of thought. People need to put work into it. (I'm actually still not happy with my own profile. Needs more humor...) If I have hundreds of profiles awaiting to be swiped through, I'm not going to react to lazy, half-*ssed efforts that all look the same. And even if I do swipe right and we "match", that doesn't necessarily mean much more than e.g. I wanted to compliment you because on the one picture you have, you do look cute. But there is no way I can be emotionally invested after just that. It takes something special.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Giovane

[Giovane]

I actually saw one of those "if we match, I expect you to write first" messages on Bumble the other day.

The whole selling point of Bumble is that in order to protect women from being harassed, men can not text unless the matched woman texts first!

That girl needs to develop some reading skills fast, or she'll be one frustrated online dater...

Edited July 9, 2020 by Giovane

[basil67]

@Giovane  Oh dear.  Cue one frustrated woman     Next time a woman complains about not getting messages, we'd better check what platform she's using

Edited July 9, 2020 by basil67

[basil67]

2 hours ago, mr_marvel said:

I don't see why not. Because isn't that the whole point of all the arguments/discussions about "gender equality"???

How come women demand "equality" when they seem to whine and complain everytime their male counterparts actually let them do what have always been supposed to be the "male's jobs"???

As a woman, I quite agree.  But then, I've always been the proactive type

 

 

[Acacia98]

57 minutes ago, basil67 said:

As a woman, I quite agree.  But then, I've always been the proactive type

 

 

I'm not particularly proactive, but I learned from experience that the guys who initiated communication with me were often the wrong guys for me. Most of the time, their assumptions about what sort of a person I was were completely off. To put it simply, I was better at reading guys and telling if we were potentially compatible than guys were at reading me and telling if we were potentially compatible. So I had a very good reason to be the one to initiate communication with guys. That meant I would send a message saying hi and mention something the guy had talked about in his profile or something in one of his pics. If he was interested, he would respond and subsequently participate very actively in the conversation then ultimately suggest meeting. If he wasn't interested, it would be obvious from the lack of response or lukewarm response.

I feel like folks who create rigid rules about this kind of thing could be limiting themselves. But at the end of the day, that's a personal choice. We all have to live with the outcomes (positive or negative) of the kinds of choices we make.

[Emilie Jolie]

4 minutes ago, Acacia98 said:

So I had a very good reason to be the one to initiate communication with guys

Same.

Not that I'm great at reading people's intentions all the same, but I absolutely do not enjoy a guy forcing his 'charm' onto me when I haven't given a very strong, unambiguous signal (at a minimum) that I'm interested. I don't find approaches out of the blue flattering in the slightest. I've found most men who cold approach without a second thought as to whether you were interested or not to be overbearing or socially impaired in some way.

In real life, with the real life couples that I know, the 'who initiated' is evenly split. As you say, it doesn't mean people are proactive. Sometimes it just means they tend to take action when they really like someone. 

On OLD, the margin for showing interest in a subtle way is reduced so I guess there aren't a lot of options but to shoot a message if you want to take it further.

[basil67]

29 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I've found most men who cold approach without a second thought as to whether you were interested or not to be overbearing or socially impaired in some way.

Yea and no.  The ones who slide in without you even realising they are making an approach are the ones that win.  The guys who bail you up far to obviously in a book store or while choosing an avocado are the ones to avoid.

[Emilie Jolie]

4 minutes ago, basil67 said:

The ones who slide in without you even realising they are making an approach are the ones that win. 

Yeah I agree.

You do tend to realise it or at least get a general flirty vibe but yeah, I see what you're saying. That's a big part of the fun!

[central]

If you don't want to initiate contact, you can only choose from those who do contact you.  Mostly, you get to reject, and your remaining choices may not be what you want in a partner.  Yes, an attractive picture will garner many contacts from a wide variety of men (most of whom will be unsuitable).  I would hope that you also provide information about yourself that will attract the right kind of man based on values, interests, and goals, otherwise you may not hear from them.

I include things like winks, nudges, smiles or other options sites provide to indicate some interest.  I would respond to those from a woman if at all interested, and those things take little effort and little investment.

