I felt a feeling I have decided to call "Childish Injury" throughout this whole article. I personally felt that, even if I was that 'brave man' who decided to write about dating, any attempt at...
Exemplary
Maybe some brave man will find a way to build it.
I felt a feeling I have decided to call "Childish Injury" throughout this whole article. I personally felt that, even if I was that 'brave man' who decided to write about dating, any attempt at writing about a straight male perspective would fall into that same trap that "Positive Male Role Models" do. It's not a self help column, it's not an advice forum, it's something your partner or parent might drag you to when they want you to be 'better' (read: not you.)
Maybe some brave man will find a way to build it.
A lot of dating advice, from every gender and viewpoint, either sounds peachy, toxic, or downright wrong. For ever positive column the author listed, there's no doubt dozens of low tier trash and reddit dating advice to go along with it.
Maybe some brave man will find a way to build it.
So, now the author has claimed that men are simply not brave enough to share their opinions? I'm intentionally quoting the same part over and over more to drive home the internal pain I already called childish but also to highlight that this is what it boils down to. Women (in the authors view) think men are just too scared to talk about dating. I'm fine talking about dating! I don't need this person talking down to me about it! I also know that, as has been repeated a hundred times (to any man that's listening), the world is full of diverse people who have diverse experiences and the last thing they need is some straight dude talking about himself and worst of all his dating habits! How is my viewpoint going to contribute to this diverse pool of information when I've been told for decades that the last thing we need is another straight dude talking about himself?
I know that this is an emotional reaction, and for the record a quite silly one, but for this author to suddenly say it's because I'm not brave enough just struck that nerve of the scared little boy inside of me. Already sensitive about the things I say in public so as not to talk over others now being told I should talk more. The classic misogynistic trap that plays out when women say that men should talk more and then get disinterested in hearing all your problems.
So, maybe I'm not brave enough but I'll save the advice for people who ask for it.
What you're feeling isn't childish -- it's a genuine response to a slight against your identity. Her words come across as dismissive and belittling. One of the persistent thorns in my side, and...
Exemplary
What you're feeling isn't childish -- it's a genuine response to a slight against your identity. Her words come across as dismissive and belittling.
One of the persistent thorns in my side, and this is coming from a queer person who has been openly supporting feminism and discussing gender politics on the internet for decades, is the acute and little-understood pressure cooker that men, particularly straight men, are put in when it comes to identity-based discrimination.
The pressure happens in two parts:
Part one: toxic masculinity teaches guys that they have to ignore their own feelings and pursue dominance. This is now commonly accepted and understood to be a bad thing -- both for the people whom the dominance was aimed at, as well as men who were not managing their feelings in healthy ways. There's a non-negligible pressure that now pushes against the previously accepted toxic framework.
Part two: because of the effects that toxic masculinity has had on other populations (e.g. women, queer people, etc.), categorically dismissing or criticizing men is seen as socially acceptable -- even valuable to some -- when similar criticisms of other populations would be seen as regressive or outright discriminatory. Men are often used as the human stand-in for toxic masculinity.
How do these intersect? Men as a group are simultaneously encouraged to feel more at the same time that we are categorically criticizing them. We tell men that we want them more in touch with their emotions while doing things that holistically damage those emotions!
Worst of all is that I don't think this ever gets seen for what it is.
I'm going to put on my gay guy hat here for a second, because my life has let me experience this effect from both sides.
As someone who's gay, I am no stranger to identity-based discrimination. I've been stereotyped, called awful names, belittled, patronized, dismissed, etc. It sucks for me, obviously, but I also feel like there's now a widespread societal understanding that it sucks, and you don't have to be gay to understand that.
As a guy though, I often see identity-based discrimination relative to men, and there's no widespread agreement that, yes, it also sucks. At worst, it's actually cherished as punching up, but even when it's not overtly malicious, it still seems predicated on an expectation of toxic masculinity: that men, hearing direct and indiscriminate criticism of themselves for being men, should just man up in response. After all, it's not that big of a deal, right?
Except it is: because being hated, dismissed, maligned, or typecast for who you are is awful -- an experience that nearly every member of every minority out there can tell you all about!
The existence of a shared through-line doesn't necessarily mean the existence of proportionality. I don't want to make people think I'm drawing some sort of false equivalence here. I, for example, genuinely don't think there's any word I could call a straight guy that would hit them the same way that "fag" hits me, for example.
But the point isn't about who has it worse (though that's often the distraction that derails so many of these conversations) -- the point is that hating on someone for their gender is genuinely wrong regardless of that person's gender. It's about seeing the through-line for what it is in the first place. If stereotyping women is wrong, and belittling gay guys is wrong, and marginalizing trans people is wrong (and, to be clear, these ARE all wrong), then taking pot shots at straight men is wrong too. It's not progressive; it's not a form of gendered-justice; it's not harmless. It's actually just toxic masculinity being reinforced by outside actors, rather than from within.
So, getting back to what the author wrote and the feelings it brought up in you: you are completely valid for having the response that you did. I wish more people would see that and empathize with it, and then try to understand where it comes from.
When guys as a whole are shot down, as they often are, I wish those moments were met with more thoughtfulness. I wish there were the kind of care in response to those moments that has been offered to me in the times where I've faced my own identity-based discriminations for being gay. If someone came here and said "gay guys are scum" they'd almost certainly get pushback, probably even banned. If that person said it to me directly, I can almost bet some people here would reach out in kindness to me afterwards, maybe even PM me to make sure I was okay.
But if someone simply said "guys are scum" I feel like many of us would nod in agreement, see it as a difficult truth, and miss it for what it actually is: gender-based discrimination. We wouldn't be reaching out to the guys reading that to make sure they're okay. We wouldn't be pushing back against it with a similar force.
Again, it's not that the two situations share a magnitude (I genuinely think the former situation would be worse); it's that they both share a negative moral value. Unfortunately, in the latter situation, that feels all but invisible to most.
You, Sodliddesu, described your own feeling towards the author's words as "childish", but I want to let you know that your thoughtful response was anything but. It was the measured, honest response of a man trying to grapple with being the better person that society wants him to be, all while that same society tries to get away with framing him for the worse. That's not a bind you should have to be in. It's not fair to you, and I'm sorry that weight is on your shoulders.
In short, thank you. I've written much and deleted much more in trying to find a response but the easiest thing to say is just that, thank you. I believe I thought, or think, it to be childish...
In short, thank you. I've written much and deleted much more in trying to find a response but the easiest thing to say is just that, thank you.
I believe I thought, or think, it to be childish because I do not feel that I do, or should, derive any of my identity from being a man. I've got enough scraps of ribbon and paper denoting my accomplishments that I can be proud of if I so choose and, other than my birth certificate, none of them mention what's between my legs. I just feel like, while I won't lie that being a man has benefitted me due to culture and all that, it's not anything that I value... Or, thought I didn't value before getting all hung up.
I don't know if this is just because I'm a straight white dude so I don't need to focus on any one thing, but do other people also not feel the need to define their identity in any way? My...
I don't know if this is just because I'm a straight white dude so I don't need to focus on any one thing, but do other people also not feel the need to define their identity in any way? My identity is me. I play video games but I'd never (ever) call myself a gamer. I like many different things, but those are not what I am...although when I kept running after I ran a marathon, I decided I couldn't escape calling myself a runner, even if it doesn't define my identity.
While I am a straight white dude, that's not how I see myself either, which probably at least partially comes from a position of privilege.
But maybe it's because I'm a straight white dude so I'm just the societal default and I can be whatever I want to be (privilege) and I don't have to (privilege) or get to (negative consequence) define myself as anything specific? I guess it's too complicated of a question for me to ever answer so I get to just ignore it...which is a privilege.
This is absolutely a thing in the queer community too, and it's not remotely uncommon. It's part of why the term "queer" took off in the first places -- it's broad enough that it doesn't force you...
I don't know if this is just because I'm a straight white dude so I don't need to focus on any one thing, but do other people also not feel the need to define their identity in any way?
This is absolutely a thing in the queer community too, and it's not remotely uncommon. It's part of why the term "queer" took off in the first places -- it's broad enough that it doesn't force you to pin down a specific label for yourself. A lot of people find a lot of value in particular labels, but plenty of people actively reject them, so I don't think this is necessarily something that only results from your privilege.
What does result from privilege is the ability to not feel seen as something other by other people. No matter how much one avoid labels in my own identity, one cannot escape being assigned them by other people. If I want to be seen as just a person or even as a gamer or a scholar or whatever, I cannot escape the "woman" label hanging over me like a sword of damocles, tainting whatever other identity I want to present to the world. Even fully transitioning to the opposite binary gender doesn't guarantee you escape that.
So I guess tl;dr it's a mix, depending on whether you're thinking of defining your identity on an internal or external level. On the internal level I think your feelings are very common across a broad spectrum of people. But on the external level is where it's influenced by your status as the societal default.
This is the sort of comment the Exemplary tag exists for. Damn. Could you throw out a few examples of this? As a straight man that's never struggled with masculinity, identity, etc. I feel blind...
This is the sort of comment the Exemplary tag exists for. Damn.
As a guy though, I often see identity-based discrimination relative to men
Could you throw out a few examples of this?
As a straight man that's never struggled with masculinity, identity, etc. I feel blind to this. Of course I've read the articles about men struggling in school, searching for a modern identity, etc. etc. etc. but I've never had my antenna go up seeing irl examples of male identity-based discrimination.
This is a non-exhaustive list and many of these forms of discrimination vary greatly depending on a number of factors, but here's a few ways in which gender based discrimination can affect men...
Exemplary
This is a non-exhaustive list and many of these forms of discrimination vary greatly depending on a number of factors, but here's a few ways in which gender based discrimination can affect men
Being passed over for a promotion because you aren't "manly" enough
Being called gay for being in touch with your emotions
Being denied paternity leave
Being discriminated against in dating pools based on height
The counterpart to typical female STEM discrimination is male HEED (health care, education, domestic) discrimination
Dismissal or disbelief of sexual assault and domestic abuse allegations
Expectation to spend more hours at work or devote more energy/effort to work efforts than coworkers of other genders, especially when they are not married or do not have kids
Taking time off might be considered not taking their job seriously, whereas women might be considered to be doing it for family reasons
Less likely to receive assistance in education when behavioral problems are present
Harsher punitive punishments in various systems (education, legal, etc)
It's extremely difficult to pull this web apart, but men seek mental health at much lower rates than women, likely because their issues are dismissed and they are considered less "manly" when pursuing mental health, despite mental health needs being in general much higher for men (at least partially because they so rarely seek it) and suicide rates being 3-4x of other genders
In many countries only men can be drafted for war, and among men there may be requirements with regards to sexuality or presentation
Books on parenting targeted at men are few and far between
Single male parents often experience being dismissed in favor of the mother or implied that they are only at parenting events because the mother could not make it, or are celebrated for attending in a way that women are not
Single males around children are often perceived as a potential threat (child sexual abuse)
Across many studies on perceptions of gender, women tend to be associated with more positive traits than men and people tend to judge discrimination against women as worse than that against men
As is mentioned in the article it's much more acceptable to make negative generalizations about men without having to qualify that you don't literally mean 'all men' when doing so
Transgender men are often ignored or erased in many discussions about transgender issues
Transgender men often experience troubles accessing certain kinds of medical care
I'm afraid to open up a can of worms here - but this reminds me of a time when my co-worker had just returned from maternity leave. She said something about her husband having been back to work...
Being denied paternity leave
I'm afraid to open up a can of worms here - but this reminds me of a time when my co-worker had just returned from maternity leave. She said something about her husband having been back to work for a month or so and I remarked it's a shame he didn't get as much time off to help with the baby. But somehow this got perceived wrong because my coworker quipped that he didn't give birth and thus did not deserve as much time off. Wouldn't you want a second parent around to help out with your 2 month old baby 24/7?
But the real issue is that neither of them got as much time off as they should have.
I think you just hit her with empathy for him at a moment she was probably feeling pretty bad on her own behalf - and who knows whether she's been frustrated with him for other reasons, but she's...
I think you just hit her with empathy for him at a moment she was probably feeling pretty bad on her own behalf - and who knows whether she's been frustrated with him for other reasons, but she's definitely dealing with hormonal changes still. So yeah, you weren't getting a thoughtful response but an emotional reaction.
Not OP, but what about someone saying “all guys want is sex”. This is dismissive stereotyping, based on gender. It’s also quite sad because it disregards many other things men might want in dating...
Not OP, but what about someone saying “all guys want is sex”. This is dismissive stereotyping, based on gender.
It’s also quite sad because it disregards many other things men might want in dating or in a relationship.
Thanks Sodliddesu, I like your insightful way of talking about this article. I admit, I read your comment before the article, because the title sounded so sensationalised and clearly biased...
Thanks Sodliddesu, I like your insightful way of talking about this article. I admit, I read your comment before the article, because the title sounded so sensationalised and clearly biased towards a hetero male - hetero female dichotomy.