As I said before, I found it worked best to let women indicate some interest (even a like or a wink) and then respond.  Besides, I like proactive, independent, competent women who have an idea of what they want in a man and relationship, so that worked very well for me.  I rarely went a week without one - and often two - initial meets.  I'd still initiate for particularly well-matched profiles - but even then I often found that what they said they wanted wasn't really what they were interested in.

[Hopeful30]

On 7/7/2020 at 7:06 PM, Colorful said:

Got matches with quite some men in online dating. Most of them are not starting any conversation. I am not going to. Aren't men supposed to take initiative? what's going on with this world now? I am old schooled. 

Is it me not attractive enough for them to take action, or generally it's how the world goes nowadays? I am living in N.A, if that helps with the diagnosis. 

I hear you girl. Men in the West appear to have lost a connection with their masculine energy, which is all about action, doing, chasing, taking the lead. 

You should travel. Anywhere I step off a plane that's not north America, I have plenty of suitors anywhere I go, and I am never sexless for this long (3 years now, and that's when I moved back to Toronto, 3 years ago). 

Don't take it personally. 

[gaius]

23 hours ago, salparadise said:

If you don't compose a great message you have zero chance of a reply, and if you do put a lot of thought and energy into a good message it makes little difference. 

Back before I met my beautiful wife I had a few forays into online dating and found that if you actually had something witty, unique, fun or interesting to say you'd usually get a reply. If you put a lot of thought and energy into a message and it still stinks then yeah, no reply, but quality content always stands out in this world we live in. 

Colorful, the only advice I can give you is to keep putting yourself out there. Mold your OLD profiles to reflect the genuine you the best you can. And don't just rely on OLD, put yourself out there on social media, forums, wherever. I first spotted my wife on here after she made a very open and honest thread about an experience she was having. She got in depth with her unfiltered feelings about it and I found myself connecting with her.

You probably don't have to settle for a guy you message first, just let them know who you are and give them a way to find you.

[CaliforniaGirl]

11 hours ago, mr_marvel said:

 

 

I don't see why not. Because isn't that the whole point of all the arguments/discussions about "gender equality"???

How come women demand "equality" when they seem to whine and complain everytime their male counterparts actually let them do what have always been supposed to be the "male's jobs"???

 

 Not this again...how come guys demand "equality" in a woman paying for dates and working a 40-hour week once married to support the household as an equal pair, and we're supposed to take care of our own cars now and pay bills and traditional "guy" jobs, but guys still do only 22% of the housework and childcare chores in the average U.S. household even with slightly more than half of the total working population being women? How come the average woman's working dollar is only 81% of every man's dollar but "equality" to some men means women paying for all their own stuff but it's definitely okay that he makes more money (for the same job...not as an average of all working people in general)?

We could do this all day.

Dude please.

The equality women "demand" is in practical things that can be quantified and make sense: equal pay for equal work, equal rights in voting and in property ownership, etc. I think "equality" does not mean what you think it means.

Edited July 9, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[mr_marvel]

13 hours ago, CaliforniaGirl said:

 Not this again...how come guys demand "equality" in a woman paying for dates and working a 40-hour week once married to support the household as an equal pair, and we're supposed to take care of our own cars now and pay bills and traditional "guy" jobs, but guys still do only 22% of the housework and childcare chores in the average U.S. household even with slightly more than half of the total working population being women? How come the average woman's working dollar is only 81% of every man's dollar but "equality" to some men means women paying for all their own stuff but it's definitely okay that he makes more money (for the same job...not as an average of all working people in general)?

We could do this all day.

Dude please.

The equality women "demand" is in practical things that can be quantified and make sense: equal pay for equal work, equal rights in voting and in property ownership, etc. I think "equality" does not mean what you think it means.

Hold up, please stop at my comment and don't try to elaborate it too far.

All I was saying is, how come OP complained about the fact that she might have to take initiative, which is a subtle indicator that, at least to her, this is a guy's job while at the same time demand the so-called "gender equality"?

I mean, if both genders are equal and none of which is more superior than the other, then WHY women complain about having to "take initiative"??? 

To me, it's double standard no matter how you look at it.

[basil67]

2 minutes ago, mr_marvel said:

I mean, if both genders are equal and none of which is more superior than the other, then WHY women complain about having to "take initiative"??? 

 

Because not everyone is on board with gender equality.  