I've also got the scared little boy inside me. I am also sensitive to the people around me, desire to be seen in a positive light, and get crushed and easily manipulated by little lines like that. That line is an attempt at calling to action, but in a disgusting, manipulative way, that I reckon you have experienced similarly in other parts of your life. Is that accurate?
I think it is weird of the author to come in with the assumption that dating from a binary hetero male perspective is any different than dating from non binary queer perspective. I get plenty of great, practicable, sensitive advice from non binary queer people that I can introduce into my dating life as a hetero male. I'm a better person because I listen to those perspectives. If I got advice from those males that are handing it out now, I would be misogynistic and conspiratorial and other unhealthy traits for a partnership.
I think this author's perspective is unclear, which makes their writing, and their call to action, disgusting. They might be writing this call to action for sensitive men like us, who have the perspective described in the article. If so, they clearly are keeping the cycle of division going with that line.
But maybe they are actually trying to tap in to those less sensitive than us? I dunno, I'm trying to see something positive but it's tough.
That was the core of the comment I had half-typed before I took a nap and iOS decided to free up memory by killing the Surfboard process, thus eating the reply. The author admits that men do seek...
any attempt at writing about a straight male perspective would fall into that same trap that "Positive Male Role Models" do. It's not a self help column, it's not an advice forum, it's something your partner or parent might drag you to when they want you to be 'better' (read: not you.)
That was the core of the comment I had half-typed before I took a nap and iOS decided to free up memory by killing the Surfboard process, thus eating the reply.
The author admits that men do seek advice from other men—but not in the form of a regularly scheduled advice column published by a specific man. We already have our boys-only clubhouse. It's just not a public lecture series like an advice column. The man she interviewed who said such a column would either be being a braggart or a pity party is exactly the attitude that one would expect. The audience for such a column would not be other straight men. It would be men performing advice to gain approval from women.
I think it's fairly hard to date in an ethical and constructive way as a heterosexual male. There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a...
I think it's fairly hard to date in an ethical and constructive way as a heterosexual male. There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached.
If we ignore the toxicity of the statement I just made there is an understanding that men have to be incredibly observant of the subtle details of the body language which doesn't translate well into a written format. Anytime men write about the initial stages of relationships it will always sound like a pickup column or something that came from Andrew Tate anytime that men lament the difficulty of being expected to be both hyper observant and also not overly observant they will be called an incel. There's obviously a middle ground but it just doesn't translate into text very well as it ends up as learned social skills through trial and error.
I am not an American so I do not know what could happen in the US - my question might be stupid. But I am curious - what exactly is hard about it? The way I see it, it's just about some very basic...
I think it's fairly hard to date in an ethical and constructive way as a heterosexual male. There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached.
I am not an American so I do not know what could happen in the US - my question might be stupid. But I am curious - what exactly is hard about it? The way I see it, it's just about some very basic social skills.
Example: I go to a social event and there is a woman that seems interesting. If she is talking with her group, I do not bother her. If she is looking at pictures on walls, seems kind of bored, or talks to people from other groups, I try to strike up a conversation. We talk for a while. If she seems bored or wants to go talk to other people, I accept it and move on. If she keeps talking to me and I think there is a connection, I ask whether she wants to get a coffee sometime. If she says yes, great. If she says no, I accept it and move on. That's about it. Seems simple and ethical to me. What am I missing?
We've sort of made everyone assume the worst case is the standard. There are people out there who are completely inappropriate in how they approach someone they're interested in, and it was...
Exemplary
what exactly is hard about it?
We've sort of made everyone assume the worst case is the standard.
There are people out there who are completely inappropriate in how they approach someone they're interested in, and it was something that was overlooked in popular culture so there was very justified pushback to make clear that such behavior is not ok.
However if you're young and impressionable you can be just blasted with content telling you that if you even look at someone without a signed legal form it's harassment and you're trash, let alone daring to speak to them without express consent. Add on the fact that there's still a cultural expectation that the guy should make the first move (less than it used to be but still very much there) and it can feel like a lose lose.
So you take an already awkward situation with the usual doubts (what if they reject me, am i reading signals wrong, what if they laugh at me, what if it doesn't work out, what if they aren't single, etc) and supercharge it with "and if they do reject me, I'm a horrible creep for ever daring to ask.". This is not actually the reality, but it's another case where most media will portray every situation as black and white, because the loudest and most hateful are benefiting from the shock/attention market we've made.
The fundamental misunderstanding men who are worried about this have is that the places you listed have explicit purposes for existing that aren't dating. Particularly gym and yoga are places...
gym/work/yoga/etc. or you're a creep!".
The fundamental misunderstanding men who are worried about this have is that the places you listed have explicit purposes for existing that aren't dating. Particularly gym and yoga are places women get hit on a lot and most of them time all they, like everyone else there, want to do is complete a work out. Same goes for people whose job it is to be nice to you like retail workers and the coffee shop employees. They aren't there looking for romance, they're there to serve you a coffee or help you pick out a shirt and get paid. So when women (or people generally) write about how they hate getting hit on in these circumstances it's because the initiator has misunderstood the social context and broadly what's being written about is an annoyance at how someone could so easily miss those cues or otherwise be so entitled they ignore them.
I think this is a symptom of a society where there aren't many third places left - because IMO the ideal way to meet someone is when you aren't somewhere with the "explicit purpose" of dating....
I think this is a symptom of a society where there aren't many third places left - because IMO the ideal way to meet someone is when you aren't somewhere with the "explicit purpose" of dating. Really though, I've never met a friend, acquaintance, really anyone at a gym so I agree that's a terrible avenue for trying to find a date.
I disagree - this has always been the case, but women are finally getting the avenues to speak about it in a capacity that matters. "Picking up" girls was never cool. For every girl that actually...
I disagree - this has always been the case, but women are finally getting the avenues to speak about it in a capacity that matters. "Picking up" girls was never cool. For every girl that actually ends up interested, there's a hundred that are just bothered for no reason.
Local communities still exist. It really is a matter of getting over social anxiety to go to social functions, which isn't easy, but just because it isn't easy doesn't mean hetero men get a pass to act all confused whilst refusing to actually learn social skills before they try to date.
Note; I'm sorry if this came off aggressive, I just can't talk about this topic without being blunt. Having been on the receiving end of these kinds of claims gives you a special kind of frustration.
Social functions do exist. I’m lucky to have a couple of regular groups I’m a part of. I think finding a group that’s a good match for you takes a bit of time and some areas might be outright...
Social functions do exist. I’m lucky to have a couple of regular groups I’m a part of. I think finding a group that’s a good match for you takes a bit of time and some areas might be outright social deserts.
I’m imagining that at some point these social functions were more obligatory, requiring less initiative and less personally driven development to enter. We could have such a society where people are raised to meet social expectations by default - and then no initiative or social upskilling would be required. I don’t know for sure if this is an area we’ve all let atrophy or if the improvement of some other area of life has revealed a new weakest link.
You misunderstand what the comment is saying. Unlike what a lot of rhetoric today would lead you to believe, not every situation is appropriate to be hitting on someone. Women are becoming tired...
You misunderstand what the comment is saying. Unlike what a lot of rhetoric today would lead you to believe, not every situation is appropriate to be hitting on someone. Women are becoming tired of being walked up to when they're on their phone on the bus because someone thinks she's hot enough to be their girlfriend. I am only slightly exaggerating.
Going out to social places, especially places that are oriented around a community/hobby/interest, is where you are likely to make connections in an ethical way. This isn't very difficult to do, as nowadays there are communities for pretty much anything. And before someone tells me about all of the awkward lonely men - I was one growing up, and believing that rhetoric only made me am extremely toxic person that hurt others as a result.
Framing this as a complicated issue when it is, in reality, just treating women as people is very poor taste in my opinion.
I grew up as a heterosexual man. For the majority of my life I was the chronically online awkward teen. I was the target of all of what you're saying and I heard it a thousand times. By all...
I grew up as a heterosexual man. For the majority of my life I was the chronically online awkward teen. I was the target of all of what you're saying and I heard it a thousand times.
By all accounts I shouldn't have had a girlfriend if you look at it from traditionalist values, because I didn't ever go out picking up women. I wasn't exactly hot and my confidence was on the floor, but because I actually spoke to people who shared my nerdy interest I had a few relationships.
It isn't difficult and we need to stop presenting it as difficult. Not every woman a man meets is a potential date, and having casual conversation a few times doesn't equate to it being okay to ask someone out. I'll put it like this; if there is a connection, then they'll probably end up talking more and more. If there isn't, then maybe we shouldn't force it. Maybe not every man needs to constantly be on the lookout for a girlfriend, and the timid guy would be a lot better off if he just didn't stress about it so badly. If he didn't think that he needed a girlfriend to be a man. And maybe the guy who hits on women multiple times a week should be accurately labeled as a creep who probably doesn't see these women as much more than potential girlfriends.
Look, I am empathetic to this situation because again, I lived it. Despite having relationships I still struggled immensely with my social skills, I still do. But masculinity is laced with thousands of years of toxicity and bad practices that need to go, and hitting on women in public places is one of them. It is a net negative on the day to day life of women, for the potential few who enter a relationship this way. The advice I give young men nowadays is very simple: go places that are centered around your hobbies and interests.
Dealing with social anxiety is very hard but that doesn't give us a pass to "train" our social skills by trying to pick up women. A man can learn social skills by being social first, and THEN start trying to date, not the other way around.
Do you have any basis for that last claim? Because I have to be honest, it reeks of the manosphere.
Edit: if any of you reading this resonate with the feeling that social connections are rejected no matter what you try, please please please seek therapy if it's available. I know it is a gamble and not every therapist is great but getting out of this kind of mindset alone is so difficult. I don't mean to suggest anyone that feels this way is inherently evil - we can all be a bit different in our own ways, but we need to recognize when it starts to hurt others and work on those parts.
The issue I find with your claim is that it does not logically lead to it being okay to hit on women anywhere. Just because other men are doing it doesn't mean that it's okay to do, and just...
The issue I find with your claim is that it does not logically lead to it being okay to hit on women anywhere. Just because other men are doing it doesn't mean that it's okay to do, and just because they're the men you hear about most doesn't mean that it's really the majority of cases.
My advice is designed to help men avoid falling into the mindset that they need to somehow socially maneuver around women to get into relationships. You don't. Jackasses do that, and it's becoming less and less popular as we can clearly see by the fact that it's actually being talked about rather than a fact of life that women have to deal with. The status quo as it is is harmful for men too, and the more we push against it whether as men or as women the quicker we can rid men of these ridiculous social expectations based on how heterosexual men think they should be acting, not how women are telling them to act.
I'm sorry that this line of thinking failed you growing up, but the reality of the situation is that not everyone will happen upon a relationship in their early years, sometimes through no fault of their own. Presenting it as something that is so critical and so important is part of the problem that makes men believe they need a girlfriend or they're lesser. Sometimes even if you try very hard you just don't happen upon romance, and well, that's life. But maybe it's time to relax a little. If we push people to grow out of these expectations then we are fostering a better dating culture.
Surely, you can see why saying that the toxic men will out compete the feminist men is evocative of the alpha male rhetoric? The idea that aggressive men will naturally get more women? I don't know. It doesn't strike me as the right approach.
Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. I agree with what @honzabe originally wrote, I don't think it's very complicated nor much different than when I was...
I’m not advocating men to just go randomly ask women out in public and that you don’t project anything about the manosphere onto me, an individual.
Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
I agree with what @honzabe originally wrote, I don't think it's very complicated nor much different than when I was dating more than a decade ago.
Women do get dates and meet their boyfriends and husbands through gym, yoga, work and so on.
I don't think anyone is saying "Thou shall not flirt with women at the gym" but instead just be a considerate person and realize most women might not want to be bothered in a predominantly non-social setting where the focus is on themselves. But if you end up running on a treadmill beside the same person long enough to chat a few times and they signal they're interested no one is going to think you're toxic for shooting your shot.
Sorry to jump on something a day later, but this seriously irks me every time I see it. I have personally never heard a woman ask where the good men have gone, except in the song "Holding Out for...
your approach as a man is what then leads women to ask “Where have all the good men gone?”
Sorry to jump on something a day later, but this seriously irks me every time I see it.
I have personally never heard a woman ask where the good men have gone, except in the song "Holding Out for a Hero" and maybe some old movies written by men.
What I actually hear from the women in my life - when I listen to what they are most concerned about - is that they are consistently harassed by men in public places. Just when they start to think that maybe men have gotten better and they are safe in their own community, a man decides that's it's reasonable to cat-call them or follow them or cold open with a sexual proposition. I have a very small social circle, yet I know women who have been roofied and sexually assaulted. They have justified fears about going anywhere alone or at night, dressing they way they want, and saying "no" to men directly. I can't imagine how stifling, how smothering of the human spirit it must be to deal with these things every day of your life.
I'm not a woman and can't speak for them, but if I were I would gladly take a smaller dating pool in exchange for less harassment. That seems like a great deal. And that's assuming that women really are missing out on "good" men because they are browbeaten by feminism, which I don't accept without some real data.
Scenario one: the kind man that you envision reads on the internet that he should never cold approach a woman in the gym, and should instead join clubs and take classes and maybe meet someone...
Scenario one: the kind man that you envision reads on the internet that he should never cold approach a woman in the gym, and should instead join clubs and take classes and maybe meet someone there or through a friend.
Scenario two: He reads that it's fine to cold approach a woman in the gym so long as the "vibes" are right, and because he's had little enough social practice that he needs internet advice, he gets them wrong. She gets upset and calls him a creep and tells him he should leave women alone.
You think scenario one is the one that's more likely to take him out of the dating pool long-term?
That's not even taking into account the fact that the pool of men who cold approach women has always been mostly gross guys, and that most women don't want to be approached at the gym or grocery store or bank by anyone, kind or not. If you're good enough at reading social cues to be the rare guy who's struck up a natural conversation with a woman at a gym and should make a move, then you don't need advice from the internet.
Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being meek.
Of course not. I think you're accurately describing the difficult position that responsible men find themselves in when dating. My objection, again, is to the way you used the question "Where have...
But do you think any of that is what I am advocating?
Of course not. I think you're accurately describing the difficult position that responsible men find themselves in when dating.
My objection, again, is to the way you used the question "Where have all the good men gone?" to claim that your position also benefits women. Women have different interests - much more pressing ones - when it comes to whether men feel comfortable approaching them.
You're assuming in your deal that a smaller dating pool somehow means the quality of it has gone up and the creeps aren't in it anymore
No, I am not at all. I'm saying that being approached less by men is good for women across the board, regardless of what sort of men you think they are. Your reasoning around all this seems to be based on unrealistically sharp divisions between good and bad men. I'm pretty sure most men (most people, in fact) fall into a middle category: well-intentioned, but morally lazy and willing to behave badly when there are no social consequences for it.
"I think some women cut off their husband's balls and then they wonder why they're not attracted to them anymore"
Respectfully, if that character's relationship is anywhere near what you're aiming for, then I can see why we disagree.
I think you might be thinking too linearly about the outcome. I see room for more variables, things playing out differently. Yes, there are feminist men self-selecting out of the dating pool for...
I think you might be thinking too linearly about the outcome. I see room for more variables, things playing out differently.
Yes, there are feminist men self-selecting out of the dating pool for fear of victimizing women. But there are also feminist men still in the dating pool. In my experience, it doesn't seem like women are only left with misogynistic men around. I also wouldn't assume that more misogynistic men are getting dates, relationships, and marriages than nice guys. These days, more women are choosing to stay single and/or celibate if circumstances (cultural, financial, etc.) allow.
It is also possible for a timid nice guy to also be a misogynist. I'm not saying that is always the case. But something is amiss when a nice guy takes "never hit on women in public, ever" to heart without seeking further opinions from women or thinking critically about the context of their anecdotes. This is where Felicity's advice comes in. I see it as helping men in a roundabout way. Developing one's own hobbies within a community increases one's social interactions. Learning how to empathize, listen, and talk to people of all genders are key skills in a relationship. Women are generally socialized to be attentive, supportive, and caring which tends to give them a "leg up" in this regard. I interpreted Felicity's advice as becoming a well-rounded person as the first step before learning how to take initiative in dating.
Sorry to double comment, but this has been bugging me. Shouldn't helping men and women be the same in this context? It shouldn't be adversarial. Meeting people and forming connections should...
Sorry to double comment, but this has been bugging me.
Your advice does not seem designed to help men, but to help women.
Shouldn't helping men and women be the same in this context? It shouldn't be adversarial. Meeting people and forming connections should ideally be fun. Advising men on how to not make women uncomfortable or scared should be helping both of them.
It reminds me of a response I've heard to dating advice from women aimed at men: "You wouldn't ask a fish about fishing, you ask a fisherman". To me that's always been a little more honest than it needs to be. A fisherman doesn't want to make the fish happy. He has his own ideas about what fish are for that so t align at all with the fish's. That's a really terrible way to look at dating.
"In public" is not the same as "at the gym/work/the bank". There are plenty of public places where socializing is encouraged and expected. Bars, coffee shops, parks, and yes, places that are...
"In public" is not the same as "at the gym/work/the bank". There are plenty of public places where socializing is encouraged and expected. Bars, coffee shops, parks, and yes, places that are centered around your hobbies and interests. I may not be understanding your critique of that last bit. It seems to be that it leaves out too many steps, but that's because it's not a comprehensive plan. It's an alternative to hitting on women in places where they're likely to be uncomfortable. If you're claiming that you can't meet a wife with whom you can have a family at a cooking class or a rock-climbing club or an Adventures League night at a comic shop, that's just false.
When he can form platonic relationships then he is actively developing his social skills. The easier it is to talk to people the easier it will be for them to start reading the room. As someone...
When he can form platonic relationships then he is actively developing his social skills. The easier it is to talk to people the easier it will be for them to start reading the room. As someone who struggles immensely with social interaction, I've found listening helps a lot with this, more than actively participating.
It's easier to know when a man is definitely NOT ready, and if they cannot make any social connection let alone a romantic one, that's definitely a sign. If it's a more complicated issue, then by focusing on platonic connections he will gain the social skills to start figuring out what it is.
Whoa whoa whoa. What's going on here? I think we need to unpack that. Edit: Probably these are issues that therapy can solve - if that's available to you. And I know starting that process is...
met with disgust whenever I try to make friends
Whoa whoa whoa. What's going on here? I think we need to unpack that.
Edit:
Probably these are issues that therapy can solve - if that's available to you. And I know starting that process is really uncomfortable and what sucks is it's something you'll be doing on your own. What doesn't suck is that once you're doing it you're not on your own anymore.
Don't threaten me with a good time. In all seriousness, every relationship I've ever had has been with someone I met in a class or through a friend, including my husband and the guy I briefly...
They would be alone if they practiced their own advice
Don't threaten me with a good time.
In all seriousness, every relationship I've ever had has been with someone I met in a class or through a friend, including my husband and the guy I briefly dated who introduced me to my husband. Not only would I not be alone if no one had ever approached me at the gym or the grocery store or in line at the bank, if those were my only options I think I would prefer to be alone. The number of gross, inappropriate, or overly persistent men who made me feel unwelcome in every public space overwhelmed the few kind, reasonable guys who quickly took no for an answer, long before this was a topic of conversation on the internet. This advice isn't what causes the most misogynistic men to be most likely doing the approaching, because that dynamic predates the advice.
I think the main issue is that as a woman, there's no way to opt out. No way to overtly and clearly signal "I am not available for this interaction". I want to be able to go to the grocery store and just shop, and there was a time in my life when that was truly unlikely. It came to a point that so many men had said gross things to me, or pulled my headphones out, or not respected my "no" or followed me around and even to my car, that being approached at all caused me significant anxiety. I stopped going anywhere that I didn't have to go, because I didn't want to deal with it. I was very young, early 20's, and the world seemed hostile and treacherous to me. If I could have signaled that I was not available to be approached, while women in a different frame of mind signaled differently, then I'd give the greenlight to well-meaning men at the gym. I actually bought a shirt that said "Don't Talk to Me" with little flowers, but it didn't make much difference.
The question isn't really "is it appropriate to hit on women while she's running errands?" It's "what can I do as a woman running errands to make sure I don't get hit on?" If the answer is "nothing", then she's trapped. You shouldn't hit on women in elevators for the same reason. Being trapped isn't romantic.
If you don't mind me asking, do you live in the US? Because if the answer is yes, then (in connection with other things I heard recently) maybe I am starting to form a new theory about this whole...
It came to a point that so many men had said gross things to me, or pulled my headphones out, or not respected my "no" or followed me around and even to my car
If you don't mind me asking, do you live in the US? Because if the answer is yes, then (in connection with other things I heard recently) maybe I am starting to form a new theory about this whole thing.
Not anymore, but I did at the time I described in my comment. South Florida, specifically. I do think the situation is much worse there than in other places. Since I've been in Sweden I've only...
Not anymore, but I did at the time I described in my comment. South Florida, specifically. I do think the situation is much worse there than in other places. Since I've been in Sweden I've only had one uncomfortable interaction with a man and I've been here for 10 months.
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. Recently, I watched a series of videos from Americans who moved to Europe. Surprisingly many women there mentioned that one of the cultural shocks was that...
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Recently, I watched a series of videos from Americans who moved to Europe. Surprisingly many women there mentioned that one of the cultural shocks was that they could go anywhere and feel safe. I thought they were maybe referring to the fact that generally violent crime rate is higher in the US. Like shootings or something. But now, I am starting to think they were referring to the behavior you mentioned.
Where I live, that kind of behavior seems unimaginable, or at least extremely rare. In small villages, not taking no for an answer could even elicit some serious ass-kicking from men related to the affected female to teach him good manners.
Just to add a bit to that, because I have observed the same which seems to stem from the whole "dating culture" in the US that isn't as prevelant in Europe to the same degree. Of course people go...
Just to add a bit to that, because I have observed the same which seems to stem from the whole "dating culture" in the US that isn't as prevelant in Europe to the same degree. Of course people go on dates and people "hit on" each other in bars, but many relationships just sort of forms from casual friendships that evolve into romantic relationships.
If your first interaction with a total stranger is some pickup line, then it gets tiresome in the end. I feel like the best approach is really just to interact with people of both same and different genders in the same friendly manner and not have every interaction with the gender you might be interested be with a hidden intent of trying to "hit on" them.
I'm enjoying it immensely so far! It definitely does feel much safer here, and the way men talk to me (or more often, the way they don't talk to me) is undoubtedly a factor. It's led me to wonder...
I'm enjoying it immensely so far!
It definitely does feel much safer here, and the way men talk to me (or more often, the way they don't talk to me) is undoubtedly a factor. It's led me to wonder what it is about America, especially about Florida, that's led to such obviously unacceptable behavior being a prevalent part of the culture.
Oh boy, I was unlucky (or stupid) enough to go to a boys-only high school. I think it was pretty damaging to my social development and it took a few years to catch on. It was so long ago that I...
they miss out on crucial opportunities for social and romantic experiences in high school and college.
Oh boy, I was unlucky (or stupid) enough to go to a boys-only high school. I think it was pretty damaging to my social development and it took a few years to catch on. It was so long ago that I forgot about that. Yep, I felt tense around women in those times.
I was maybe lucky that I live in a country where the stuff you describe is not common, so I had time to get used to interacting with women without too much pressure. Or maybe it's not about a country but about a social bubble? Who knows...
Judging by my memory of those tense years, people overthink it. I remember how I was trying to come up with some original line - now I think it is unnecessary. The "coffee" line is perfectly fine. If some joke occurs to me at the moment, great, but no need to force it.
There's a lot of 'advice' out there for men that says either contradictory or confusing. For instance, how long are you 'allowed' to look at the woman in her group to gauge her interest? Don't...
There's a lot of 'advice' out there for men that says either contradictory or confusing. For instance, how long are you 'allowed' to look at the woman in her group to gauge her interest? Don't stare, obviously, but what if you glanced over and missed the five times she looked your way! So, you decide, what the hell and walk over and now you're the creep bothering her with her friends. What if she's just looking at the paintings and looks bored? Also, what if that's her resting face and you're just the creep hitting on her while she's trying to look at the paintings.
The simple and ethical answer is always take no as a complete sentence and an answer... But how do you get to the 'no'? Yes, the obvious answer is to ask but the advice young men are usually looking for is... How do I ask? So the advice of "Watch her until she's alone or looking bored and 'strike up a conversation'" sounds like something you'd find in a Pickup Artist YouTube video.
At the end of the day, take no for an answer and treat women like people and you're pretty much good to ethically date - but if you're a young man looking for guidance on how to do that and everyone just says... Well, those two things, you're probably not getting a date or good advice.
I don't know. Honestly, questions like that never occurred to me. I really do not want to sound like I dismiss your concerns, but are you sure this is not the overthinking? People usually have...
For instance, how long are you 'allowed' to look at the woman in her group to gauge her interest?
I don't know. Honestly, questions like that never occurred to me. I really do not want to sound like I dismiss your concerns, but are you sure this is not the overthinking?
People usually have instincts for that - maybe don't be afraid to rely on them? If it feels right, it's probably right. Also, there is a lot of room for error. Maybe not in the US - in that case I am sorry - but what @Eji1700 says seems pretty likely to me
We've sort of made everyone assume the worst case is the standard.
Also, the more you talk to people, the better you get. Nowadays I think I got good enough in reading social cues that most of the time I can tell whether she likes me or not before I even talk to her. So I just don't bother those that don't.