[Emilie Jolie]

15 hours ago, central said:

I include things like winks, nudges, smiles or other options sites provide to indicate some interest

There you go, @Colorful - a happy medium! 

If you're not comfortable doing any of these things, this only leaves working up a killer profile and having a photo that shows you at your best.

Good luck! 

[CaliforniaGirl]

10 hours ago, mr_marvel said:

Hold up, please stop at my comment and don't try to elaborate it too far.

All I was saying is, how come OP complained about the fact that she might have to take initiative, which is a subtle indicator that, at least to her, this is a guy's job while at the same time demand the so-called "gender equality"?

I mean, if both genders are equal and none of which is more superior than the other, then WHY women complain about having to "take initiative"??? 

To me, it's double standard no matter how you look at it.

My response is relevant. 

1. How do you know the OP believes in "gender equality" in the first place?

2. Who believes "gender equality" in a red pill way (proof that women are full of it, so go ahead and use them at will, they deserve it) or a pink pill way (men get periods...no, for reals)? IOW, women should be just like men and men just like women in all ways, or else somebody is full of it? Nobody I know and probably not the OP. Do you?

3, Neither gender IS superior to the other. What does politeness have to do with superiority? If I invite someone out to eat I pay. I'm a woman, BTW.

4. "It's a double-standard_...that apparently is part of being a human being, male or female, like it or not. We can come as close as we can to every single thing down a list being equal but it will never actually happen. But...again. Men have their double-standards too. I listed two above. There are more. Is it your belief that women should be perfect human beings who keep tallies on everything they do so as to remain "equal", but men don't? In that case in addition to double standard, we add hypocrisy. (Sorry to put it that way.)

So enough with this 100% inaccurate view that men treat women equally but women don't reciprocate. It's just another way to dislike and distrust women. It's another way to drive a wedge between us.

Edited July 10, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[CaliforniaGirl]

10 hours ago, enigma32 said:

I definitely don't speak for everyone but to me, different can still be equal.

A man and a woman don't have to be equal in all things across the board as long as we compliment one another well. If a woman wants a guy to ask her out, that's fine. I prefer to ask her out anyway, because then I can pick what we do. I don't think that makes us unequal. 

This. For the second time...women "want" equality because we want to earn the same wage for the same job (why wouldn't we anyway? Think about it, how weird to think otherwise), we want to vote (earned that a hundred years ago), own property in our own right. I know NO woman who wants to BE a man (or vice versa). Where's the logic that wanting equal rights = women have to turn into men - the obvious intimation there being that women are less than men, and we have to "become" them in order to earn basic rights?

To intimte that otherwise, one is superior (invariably, the man) and one is inferior (the woman) is telilng all by itself.

At one time there was sort of a "thing" where bosses would often pay married men with kids a higher wage than single guys. The idea was, "the married men need it more." Men backlashed like crazy and now it isn't that way anymore. By the above woman/many type of logic, since the single men are now earning an equal wage, they should BECOME the married men. So, now those single guys have to marry and have kids fast. Othewise where's the equality? Hypocritical single men! You want it both ways, don't you?

So...as to women approaching...you can do this too. JUST like women do: sit there trying to look handsome and being unable to approach. That's what women have to do in order to "not have to" initiate. But remember. That doesn't mean it's all easy. For decades women have been told we can't approach - and that should seem awesome because then "men come to us." But are they the right men for us? When you're passive, you're just that. You don'tget to choose the person you might really want. You have to choose from among the people who approach you, while you twiddle your hair like crazy and attempt unsuccessfully to make eye contact with the guy you'd really like a chance with.

OLD levels that playing field...a little. With approaches. But women not wanting to approach is probably about as occasional as men who are old-fashioned and don't like "aggressive" women and would turn down a pursuer. (Something I've heard a lot, even from very young men.) Nobody is "more hypocritical" (though almost always, that accusation is leveled at the woman). That's so old, and it's so tired. And it's so untrue.

Dying to not have to take the initiative? Sit there waiting for women you may not have chosen to approach you. And be denied the right to choose.

Edited July 10, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[CaliforniaGirl]

^ Edited to take out the stuff about paying. Maybe the poster I had quoted didn't mean that and he only meant initiating. So that's logical...let's keep it at that...above is the explanation as far as initiating. Sorry about that!