The funny thing about this is that this is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think it will go fine, you are relaxed and normal and it goes fine. If you don't, you tense up and act weirdly and people pick up on that.
I really wish I could help you but if someone said what I am saying now to a 17-years-old me, it would not have worked, probably. Maybe you need to find a way to relax more? What if you go to a language meetup and get used to talking women in "we are just practicing Spanish" kind of way?
Don't worry, those were hypothetical questions but I do want to highlight this - many people have horribly skewed ideas of what is 'right'. I'm thankfully not currently searching for a partner and...
If it feels right, it's probably right.
Don't worry, those were hypothetical questions but I do want to highlight this - many people have horribly skewed ideas of what is 'right'.
I'm thankfully not currently searching for a partner and I've also thankfully experienced enough rejections that I'm not concerned by that aspect of the whole conversation. My personal philosophy starts and ends with treating women like people but that's an over simplification for someone who doesn't really know what that entails.
That said, this also becomes the point where what works for me doesn't necessarily work for anyone else and by saying "Well, I got someone this way," sounds like bragging more than building a dataset to guide future people with! Young me wouldn't know the first thing about what I'm talking about because it took years and years of fucking things up horribly to get there. Or, to quote the band Faces, "you'll have to learn, just like me, and that's the hardest way."
The question of "how do you talk to women" is loaded. I don't talk to my female boss any differently than any of my male coworkers... Because my end goal isn't sex. "How do you talk to anyone with an end goal of sex" reveals the truth of the question which the answer to that is "be handsome, charming, or interesting, if not all three."
Yep, but isn't that a different thing? Just to clarify, I meant stuff like... that you can kind of feel how long is too long to look at her before she becomes uncomfortable.
many people have horribly skewed ideas of what is 'right'.
Yep, but isn't that a different thing? Just to clarify, I meant stuff like... that you can kind of feel how long is too long to look at her before she becomes uncomfortable.
Some people are chefs. Pinch of this, dash of that, and the recipe comes out fine. Some are bakers and heaven forbid you are a few grams off or the loaf won't rise. And some people prefer all the...
Some people are chefs. Pinch of this, dash of that, and the recipe comes out fine. Some are bakers and heaven forbid you are a few grams off or the loaf won't rise. And some people prefer all the sustenance in shake form to avoid all the chewing.
Plus, how you look plays into the length of time. But you're right that it mostly comes down to a lack of social skills... But few people want to be everyone's test dummy.
I think you've described a plausible but idealized example scenario. Personally, my fears are mostly around trying something like what you've described and then realizing too late that I've...
I think you've described a plausible but idealized example scenario.
Personally, my fears are mostly around trying something like what you've described and then realizing too late that I've misread the scenario. For any number of reasons. There are all sort of social hints and clues, some subtle and some not. I can pick up on obvious ones but often have trouble understanding subtext in the moment. The problem with not noticing a key piece of body language or subtext is, the women in question likely cannot tell if you just missed it or are intentionally ignoring it and being a creep.
In the ideal version of the scenario you described, both people walk away with no harm. In less ideal outcomes, the lady tells her friends/coworkers about the creepy guy who wouldn't stop hitting on her.
I just remembered one funny situation - the first time I met a Spanish girl. In my culture, when a girl keeps touching you, touches your hand, leans so closely to you that your shoulders touch, it...
I just remembered one funny situation - the first time I met a Spanish girl. In my culture, when a girl keeps touching you, touches your hand, leans so closely to you that your shoulders touch, it is definitely a signal. Apparently, in their culture, it is not like that. I thought she was really into me and when I asked her out and she said no, I was pretty surprised. But that was it. No problem, nothing bad happened, she kept talking to me in a friend kind of way.
If you ask politely and you are not insisting or pushing after she says no, there is nothing creepy about it. And if you pick the right situation - I would not bother a woman focused on working out with her headphones on. But if you go to a setting where people usually go with the expectation to talk to people - a Spanish meetup, salsa lesson, wine tasting, party - I see no problem.
Also, you can make really sure she wants to talk to you - just every once in a while, leave your side of the conversation kind of "run out" so there is an opening if she wants to stop talking to you. If she actively inserts another topic, she wants to talk to you. But that is probably pretty obvious... I assume almost everybody with a bit of empathy does that subconsciously.
I think that one thing is easier in my country than in the US - you can go out with someone without explicitly defining it as a date. At first, it really is just a coffee, no pressure. If you like each other, it will escalate, if not, you can still enjoy the conversation, order a coffee cake with that coffee, maybe you will become friends. It seems that in the US, it is more explicit that it is a date - at least based on the TV shows I watched (I never dated an American girl). But I see no reason why you couldn't just do something "innocent" with the woman you like - like skiing with a bunch of friends maybe? - and if it is in the cards, it will happen.
I don't want to sound like some frigging guru or something - it's just that this seems pretty easy to me and maybe some people are overthinking it? But maybe it really is harder in the US - in that case I am glad I live where I live.
I think you're being too cautious. If you're able to realize when you've made a mistake you can apologize and back off. And if you can learn from mistakes you'll only fail so many times before you...
I think you're being too cautious. If you're able to realize when you've made a mistake you can apologize and back off. And if you can learn from mistakes you'll only fail so many times before you learn what you need to.
Oh to be clear, I've worked around this in my own life, but for a long long time it was holding me back. It's one facet of my personal cluster of anxieties. Being in a stable relationship has been...
Oh to be clear, I've worked around this in my own life, but for a long long time it was holding me back. It's one facet of my personal cluster of anxieties. Being in a stable relationship has been great for that particular aspect though.
I don't think this is a toxic take either. I think it is the fundamental challenge faced by hetero men. It's a tightrope and over correcting one way or another leads to pick-up artistry or incel...
I think it's fairly hard to date in an ethical and constructive way as a heterosexual male. There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached.
I don't think this is a toxic take either. I think it is the fundamental challenge faced by hetero men. It's a tightrope and over correcting one way or another leads to pick-up artistry or incel behavior. The rest of us do our best to thread the needle.
My current opinion, at least for how I want to do things, is that any dating strategy that starts as a dating strategy is fundamentally flawed. Dating apps, picking up girls at bars/events, etc....
My current opinion, at least for how I want to do things, is that any dating strategy that starts as a dating strategy is fundamentally flawed. Dating apps, picking up girls at bars/events, etc. are strategies that I'm sure work great if you're a stunningly attractive man. I never had it the worst but getting to the point where I know she's attracted to me takes a time frame and environment that explicit dating avenues do not intersect with. I'll back this up with my assumption that for most of modern human existence these avenues were not realistic or possible. Going with whatever is closest to the natural environment where people come to know each other through shared non-dating experiences should work best.
So if I'm living my life, trying to be a better version of myself, and happen to find someone that's a good match all of this "tightrope walking" gets much easier.
I think these sort of "naturally grown" relationships do ease the dichotomy. The added challenge comes in to the fact that modern life doesn't really have many "third places" where these...
I think these sort of "naturally grown" relationships do ease the dichotomy. The added challenge comes in to the fact that modern life doesn't really have many "third places" where these friendships can grow into romantic interest. The friction I ran into was
Work: spend most of my time here, but it gets really hairy, a lot of risk.
Gym: my main hobby that interacts with others. But the community is fairly small, there's risk of developing a reputation if communication isn't on point. I feel like this would be a challenge in other hobby groups.
So I met people through dating apps. I'm not particularly attractive, but it allowed me to find people outside of my small groups where I could develop friendships, explore interests, with no expectations. I'd just let things flow their course. I met lots of great people including my current partner who is the most wonderful woman I've ever known. It was months before we started "dating" (to her annoyance which she doesn't let me forget) but I wanted to make sure we had laid that foundation before jumping into something.
I think that natural strategy works if it's compatible with your lifestyle. But it can be a challenge just being in groups to meet people (even just friendships).
I think @ColtonE is saying the toxic part is when people say "There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting...
I think@ColtonE is saying the toxic part is when people say "There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached," but they really mean "fuck these bitches, they owe me sex, they're so entitled, blah, blah, blah." Just like how some people say "states' rights" but they mean "states' rights to pass laws that make it difficult for black people to vote or be represented." Just that reasonable statements get co-opted to represent bigoted positions.
That’s certainly possible, but I can somewhat identify with the frustration being expressed. I may just suck at social interaction, but I’m terrible at picking up when women are signaling their...
That’s certainly possible, but I can somewhat identify with the frustration being expressed. I may just suck at social interaction, but I’m terrible at picking up when women are signaling their openness to approach and/or interest — it’s often difficult to disambiguate from just being nice/polite.
This has led to a perhaps overly cautious approach on my behalf which just assumes that they’re being nice/polite, because that’s safe and not ever going to risk making someone uncomfortable. 95%+ of the time this assumption is correct, but there have been times when it wasn’t, but I only realize that weeks after the fact. It’s not something I’m good at judging in real time.
I don’t fault anybody but myself for this, but how do I fix it? I have no idea. I generally get along well enough socially and have no problem making and keeping friends with both men and women but that one little bit manages to elude me.
Maybe this? I would posture a guess that in general, men talk to each other about sex and dating in a healthy light (non-incel stuff) less than women do. So posting an article under your own name...
The question may be more why no man has stepped forward to do this under his own name, in public.
...women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but not the other way around.
Maybe this? I would posture a guess that in general, men talk to each other about sex and dating in a healthy light (non-incel stuff) less than women do. So posting an article under your own name is likely to provide very limited benefit for other men, while also opening the door for ridicule by others.
I would hazard that men probably talk among themselves less but I don't know that they necessarily do so in a less healthy way. I think that with all the potential landmines we navigate as men...
I would hazard that men probably talk among themselves less but I don't know that they necessarily do so in a less healthy way. I think that with all the potential landmines we navigate as men that you need a trusted confidant that is inclined to take what you say at face value rather than assuming a toxic interpretation.
Example: people have physical preferences full stop. Saying you went on a date but weren't attracted physically can be a huge risk publicly; some how men are supposed to be horn dogs down to pound anything that moves. But someone who knows you is more inclined to take it as just that; lack of a physical attraction.
I didn't intend to insinuate that they did, that was bad wording on my part. I was trying to exclude the "toxic garbage" discussions mentioned in the article from the quantity of discussions that...
I would hazard that men probably talk among themselves less but I don't know that they necessarily do so in a less healthy way.
I didn't intend to insinuate that they did, that was bad wording on my part. I was trying to exclude the "toxic garbage" discussions mentioned in the article from the quantity of discussions that men have about sex/dating, compared to the quantity that women have on the same topic. Overall, men might talk about sex more than women overall, but much of it seems to be toxic if online forums are any indication.
But I totally agree with you on the trusted confidant piece. Men don't get the benefit of the doubt in a public forum when it comes to the example that you gave. Too many readers would jump to conclusions if they read something on this typic without knowing who the writer really is.
Writing about male heterosexual dating that won't offend feminists (for lack of a better term) is a column that won't get you criticized, and it's also a column that will be completely useless for the men who need that dating advice the most.
This entire article could reasonably be boiled down to this one singular paragraph: And that's the heart of it. It's pure economics -- if there were a demand, there'd be a supply. There's no...
This entire article could reasonably be boiled down to this one singular paragraph:
Would many straight men even read this fabled column? Again, I asked some friends. “I probably wouldn’t be interested in reading a column by some dude cos I’d just think, well, that’s him I guess. I can’t imagine finding it useful or applying it to me in any way.”
And that's the heart of it. It's pure economics -- if there were a demand, there'd be a supply. There's no demand, hence no supply.
There's so much to unpack in this really short article it's hard to know where to start. At the very top we should probably start with male and female socialization and focus and how it leads to...
There's so much to unpack in this really short article it's hard to know where to start. At the very top we should probably start with male and female socialization and focus and how it leads to very different media consumption patterns. In broad strokes men are socialized to pay attention to action and resolution. Problems are to be solved. Objects are to be built. Efficiency is to be analyzed. The focus is often on the non human elements in life or the measurable and tangible things. Women, on the other hand, are socialized to pay more attention to the human element. It's no surprise, given their historical role as caretakers of the home, the family, and the community. Problems aren't just to be solved, there's a need to manage the emotional needs of the parties as well. It's less about the objects you build but more about how and who you build them with. Efficiency isn't very important if everyone is unhappy as a result of changing the process.
This difference in socialization is likely behind the differences in media consumption. Men tend to consume more media that is action oriented and women tend to consume more media that is about human interactions. Romance novels, for example, are much more heavily consumed by women than men and the reverse is true for something much less focused on the human such as books on business. There is something special about the topic of romance, however, as gender disparity among readers of romance novels is highest, and while I couldn't find any statistics on relationships blogs and advice media, I suspect strong disparity among gender in this space as well.
Starting from this space it's easy to see how a straight male blog on relationships is just generally speaking not a very likely thing to exist in the first place. However, this begs the question of why the author is curious why it doesn't exist in the first place. The author is not a straight male and it's fairly clear there most likely isn't a very large straight male audience for this sort of thing, so why ask about it's existence? There's a few main trails of thought here that I think are relevant.
The first is that the author enjoys this kind of content and is curious why men aren't interested in the same content. I think this is adequately answered by the above, at least in broad strokes. Another thought in the same vein is that they're transferring what they get out of relationship blogs to the needs of men - that whatever they get out of the writings from women on sex and dating is something that they believe men need or can see how some of them might desire the same thing. To an extent, I think this can also be explained by the reasons above. A cisgender heterosexual romantic/sexual relationship consists of both a man and a woman. If, in general, men are more concerned about outcome (acquiring a relationship, being successful in a relationship, etc.) than they are about the human element (how a relationship makes you feel, the moments that make a relationship special, etc.) then a man might be able to get just as much if not more information from reading a blog about sex and dating written from the perspective they are missing. If they are trying to understand the needs of potential partners, there's no better place to find them then in the thoughts of people who resemble them. A male's perspective wouldn't have a particularly high utility to them, except perhaps when its dressed as a set of action items such as how to pick up women which almost always veers into the territory that the author and many other individuals rightfully consider as toxic (such as pickup artists).
Another potential trail of thought is that the author sees straight men in need of education based on her experiences interacting with them and has decided that it's good to have both male and female role models and is struggling to find the male ones. This would be a transference of an observed educational need. I think it's important to note that this need may be one sided in that it's implied that men would also desire this education. It's also important to note that there's a level of broad strokes thinking here which I think one can rightfully deduce as well as specific strokes which apply more to the individuals likes, wants, and desires and is subject to their own personality. A good example of this is how courtship should play out. Some people feel strongly that the heterosexual male needs to initiate courtship and others might be perfectly fine with the woman initiating. The relative importance of say tips on how to initiate that courtship, where it's appropriate to initiate it, how long one might need/want to know someone before initiating, what words to use when initiating and so on and so forth vary on a personal basis. Seeing a need on one or more aspects of this could represent a broader general need among men as a whole, or simply reflect the social circumstances of where the person exists, how attractive they are, their persuasion towards this kind of behavior and just pure happenstance. I suspect there's a fair chunk of this trail of thought by the author given that they mention a 'so-called crisis in male emotional communication.'
Of course none of these thoughts even begin to touch on a lot of the technical difficulties with respect to writing on this subject as a straight male. I think the author does a good job of bringing up the most salient points of power dynamics and an online audience and how that is likely to amplify its effect to a straight male writer more than a female one, but I don't think they do a good job of mentioning how badly some of these gender dynamics already affect women who do write on this subject. She mentions that women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but fails to mention how articles like that often draw in a lot of negative male criticism even when the author does so in good faith and is sure to couch their words in a way to make it very clear they are speaking in broad strokes and not about men as a whole. The same would be exponentially worse for men writing about toxic women, requiring an even higher emotional burden before sharing their experience which also would undoubtedly be met by some irate individuals on the internet claiming that the author must be sexist and a womanizer. If men are in a crisis of emotional communication, why should the author expect that they have the desire to expend what little emotional energy they have left on the burden of attempting to write about sex and dating in a way which draws more positive attention than negative?
Ultimately these trails of thoughts are different enough that I'm not sure they're all served by simply having more straight men write about sex and dating. While I do think the inclusion of more media of this nature is good for the world in general, the educational need would probably not be particularly well served by this given that straight male consumerism of relationship focused media is fairly low. Scientific and educational books are more likely to meet the eyes of straight male readers, and may do a lot more for teaching them how to have better a sex and dating life than a blog ever would. If we're focused on disparities among consumption habits by gender, de-gendering the socialization of children might result in less disparity. Some of these may not even be problems at all, but simply a reflection of human diversity as it loosely correlates with genetic expression.
I, as a man, with a female long-term partner, have never had a positive or helpful discussion about relationships with anyone other than her or a therapist (personal therapy, not couples). That...
I, as a man, with a female long-term partner, have never had a positive or helpful discussion about relationships with anyone other than her or a therapist (personal therapy, not couples). That includes past partners, male and female friends, and parents. (Parents both have very unhealthy history/patterns of relationships, though, including their divorce.)
When I was high school and college age, the only time I'd hear male friends (or even acquaintances) discuss women was in very degrading language. Mostly objectification - "Look at her ass," etc. Some guys wanted to date. Some guys wanted to just have sex. But strangely most of the guys in my social circle at that age really didn't care about girls/women, or at least didn't share their interests. I'd be interested to see how their lives have changed, but I haven't really made any attempts to stay connected with them, not even on facebook.
I think this extends beyond discussing relationships - sharing this information also requires sharing emotions. Men have, until the past 2-3 years (in my opinion/personal observation), been discouraged from sharing emotions. It goes along with discussing mental health a bit as well - I've witnessed some recent improvement with this, too. So if you're only talking about aspects of relationships that are completely disconnected from emotions, it mostly just leaves sex talk and objectification on the table. And if a guy with limited relationship experience feels left out and unable to discuss this with personal friends, it's understandable they might search the internet, and that inevitably will bring up Andrew Tate and similarly biased/inaccurate sources. Whether they believe what they hear or not is up for debate, but this is certainly one way this type of thinking is perpetuated.
Ultimately, it would be nice to see more men discuss their relationship experiences - online, in print, and in person. But it will take a major culture shift for other men to listen to/read about these experiences without looking down on the man sharing as someone too emotional to be taken seriously. Are we starting to see the culture shift? Perhaps. But I think it's also creating a stronger divide (more people veering towards the opposite extremes) with the amount of misinformation out there.
I've had a similar experience. The only useful discussion about a specific relationship I have had is with my wife, and a couples therapist. This is curious, with most of my male friends I...
I, as a man, with a female long-term partner, have never had a positive or helpful discussion about relationships with anyone other than her or a therapist (personal therapy, not couples).
I've had a similar experience. The only useful discussion about a specific relationship I have had is with my wife, and a couples therapist.
Men have, until the past 2-3 years (in my opinion/personal observation), been discouraged from sharing emotions.
This is curious, with most of my male friends I interact with the full emotional range of a soup spoon, but most of my female friends have no problems with listening to whatever I wanted to share.
"Ultimately, it would be nice to see more men discuss their relationship experiences" I think you could argue pretty compellingly that almost all writing or cinema for the last 500 years has been...
"Ultimately, it would be nice to see more men discuss their relationship experiences"
I think you could argue pretty compellingly that almost all writing or cinema for the last 500 years has been men discussing their relationship experiences. So much modern tv or movies are just a Dan Harmon or a Steven Spielberg or Shakespeare working through a divorce or a breakup.
Like, I'm sorta out of the dating but of it. Married for 15 years. Relationship is... complicated at this point. But holy shit there's a million people with opinions on complicated midlife relationships out there. I don't lack for opinions. I just don't care about what they're saying.
I've thought of something similar after listening to a podcast about some of the struggles that boys are going through. The general gist is that there is a dearth of positive male role models**...
I've thought of something similar after listening to a podcast about some of the struggles that boys are going through. The general gist is that there is a dearth of positive male role models** giving guidance to young men, which creates a vacuum that poor role models can exploit for money and influence. Subjective, perhaps, but Andrew Tate is a terrible role model. However, he is one of a few men out there making content and explicitly answering followers' questions about what it means to be a man in today's society and how to navigate relationships, sex, and the world at large. That the guidance is harmful isn't obvious if it is the only advice forthcoming.
I agree with some of the points in this article, which is that any man who wants to write about dating under their own name has a difficult tightrope to balance. On the one side, it would be easy to feel like you are bragging, peddling gross pickup artist tips, or objectifying women. On the other, you could come across as whining, blaming, or opening yourself to unfair judgments by being forthright with your own struggles.
I think this is something that there is a need for, but not necessarily much demand. I think people like Andrew Tate get followers by doing the usual influencer gibbering-mouther routine and then carve out a niche of low-quality or harmful content in the areas of sex and dating. I don't think that a columnist who started a wholesome blog or video channel would get anywhere near the engagement. I would like to be wrong, but I suspect there are a number of social factors that will continue to prevent significant changes in men openly sharing life advice other than on anonymous forums. Which, as a father of two boys, is terrible and puts even more importance on the role of men in the lives of their children, nephews, etc.
Edit: ** @ibuprofen had a great point that I want to clarify, which is specifically, I mean role models for men on how to become healthy, happy men, and not through the lens of some other social issue. Additionally, below is a gift link to the podcast/article I mentioned above.
That's certainly true. But there is an even greater dearth of positive male role models that are focused on being positive for males. Instead, discussions about positive male role models seem to...
The general gist is that there is a dearth of positive male role models giving guidance to young men, which creates a vacuum that poor role models can exploit for money and influence. Subjective, perhaps, but Andrew Tate is a terrible role model. However, he is one of a few men out there making content and explicitly answering followers' questions about what it means to be a man in today's society and how to navigate relationships, sex, and the world at large. That the guidance is harmful isn't obvious if it is the only advice forthcoming.
That's certainly true.
But there is an even greater dearth of positive male role models that are focused on being positive for males. Instead, discussions about positive male role models seem to focus on male role models that value feminism and equity and are positive for others. That's a terrible teenager elevator pitch. No wonder guys like Tate and Peterson capture so much of the market.
I don't even know what such an option would look like. I just know that the people most concerned about positive male role models seem to care more for male impact than for the men themselves. And it doesn't surprise me at all that they aren't more successful.
That is a great point and something I'll add as a quick note to my comment. You might enjoy this NYT article/podcast from the Ezra Klein show. Gift link: The Men - and the boys - are not alright A...
That is a great point and something I'll add as a quick note to my comment. You might enjoy this NYT article/podcast from the Ezra Klein show.
A good summary is that there aren't good institutional mechanisms in place to keep track of, report, and respond to the well-being of men in the US. For very good reasons of historical disparities, there are good institutions focusing on women, people of color, and other historically disadvantaged groups. However, with certain trends the article goes into, there is a need for institutions and role models to emerge to focus on men as well.
To your point, what role models exist that focus on helping boys and young men be happy, healthy men, and not through the lens of making other people happy and healthy? The latter is, of course, important, but it is much easier to improve a person's attitude when they feel safe and healthy in the first place.
Thanks, I downloaded that episode for a listen later! Definitely this! But also, they need to be role models that young men find more appealing. It's easy in big picture discussions like this to...
Thanks, I downloaded that episode for a listen later!
To your point, what role models exist that focus on helping boys and young men be happy, healthy men, and not through the lens of making other people happy and healthy? The latter is, of course, important, but it is much easier to improve a person's attitude when they feel safe and healthy in the first place.
Definitely this!
But also, they need to be role models that young men find more appealing. It's easy in big picture discussions like this to focus on what will make men happier and healthier, but it's crucial not to forget that it must also be a path seen to be preferable by young men from where they're currently at.
The fundamental problem when thinking about how to counter Tate et al is a marketing one.
I agree. Part of the problem is packaging the good lessons in a way that is interesting to the boys and young men. As soon as it sounds like you are moralizing, they switch to something else. It...
I agree. Part of the problem is packaging the good lessons in a way that is interesting to the boys and young men. As soon as it sounds like you are moralizing, they switch to something else. It needs to be engaging and helpful.
A non-zero part of how I define my own masculinity is tied to this sentiment - what does being a man mean? It means taking care of those around me, being the strong for those who are currently...
But there is an even greater dearth of positive male role models that are focused on being positive for males. Instead, discussions about positive male role models seem to focus on male role models that value feminism and equity and are positive for others.
A non-zero part of how I define my own masculinity is tied to this sentiment - what does being a man mean? It means taking care of those around me, being the strong for those who are currently weak, and uplifting them so that they can stand on their own feet too. Part of that is going to include a rejection of some of the traditional masculine values, which emphasize thinking of yourself over others, or "lone wolf" behavior or measuring yourself relative to others; rather, on measuring yourself against where you were yesterday, and by your impact on your community, and how you help the most vulnerable people around you, especially when no one's looking.
I've presented this to teenagers, whom I used to baby sit. Yeah, at first it does clash with the perception that masc === buff, or "alpha male" or being commanding and telling people what to do; but then I ask them if they think I'm any less of a man for not being buff, given that I can still pick them up. Or any less of a man for sitting back and engaging with others, instead of putting some social barriers up from others to stay aloof and alpha. Or any less of a man for asking for help from others when doing things, rather than telling them what to do. I don't think teens need someone like Tate or Peterson as a role model, especially for relationships - it's just easier to convince yourself you don't care and you're on your sigma grindset than it is to care, be vulnerable to rejection and change and have to pick yourself back up and try again.
This is a total diversion and I don't want to imply you mean anymore than precisely what you said. And I completely agree that as a whole masculinity often gets distilled into "buff," "lone wolf,"...