[CaliforniaGirl]

11 hours ago, basil67 said:

Because not everyone is on board with gender equality.  

Most people are. I'm guessing you are too. This is just the first definition I came across, I don't know much about UNICEF but I think it's safe to say it's not a niche/slanted category when it comes to men and women:

UNICEF says gender equality "means that women and men, and girls and boys, enjoy the same rights, resources, opportunities and protections. It does not require that girls and boys, or women and men, be the same, or that they be treated exactly alike."

ETA: And from the Economic Social Council:

The landmark Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948, reaffirms that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, … birth or other status.”

Rights. Voting. Property ownership. Salary. Being able to make our own purchases on large items (at one time we needed a husband's permission).

Not "we are eachother or else that's not equal." We're NOT eachother. No two people are exactly eachother, which is why the above ^ notes not just differences between sex but also race, birth status, religion, etc. Are blacks not equal to whites until they become white? Are Lutherans not equal to Catholics until they turn Catholic? It's just...such a weird assertion, this "we can't have the same rights unless women do everything men do outside the workplace, outside of the loan office, etc."

Gender equality is a practical matter, based more on legalities than feelings.

ETA; And @mr_marvel ..."whining" is such an incredibly NASTY way to put it. How about this? Let's dock your salary 19% (to a woman's average salary) and then when you stand up against it we can shrug and say "stop WHINING. Why do men who get docked 19% annual salary always WHINE? Stop WHINING."

Let's see you exist on nearly one-fifth less of a salary that you worked for just like the next category of people, and earned just like the next category of people, without saying anything. If you do, "you're whining. Why do you 'guy's always whine about making one-fifth less than you know you worked for?"

You stop it. It's incredibly rude and it's demeaning.

Edited July 10, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[Fresh_Start]

On 7/7/2020 at 7:06 PM, Colorful said:

Got matches with quite some men in online dating. Most of them are not starting any conversation. I am not going to. Aren't men supposed to take initiative? what's going on with this world now? I am old schooled. 

Is it me not attractive enough for them to take action, or generally it's how the world goes nowadays? I am living in N.A, if that helps with the diagnosis. 

I'm old school as well and agree that, in general, a man should take the initiative.  However, OLD changes the playing field a little bit.  Let me give you a personal example of why you should consider being a little less rigid with your approach to it:

The first time I ever used an OLD was after my divorce years ago.  I had a great deal of success with it and of all the dates that I went on and even a brief relationship that I got into, I always made the first move.  One day though, out of the clear blue, I got a message from a very attractive attorney asking me, "Want to teach me how to box?"  (One of my pictures in my profile was of me boxing) 

I was living in Chicago at the time and in a city that large, there were literally thousands of profiles for me to sort through.  This was a woman that I never even saw when I was "window shopping" profiles for the most attractive women.  We exchanged a couple of messages, I got her phone number, called her up, and our first date was as magical of a first date as a person could ever hope to have, with more chemistry than a University science lab.  We dated for 6 months before moving in together and after 7 or 8 months we started talking about marriage.  She was one of the greatest loves of my lifetime and we would have gotten married if not for a string of very unfortunate circumstances that included her accepting a promotion to be one of the senior partners of her law firm back in New Jersey.  

So while it ultimately didn't have a happy ending, it certainly could have, and none of it would have ever happened if she hadn't taken the initiative.  Just keep that in mind and if you see a guy who at least on the surface checks off all of your boxes, don't hamstring yourself with customs and conventions.  He just might be your future husband.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Fresh_Start

[Envy123]

For a long time, I've been told I should approach first as a guy. So, I tried to do just that.

Not only did it not work, ever, but the girls who I approached, just don't want to deal with me anymore. When I stopped doing this, I started to have relationships.

I do not doubt I have had missed opportunities, but each strategy always has its own positives and negatives, and my current approach has way more positives.

 

 

[central]

Most women like the man to initiate, and most men find that works for them.  However, it doesn't work well for everyone, or not in all situations.  If what you're doing (or not doing as the case may be) isn't working, then it's worth trying something new unless you're content with nothing changing or likely to change.  You can't change what others do, so you can only change what you do to get different results.