This is a total diversion and I don't want to imply you mean anymore than precisely what you said. And I completely agree that as a whole masculinity often gets distilled into "buff," "lone wolf," or "alpha." This is more a tangential thought that occurs to me often.
Some of the absolute best positive male role models for men are people I have found in powerlifting culture. Yes there are a lot of toxic personalities, it kept me away from the sport for a long time. But it is also the place I've found some of the best examples of a positive mind set encouraging allyship, openness, community, and self improvement. People who would be excellent positive masculinity influencers even though their main output is lifting oriented. But some days I just want to grab them by the shoulders and tell them "I know your lane is lifting, but please consider expanding your platform to general life advice."
And just to reiterate, this is a diversion. I don't think there is any correlation between being buff and being a good person.
I've felt this way about a few communities I'm apart of. My phrase is "Some of the worst people I've ever met but some of the best too."
Yes there are a lot of toxic personalities, it kept me away from the sport for a long time. But it is also the place I've found some of the best examples of a positive mind set encouraging allyship, openness, community, and self improvement.
I've felt this way about a few communities I'm apart of.
My phrase is "Some of the worst people I've ever met but some of the best too."
Thank you for reminding me - and to complement, I think this is a pretty good - and entertaining - take on the topic of masculinity in the movies: Why Movies Need Masculinity And another related...
Thank you for reminding me - and to complement, I think this is a pretty good - and entertaining - take on the topic of masculinity in the movies: Why Movies Need Masculinity
Something I'm surprised I didn't see in either the article or the comments so far is the fact that effective dating advice for men needs to be tailored to the man asking for help. Reading what...
Something I'm surprised I didn't see in either the article or the comments so far is the fact that effective dating advice for men needs to be tailored to the man asking for help. Reading what worked for others often leads men to read the wrong type of advice—the kind that their personality already expects. As others here said, men who need assertiveness training keep reading about how they need to be sensitive and the men who need tact will never read any of it, let alone care.
An already borderline-aggressive man reads advice for someone who struggles with self-confidence. You may have pushed him into the independent rediscovery of PUA tricks. One of the hypothesized sources of incels is men who read correct advice aimed at the overly aggressive horndogs, then take the black pill when that advice doesn't work for them.
I would never give any dating advice online. Not in current state of society where I could get into trouble or shunned. I wouldn't do so even in person if I didn't know the person well. Society's...
I would never give any dating advice online. Not in current state of society where I could get into trouble or shunned. I wouldn't do so even in person if I didn't know the person well. Society's current state is shit and heterosexual men are almost being hunted (in my eyes), so I refrain from such topics.
Maybe I just gave the answer to the question above...
I like to see other commenters here having kinda the same opinion as me. It is nice to see that not everyone got absorbed by current state of things.
I'd be very interested in hearing other users' takes on this. My thoughts split the reasons into two intertwined groups: individual and societal. Individually Some part of me is just a bit...
I'd be very interested in hearing other users' takes on this.
My thoughts split the reasons into two intertwined groups: individual and societal.
Individually
Some part of me is just a bit uncomfortable with media that is focused on individuals romantic relationships. In particular rom-coms and romantic literature. Even fictionalized it feels voyeuristic. The conflicts that make these stories engaging (cheating, lying, love triangles, cuckholding) almost feel triggering to me in some ways. I'm fine with these concepts in service of a larger story, but as the raison d'etre, no thanks. (I do watch rom-coms with my partner, they're fine but internally I approach with trepidation.) Stories of true love and family are beautiful and I prefer them to scandalous drama, but I'll probably cry and I'm not always emotionally prepared for that.
Now talking specifically about columns as the featured article describe. What am I going to get out of this? The author described it pretty well.
“If it’s going well, it comes off braggy and vulgar, and if it’s going poorly, stop whinging in print.”
No one is interested in a one guy's game or lack there-of. I do have friends (male and female) who I discuss relationships with; I have my trusted cohort that know me that will soundboard my thoughts and be receptive of my feelings. Likewise I'm happy to discuss relationships with literally anyone that is looking for that type of support. But as a subject it doesn't fit into material consumed for entertainment; it's too personal and requires a lot of vulnerability.
Societal
I think the power imbalance plays a big part. Flip through positive masculinity social media and what you see is strictly men who uplift women and adore their partners without a shade of criticism. That is a good thing! Conversely, the lane is narrow where a man can discuss a (romantically engaged) woman in a bad light. It comes off as demeaning, superficial, misogynistic: toxic. The author mentions some of the conflict between being sensitive enough to discuss these things but necessarily aware enough to avoid doing so publicly:
“Paradoxically, the sort of men who have the insight and sensitivity to write well about that experience preclude themselves from doing it exactly because of the sensitivity and awareness that would make their writing insightful,”
I don't think this is a problem. As men we have a long way to go developing our collective emotional intelligence. We have resources even if they don't look like the resources women engage with. I don't think male relationship columnists would be a particularly impactful salve. There are other foundations to be laid first.
IMO, ths is a major spot where feminist advice about men's issues goes awry. There is no we. Men do not have the solidarity with other men by sake of being male that both advice and criticism of...
As men we have a long way to go developing our collective emotional intelligence.
IMO, ths is a major spot where feminist advice about men's issues goes awry. There is no we. Men do not have the solidarity with other men by sake of being male that both advice and criticism of male behavior assumes. Treating men as a cohesive community causes people to talk past each other when their personal experiences mismatch.
Point taken, men aren't a community but we are a population. We can talk about populations in the aggregate. You could survey men and intelligently talk about distribution, averages, outliers etc....
Point taken, men aren't a community but we are a population. We can talk about populations in the aggregate. You could survey men and intelligently talk about distribution, averages, outliers etc. I wouldn't even be surprised if such a study found a bimodal EQ distribution.
That checks out in my experience. I wonder if it would truly be bimodal or just another example of the male variability hypothesis. The bell curve for men may simply be flatter than for women,...
That checks out in my experience. I wonder if it would truly be bimodal or just another example of the male variability hypothesis. The bell curve for men may simply be flatter than for women, putting more men on the extremes without being fully bimodal.
Maybe that's a bit off-topic. Men do write about dating and sex, but it's often PUA bullshit. For useful advice from men that won't turn you into a pig, check the following. Attract Women Through...
Maybe that's a bit off-topic. Men do write about dating and sex, but it's often PUA bullshit.
For useful advice from men that won't turn you into a pig, check the following.
Attract Women Through Honesty is a good, effective, non-toxic book about dating.
She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman is an excellent book about sex.
Let me know honestly if I'm just judging a book by it's cover but this makes sex sound like work and not very engaging. Is it... For lack of a better term... More balanced in it's presentation or...
She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman
Let me know honestly if I'm just judging a book by it's cover but this makes sex sound like work and not very engaging. Is it... For lack of a better term... More balanced in it's presentation or is it just about pleasuring women?
Yes, you are definitely judging a book by its cover. Your impressions are incorrect. Ian Kerner is a sex counselor and psychotherapist. His advice is rooted on research and clinical practice. This...
Yes, you are definitely judging a book by its cover. Your impressions are incorrect.
Ian Kerner is a sex counselor and psychotherapist. His advice is rooted on research and clinical practice. This book does not turn sex into a series of mechanical steps you must follow, but it does provide valuable insight and advice which may enrich the sex lives of both men and women by providing them with the tools to achieve whatever desires they may have in the bedroom.
I have not. Only the one book was enough for me to achieve my goals. Now I'm married with children so I don't feel very compelled to read dating manuals right now :P
I have not. Only the one book was enough for me to achieve my goals. Now I'm married with children so I don't feel very compelled to read dating manuals right now :P
I felt a feeling I have decided to call "Childish Injury" throughout this whole article. I personally felt that, even if I was that 'brave man' who decided to write about dating, any attempt at writing about a straight male perspective would fall into that same trap that "Positive Male Role Models" do. It's not a self help column, it's not an advice forum, it's something your partner or parent might drag you to when they want you to be 'better' (read: not you.)
A lot of dating advice, from every gender and viewpoint, either sounds peachy, toxic, or downright wrong. For ever positive column the author listed, there's no doubt dozens of low tier trash and reddit dating advice to go along with it.
So, now the author has claimed that men are simply not brave enough to share their opinions? I'm intentionally quoting the same part over and over more to drive home the internal pain I already called childish but also to highlight that this is what it boils down to. Women (in the authors view) think men are just too scared to talk about dating. I'm fine talking about dating! I don't need this person talking down to me about it! I also know that, as has been repeated a hundred times (to any man that's listening), the world is full of diverse people who have diverse experiences and the last thing they need is some straight dude talking about himself and worst of all his dating habits! How is my viewpoint going to contribute to this diverse pool of information when I've been told for decades that the last thing we need is another straight dude talking about himself?
I know that this is an emotional reaction, and for the record a quite silly one, but for this author to suddenly say it's because I'm not brave enough just struck that nerve of the scared little boy inside of me. Already sensitive about the things I say in public so as not to talk over others now being told I should talk more. The classic misogynistic trap that plays out when women say that men should talk more and then get disinterested in hearing all your problems.
So, maybe I'm not brave enough but I'll save the advice for people who ask for it.
What you're feeling isn't childish -- it's a genuine response to a slight against your identity. Her words come across as dismissive and belittling.
One of the persistent thorns in my side, and this is coming from a queer person who has been openly supporting feminism and discussing gender politics on the internet for decades, is the acute and little-understood pressure cooker that men, particularly straight men, are put in when it comes to identity-based discrimination.
The pressure happens in two parts:
Part one: toxic masculinity teaches guys that they have to ignore their own feelings and pursue dominance. This is now commonly accepted and understood to be a bad thing -- both for the people whom the dominance was aimed at, as well as men who were not managing their feelings in healthy ways. There's a non-negligible pressure that now pushes against the previously accepted toxic framework.
Part two: because of the effects that toxic masculinity has had on other populations (e.g. women, queer people, etc.), categorically dismissing or criticizing men is seen as socially acceptable -- even valuable to some -- when similar criticisms of other populations would be seen as regressive or outright discriminatory. Men are often used as the human stand-in for toxic masculinity.
How do these intersect? Men as a group are simultaneously encouraged to feel more at the same time that we are categorically criticizing them. We tell men that we want them more in touch with their emotions while doing things that holistically damage those emotions!
Worst of all is that I don't think this ever gets seen for what it is.
I'm going to put on my gay guy hat here for a second, because my life has let me experience this effect from both sides.
As someone who's gay, I am no stranger to identity-based discrimination. I've been stereotyped, called awful names, belittled, patronized, dismissed, etc. It sucks for me, obviously, but I also feel like there's now a widespread societal understanding that it sucks, and you don't have to be gay to understand that.
As a guy though, I often see identity-based discrimination relative to men, and there's no widespread agreement that, yes, it also sucks. At worst, it's actually cherished as punching up, but even when it's not overtly malicious, it still seems predicated on an expectation of toxic masculinity: that men, hearing direct and indiscriminate criticism of themselves for being men, should just man up in response. After all, it's not that big of a deal, right?
Except it is: because being hated, dismissed, maligned, or typecast for who you are is awful -- an experience that nearly every member of every minority out there can tell you all about!
The existence of a shared through-line doesn't necessarily mean the existence of proportionality. I don't want to make people think I'm drawing some sort of false equivalence here. I, for example, genuinely don't think there's any word I could call a straight guy that would hit them the same way that "fag" hits me, for example.
But the point isn't about who has it worse (though that's often the distraction that derails so many of these conversations) -- the point is that hating on someone for their gender is genuinely wrong regardless of that person's gender. It's about seeing the through-line for what it is in the first place. If stereotyping women is wrong, and belittling gay guys is wrong, and marginalizing trans people is wrong (and, to be clear, these ARE all wrong), then taking pot shots at straight men is wrong too. It's not progressive; it's not a form of gendered-justice; it's not harmless. It's actually just toxic masculinity being reinforced by outside actors, rather than from within.
So, getting back to what the author wrote and the feelings it brought up in you: you are completely valid for having the response that you did. I wish more people would see that and empathize with it, and then try to understand where it comes from.
When guys as a whole are shot down, as they often are, I wish those moments were met with more thoughtfulness. I wish there were the kind of care in response to those moments that has been offered to me in the times where I've faced my own identity-based discriminations for being gay. If someone came here and said "gay guys are scum" they'd almost certainly get pushback, probably even banned. If that person said it to me directly, I can almost bet some people here would reach out in kindness to me afterwards, maybe even PM me to make sure I was okay.
But if someone simply said "guys are scum" I feel like many of us would nod in agreement, see it as a difficult truth, and miss it for what it actually is: gender-based discrimination. We wouldn't be reaching out to the guys reading that to make sure they're okay. We wouldn't be pushing back against it with a similar force.
Again, it's not that the two situations share a magnitude (I genuinely think the former situation would be worse); it's that they both share a negative moral value. Unfortunately, in the latter situation, that feels all but invisible to most.
You, Sodliddesu, described your own feeling towards the author's words as "childish", but I want to let you know that your thoughtful response was anything but. It was the measured, honest response of a man trying to grapple with being the better person that society wants him to be, all while that same society tries to get away with framing him for the worse. That's not a bind you should have to be in. It's not fair to you, and I'm sorry that weight is on your shoulders.
In short, thank you. I've written much and deleted much more in trying to find a response but the easiest thing to say is just that, thank you.
I believe I thought, or think, it to be childish because I do not feel that I do, or should, derive any of my identity from being a man. I've got enough scraps of ribbon and paper denoting my accomplishments that I can be proud of if I so choose and, other than my birth certificate, none of them mention what's between my legs. I just feel like, while I won't lie that being a man has benefitted me due to culture and all that, it's not anything that I value... Or, thought I didn't value before getting all hung up.
But regardless, thank you.
I don't know if this is just because I'm a straight white dude so I don't need to focus on any one thing, but do other people also not feel the need to define their identity in any way? My identity is me. I play video games but I'd never (ever) call myself a gamer. I like many different things, but those are not what I am...although when I kept running after I ran a marathon, I decided I couldn't escape calling myself a runner, even if it doesn't define my identity.
While I am a straight white dude, that's not how I see myself either, which probably at least partially comes from a position of privilege.
But maybe it's because I'm a straight white dude so I'm just the societal default and I can be whatever I want to be (privilege) and I don't have to (privilege) or get to (negative consequence) define myself as anything specific? I guess it's too complicated of a question for me to ever answer so I get to just ignore it...which is a privilege.
This is absolutely a thing in the queer community too, and it's not remotely uncommon. It's part of why the term "queer" took off in the first places -- it's broad enough that it doesn't force you to pin down a specific label for yourself. A lot of people find a lot of value in particular labels, but plenty of people actively reject them, so I don't think this is necessarily something that only results from your privilege.
What does result from privilege is the ability to not feel seen as something other by other people. No matter how much one avoid labels in my own identity, one cannot escape being assigned them by other people. If I want to be seen as just a person or even as a gamer or a scholar or whatever, I cannot escape the "woman" label hanging over me like a sword of damocles, tainting whatever other identity I want to present to the world. Even fully transitioning to the opposite binary gender doesn't guarantee you escape that.
So I guess tl;dr it's a mix, depending on whether you're thinking of defining your identity on an internal or external level. On the internal level I think your feelings are very common across a broad spectrum of people. But on the external level is where it's influenced by your status as the societal default.
This is the sort of comment the Exemplary tag exists for. Damn.
Could you throw out a few examples of this?
As a straight man that's never struggled with masculinity, identity, etc. I feel blind to this. Of course I've read the articles about men struggling in school, searching for a modern identity, etc. etc. etc. but I've never had my antenna go up seeing irl examples of male identity-based discrimination.
This is a non-exhaustive list and many of these forms of discrimination vary greatly depending on a number of factors, but here's a few ways in which gender based discrimination can affect men
I'm afraid to open up a can of worms here - but this reminds me of a time when my co-worker had just returned from maternity leave. She said something about her husband having been back to work for a month or so and I remarked it's a shame he didn't get as much time off to help with the baby. But somehow this got perceived wrong because my coworker quipped that he didn't give birth and thus did not deserve as much time off. Wouldn't you want a second parent around to help out with your 2 month old baby 24/7?
But the real issue is that neither of them got as much time off as they should have.
I think you just hit her with empathy for him at a moment she was probably feeling pretty bad on her own behalf - and who knows whether she's been frustrated with him for other reasons, but she's definitely dealing with hormonal changes still. So yeah, you weren't getting a thoughtful response but an emotional reaction.
Thank you!
Not OP, but what about someone saying “all guys want is sex”. This is dismissive stereotyping, based on gender.
It’s also quite sad because it disregards many other things men might want in dating or in a relationship.
Thanks Sodliddesu, I like your insightful way of talking about this article. I admit, I read your comment before the article, because the title sounded so sensationalised and clearly biased towards a hetero male - hetero female dichotomy.
I've also got the scared little boy inside me. I am also sensitive to the people around me, desire to be seen in a positive light, and get crushed and easily manipulated by little lines like that. That line is an attempt at calling to action, but in a disgusting, manipulative way, that I reckon you have experienced similarly in other parts of your life. Is that accurate?
I think it is weird of the author to come in with the assumption that dating from a binary hetero male perspective is any different than dating from non binary queer perspective. I get plenty of great, practicable, sensitive advice from non binary queer people that I can introduce into my dating life as a hetero male. I'm a better person because I listen to those perspectives. If I got advice from those males that are handing it out now, I would be misogynistic and conspiratorial and other unhealthy traits for a partnership.
I think this author's perspective is unclear, which makes their writing, and their call to action, disgusting. They might be writing this call to action for sensitive men like us, who have the perspective described in the article. If so, they clearly are keeping the cycle of division going with that line.
But maybe they are actually trying to tap in to those less sensitive than us? I dunno, I'm trying to see something positive but it's tough.
That was the core of the comment I had half-typed before I took a nap and iOS decided to free up memory by killing the Surfboard process, thus eating the reply.
The author admits that men do seek advice from other men—but not in the form of a regularly scheduled advice column published by a specific man. We already have our boys-only clubhouse. It's just not a public lecture series like an advice column. The man she interviewed who said such a column would either be being a braggart or a pity party is exactly the attitude that one would expect. The audience for such a column would not be other straight men. It would be men performing advice to gain approval from women.
Is it bravery, to build something that no one apparently wants?
I think it's fairly hard to date in an ethical and constructive way as a heterosexual male. There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached.
If we ignore the toxicity of the statement I just made there is an understanding that men have to be incredibly observant of the subtle details of the body language which doesn't translate well into a written format. Anytime men write about the initial stages of relationships it will always sound like a pickup column or something that came from Andrew Tate anytime that men lament the difficulty of being expected to be both hyper observant and also not overly observant they will be called an incel. There's obviously a middle ground but it just doesn't translate into text very well as it ends up as learned social skills through trial and error.
I am not an American so I do not know what could happen in the US - my question might be stupid. But I am curious - what exactly is hard about it? The way I see it, it's just about some very basic social skills.
Example: I go to a social event and there is a woman that seems interesting. If she is talking with her group, I do not bother her. If she is looking at pictures on walls, seems kind of bored, or talks to people from other groups, I try to strike up a conversation. We talk for a while. If she seems bored or wants to go talk to other people, I accept it and move on. If she keeps talking to me and I think there is a connection, I ask whether she wants to get a coffee sometime. If she says yes, great. If she says no, I accept it and move on. That's about it. Seems simple and ethical to me. What am I missing?
We've sort of made everyone assume the worst case is the standard.
There are people out there who are completely inappropriate in how they approach someone they're interested in, and it was something that was overlooked in popular culture so there was very justified pushback to make clear that such behavior is not ok.
However if you're young and impressionable you can be just blasted with content telling you that if you even look at someone without a signed legal form it's harassment and you're trash, let alone daring to speak to them without express consent. Add on the fact that there's still a cultural expectation that the guy should make the first move (less than it used to be but still very much there) and it can feel like a lose lose.
So you take an already awkward situation with the usual doubts (what if they reject me, am i reading signals wrong, what if they laugh at me, what if it doesn't work out, what if they aren't single, etc) and supercharge it with "and if they do reject me, I'm a horrible creep for ever daring to ask.". This is not actually the reality, but it's another case where most media will portray every situation as black and white, because the loudest and most hateful are benefiting from the shock/attention market we've made.
The fundamental misunderstanding men who are worried about this have is that the places you listed have explicit purposes for existing that aren't dating. Particularly gym and yoga are places women get hit on a lot and most of them time all they, like everyone else there, want to do is complete a work out. Same goes for people whose job it is to be nice to you like retail workers and the coffee shop employees. They aren't there looking for romance, they're there to serve you a coffee or help you pick out a shirt and get paid. So when women (or people generally) write about how they hate getting hit on in these circumstances it's because the initiator has misunderstood the social context and broadly what's being written about is an annoyance at how someone could so easily miss those cues or otherwise be so entitled they ignore them.
I think this is a symptom of a society where there aren't many third places left - because IMO the ideal way to meet someone is when you aren't somewhere with the "explicit purpose" of dating. Really though, I've never met a friend, acquaintance, really anyone at a gym so I agree that's a terrible avenue for trying to find a date.
I disagree - this has always been the case, but women are finally getting the avenues to speak about it in a capacity that matters. "Picking up" girls was never cool. For every girl that actually ends up interested, there's a hundred that are just bothered for no reason.
Local communities still exist. It really is a matter of getting over social anxiety to go to social functions, which isn't easy, but just because it isn't easy doesn't mean hetero men get a pass to act all confused whilst refusing to actually learn social skills before they try to date.
Note; I'm sorry if this came off aggressive, I just can't talk about this topic without being blunt. Having been on the receiving end of these kinds of claims gives you a special kind of frustration.
Social functions do exist. I’m lucky to have a couple of regular groups I’m a part of. I think finding a group that’s a good match for you takes a bit of time and some areas might be outright social deserts.
I’m imagining that at some point these social functions were more obligatory, requiring less initiative and less personally driven development to enter. We could have such a society where people are raised to meet social expectations by default - and then no initiative or social upskilling would be required. I don’t know for sure if this is an area we’ve all let atrophy or if the improvement of some other area of life has revealed a new weakest link.
You misunderstand what the comment is saying. Unlike what a lot of rhetoric today would lead you to believe, not every situation is appropriate to be hitting on someone. Women are becoming tired of being walked up to when they're on their phone on the bus because someone thinks she's hot enough to be their girlfriend. I am only slightly exaggerating.
Going out to social places, especially places that are oriented around a community/hobby/interest, is where you are likely to make connections in an ethical way. This isn't very difficult to do, as nowadays there are communities for pretty much anything. And before someone tells me about all of the awkward lonely men - I was one growing up, and believing that rhetoric only made me am extremely toxic person that hurt others as a result.
Framing this as a complicated issue when it is, in reality, just treating women as people is very poor taste in my opinion.
I grew up as a heterosexual man. For the majority of my life I was the chronically online awkward teen. I was the target of all of what you're saying and I heard it a thousand times.
By all accounts I shouldn't have had a girlfriend if you look at it from traditionalist values, because I didn't ever go out picking up women. I wasn't exactly hot and my confidence was on the floor, but because I actually spoke to people who shared my nerdy interest I had a few relationships.
It isn't difficult and we need to stop presenting it as difficult. Not every woman a man meets is a potential date, and having casual conversation a few times doesn't equate to it being okay to ask someone out. I'll put it like this; if there is a connection, then they'll probably end up talking more and more. If there isn't, then maybe we shouldn't force it. Maybe not every man needs to constantly be on the lookout for a girlfriend, and the timid guy would be a lot better off if he just didn't stress about it so badly. If he didn't think that he needed a girlfriend to be a man. And maybe the guy who hits on women multiple times a week should be accurately labeled as a creep who probably doesn't see these women as much more than potential girlfriends.
Look, I am empathetic to this situation because again, I lived it. Despite having relationships I still struggled immensely with my social skills, I still do. But masculinity is laced with thousands of years of toxicity and bad practices that need to go, and hitting on women in public places is one of them. It is a net negative on the day to day life of women, for the potential few who enter a relationship this way. The advice I give young men nowadays is very simple: go places that are centered around your hobbies and interests.
Dealing with social anxiety is very hard but that doesn't give us a pass to "train" our social skills by trying to pick up women. A man can learn social skills by being social first, and THEN start trying to date, not the other way around.
Do you have any basis for that last claim? Because I have to be honest, it reeks of the manosphere.
Edit: if any of you reading this resonate with the feeling that social connections are rejected no matter what you try, please please please seek therapy if it's available. I know it is a gamble and not every therapist is great but getting out of this kind of mindset alone is so difficult. I don't mean to suggest anyone that feels this way is inherently evil - we can all be a bit different in our own ways, but we need to recognize when it starts to hurt others and work on those parts.
The issue I find with your claim is that it does not logically lead to it being okay to hit on women anywhere. Just because other men are doing it doesn't mean that it's okay to do, and just because they're the men you hear about most doesn't mean that it's really the majority of cases.
My advice is designed to help men avoid falling into the mindset that they need to somehow socially maneuver around women to get into relationships. You don't. Jackasses do that, and it's becoming less and less popular as we can clearly see by the fact that it's actually being talked about rather than a fact of life that women have to deal with. The status quo as it is is harmful for men too, and the more we push against it whether as men or as women the quicker we can rid men of these ridiculous social expectations based on how heterosexual men think they should be acting, not how women are telling them to act.
I'm sorry that this line of thinking failed you growing up, but the reality of the situation is that not everyone will happen upon a relationship in their early years, sometimes through no fault of their own. Presenting it as something that is so critical and so important is part of the problem that makes men believe they need a girlfriend or they're lesser. Sometimes even if you try very hard you just don't happen upon romance, and well, that's life. But maybe it's time to relax a little. If we push people to grow out of these expectations then we are fostering a better dating culture.
Surely, you can see why saying that the toxic men will out compete the feminist men is evocative of the alpha male rhetoric? The idea that aggressive men will naturally get more women? I don't know. It doesn't strike me as the right approach.
Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
I agree with what @honzabe originally wrote, I don't think it's very complicated nor much different than when I was dating more than a decade ago.
I don't think anyone is saying "Thou shall not flirt with women at the gym" but instead just be a considerate person and realize most women might not want to be bothered in a predominantly non-social setting where the focus is on themselves. But if you end up running on a treadmill beside the same person long enough to chat a few times and they signal they're interested no one is going to think you're toxic for shooting your shot.
Sorry to jump on something a day later, but this seriously irks me every time I see it.
I have personally never heard a woman ask where the good men have gone, except in the song "Holding Out for a Hero" and maybe some old movies written by men.
What I actually hear from the women in my life - when I listen to what they are most concerned about - is that they are consistently harassed by men in public places. Just when they start to think that maybe men have gotten better and they are safe in their own community, a man decides that's it's reasonable to cat-call them or follow them or cold open with a sexual proposition. I have a very small social circle, yet I know women who have been roofied and sexually assaulted. They have justified fears about going anywhere alone or at night, dressing they way they want, and saying "no" to men directly. I can't imagine how stifling, how smothering of the human spirit it must be to deal with these things every day of your life.
I'm not a woman and can't speak for them, but if I were I would gladly take a smaller dating pool in exchange for less harassment. That seems like a great deal. And that's assuming that women really are missing out on "good" men because they are browbeaten by feminism, which I don't accept without some real data.
Scenario one: the kind man that you envision reads on the internet that he should never cold approach a woman in the gym, and should instead join clubs and take classes and maybe meet someone there or through a friend.
Scenario two: He reads that it's fine to cold approach a woman in the gym so long as the "vibes" are right, and because he's had little enough social practice that he needs internet advice, he gets them wrong. She gets upset and calls him a creep and tells him he should leave women alone.
You think scenario one is the one that's more likely to take him out of the dating pool long-term?
That's not even taking into account the fact that the pool of men who cold approach women has always been mostly gross guys, and that most women don't want to be approached at the gym or grocery store or bank by anyone, kind or not. If you're good enough at reading social cues to be the rare guy who's struck up a natural conversation with a woman at a gym and should make a move, then you don't need advice from the internet.
Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being meek.
Of course not. I think you're accurately describing the difficult position that responsible men find themselves in when dating.
My objection, again, is to the way you used the question "Where have all the good men gone?" to claim that your position also benefits women. Women have different interests - much more pressing ones - when it comes to whether men feel comfortable approaching them.
No, I am not at all. I'm saying that being approached less by men is good for women across the board, regardless of what sort of men you think they are. Your reasoning around all this seems to be based on unrealistically sharp divisions between good and bad men. I'm pretty sure most men (most people, in fact) fall into a middle category: well-intentioned, but morally lazy and willing to behave badly when there are no social consequences for it.
Respectfully, if that character's relationship is anywhere near what you're aiming for, then I can see why we disagree.
I think you might be thinking too linearly about the outcome. I see room for more variables, things playing out differently.
Yes, there are feminist men self-selecting out of the dating pool for fear of victimizing women. But there are also feminist men still in the dating pool. In my experience, it doesn't seem like women are only left with misogynistic men around. I also wouldn't assume that more misogynistic men are getting dates, relationships, and marriages than nice guys. These days, more women are choosing to stay single and/or celibate if circumstances (cultural, financial, etc.) allow.
It is also possible for a timid nice guy to also be a misogynist. I'm not saying that is always the case. But something is amiss when a nice guy takes "never hit on women in public, ever" to heart without seeking further opinions from women or thinking critically about the context of their anecdotes. This is where Felicity's advice comes in. I see it as helping men in a roundabout way. Developing one's own hobbies within a community increases one's social interactions. Learning how to empathize, listen, and talk to people of all genders are key skills in a relationship. Women are generally socialized to be attentive, supportive, and caring which tends to give them a "leg up" in this regard. I interpreted Felicity's advice as becoming a well-rounded person as the first step before learning how to take initiative in dating.
Sorry to double comment, but this has been bugging me.
Shouldn't helping men and women be the same in this context? It shouldn't be adversarial. Meeting people and forming connections should ideally be fun. Advising men on how to not make women uncomfortable or scared should be helping both of them.
It reminds me of a response I've heard to dating advice from women aimed at men: "You wouldn't ask a fish about fishing, you ask a fisherman". To me that's always been a little more honest than it needs to be. A fisherman doesn't want to make the fish happy. He has his own ideas about what fish are for that so t align at all with the fish's. That's a really terrible way to look at dating.
"In public" is not the same as "at the gym/work/the bank". There are plenty of public places where socializing is encouraged and expected. Bars, coffee shops, parks, and yes, places that are centered around your hobbies and interests. I may not be understanding your critique of that last bit. It seems to be that it leaves out too many steps, but that's because it's not a comprehensive plan. It's an alternative to hitting on women in places where they're likely to be uncomfortable. If you're claiming that you can't meet a wife with whom you can have a family at a cooking class or a rock-climbing club or an Adventures League night at a comic shop, that's just false.
…and by what metric is said man supposed to know when he is ready?
When he can form platonic relationships then he is actively developing his social skills. The easier it is to talk to people the easier it will be for them to start reading the room. As someone who struggles immensely with social interaction, I've found listening helps a lot with this, more than actively participating.
It's easier to know when a man is definitely NOT ready, and if they cannot make any social connection let alone a romantic one, that's definitely a sign. If it's a more complicated issue, then by focusing on platonic connections he will gain the social skills to start figuring out what it is.
Whoa whoa whoa. What's going on here? I think we need to unpack that.
Edit:
Probably these are issues that therapy can solve - if that's available to you. And I know starting that process is really uncomfortable and what sucks is it's something you'll be doing on your own. What doesn't suck is that once you're doing it you're not on your own anymore.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
In all seriousness, every relationship I've ever had has been with someone I met in a class or through a friend, including my husband and the guy I briefly dated who introduced me to my husband. Not only would I not be alone if no one had ever approached me at the gym or the grocery store or in line at the bank, if those were my only options I think I would prefer to be alone. The number of gross, inappropriate, or overly persistent men who made me feel unwelcome in every public space overwhelmed the few kind, reasonable guys who quickly took no for an answer, long before this was a topic of conversation on the internet. This advice isn't what causes the most misogynistic men to be most likely doing the approaching, because that dynamic predates the advice.
I think the main issue is that as a woman, there's no way to opt out. No way to overtly and clearly signal "I am not available for this interaction". I want to be able to go to the grocery store and just shop, and there was a time in my life when that was truly unlikely. It came to a point that so many men had said gross things to me, or pulled my headphones out, or not respected my "no" or followed me around and even to my car, that being approached at all caused me significant anxiety. I stopped going anywhere that I didn't have to go, because I didn't want to deal with it. I was very young, early 20's, and the world seemed hostile and treacherous to me. If I could have signaled that I was not available to be approached, while women in a different frame of mind signaled differently, then I'd give the greenlight to well-meaning men at the gym. I actually bought a shirt that said "Don't Talk to Me" with little flowers, but it didn't make much difference.
The question isn't really "is it appropriate to hit on women while she's running errands?" It's "what can I do as a woman running errands to make sure I don't get hit on?" If the answer is "nothing", then she's trapped. You shouldn't hit on women in elevators for the same reason. Being trapped isn't romantic.
If you don't mind me asking, do you live in the US? Because if the answer is yes, then (in connection with other things I heard recently) maybe I am starting to form a new theory about this whole thing.
Not anymore, but I did at the time I described in my comment. South Florida, specifically. I do think the situation is much worse there than in other places. Since I've been in Sweden I've only had one uncomfortable interaction with a man and I've been here for 10 months.
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Recently, I watched a series of videos from Americans who moved to Europe. Surprisingly many women there mentioned that one of the cultural shocks was that they could go anywhere and feel safe. I thought they were maybe referring to the fact that generally violent crime rate is higher in the US. Like shootings or something. But now, I am starting to think they were referring to the behavior you mentioned.
Where I live, that kind of behavior seems unimaginable, or at least extremely rare. In small villages, not taking no for an answer could even elicit some serious ass-kicking from men related to the affected female to teach him good manners.
Welcome to Europe, I hope you will enjoy it here.
Just to add a bit to that, because I have observed the same which seems to stem from the whole "dating culture" in the US that isn't as prevelant in Europe to the same degree. Of course people go on dates and people "hit on" each other in bars, but many relationships just sort of forms from casual friendships that evolve into romantic relationships.
If your first interaction with a total stranger is some pickup line, then it gets tiresome in the end. I feel like the best approach is really just to interact with people of both same and different genders in the same friendly manner and not have every interaction with the gender you might be interested be with a hidden intent of trying to "hit on" them.
I'm enjoying it immensely so far!
It definitely does feel much safer here, and the way men talk to me (or more often, the way they don't talk to me) is undoubtedly a factor. It's led me to wonder what it is about America, especially about Florida, that's led to such obviously unacceptable behavior being a prevalent part of the culture.
Oh boy, I was unlucky (or stupid) enough to go to a boys-only high school. I think it was pretty damaging to my social development and it took a few years to catch on. It was so long ago that I forgot about that. Yep, I felt tense around women in those times.
I was maybe lucky that I live in a country where the stuff you describe is not common, so I had time to get used to interacting with women without too much pressure. Or maybe it's not about a country but about a social bubble? Who knows...
Judging by my memory of those tense years, people overthink it. I remember how I was trying to come up with some original line - now I think it is unnecessary. The "coffee" line is perfectly fine. If some joke occurs to me at the moment, great, but no need to force it.
There's a lot of 'advice' out there for men that says either contradictory or confusing. For instance, how long are you 'allowed' to look at the woman in her group to gauge her interest? Don't stare, obviously, but what if you glanced over and missed the five times she looked your way! So, you decide, what the hell and walk over and now you're the creep bothering her with her friends. What if she's just looking at the paintings and looks bored? Also, what if that's her resting face and you're just the creep hitting on her while she's trying to look at the paintings.
The simple and ethical answer is always take no as a complete sentence and an answer... But how do you get to the 'no'? Yes, the obvious answer is to ask but the advice young men are usually looking for is... How do I ask? So the advice of "Watch her until she's alone or looking bored and 'strike up a conversation'" sounds like something you'd find in a Pickup Artist YouTube video.
At the end of the day, take no for an answer and treat women like people and you're pretty much good to ethically date - but if you're a young man looking for guidance on how to do that and everyone just says... Well, those two things, you're probably not getting a date or good advice.
I don't know. Honestly, questions like that never occurred to me. I really do not want to sound like I dismiss your concerns, but are you sure this is not the overthinking?
People usually have instincts for that - maybe don't be afraid to rely on them? If it feels right, it's probably right. Also, there is a lot of room for error. Maybe not in the US - in that case I am sorry - but what @Eji1700 says seems pretty likely to me
Also, the more you talk to people, the better you get. Nowadays I think I got good enough in reading social cues that most of the time I can tell whether she likes me or not before I even talk to her. So I just don't bother those that don't.
The funny thing about this is that this is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think it will go fine, you are relaxed and normal and it goes fine. If you don't, you tense up and act weirdly and people pick up on that.
I really wish I could help you but if someone said what I am saying now to a 17-years-old me, it would not have worked, probably. Maybe you need to find a way to relax more? What if you go to a language meetup and get used to talking women in "we are just practicing Spanish" kind of way?
Don't worry, those were hypothetical questions but I do want to highlight this - many people have horribly skewed ideas of what is 'right'.
I'm thankfully not currently searching for a partner and I've also thankfully experienced enough rejections that I'm not concerned by that aspect of the whole conversation. My personal philosophy starts and ends with treating women like people but that's an over simplification for someone who doesn't really know what that entails.
That said, this also becomes the point where what works for me doesn't necessarily work for anyone else and by saying "Well, I got someone this way," sounds like bragging more than building a dataset to guide future people with! Young me wouldn't know the first thing about what I'm talking about because it took years and years of fucking things up horribly to get there. Or, to quote the band Faces, "you'll have to learn, just like me, and that's the hardest way."
The question of "how do you talk to women" is loaded. I don't talk to my female boss any differently than any of my male coworkers... Because my end goal isn't sex. "How do you talk to anyone with an end goal of sex" reveals the truth of the question which the answer to that is "be handsome, charming, or interesting, if not all three."
Yep, but isn't that a different thing? Just to clarify, I meant stuff like... that you can kind of feel how long is too long to look at her before she becomes uncomfortable.
Some people are chefs. Pinch of this, dash of that, and the recipe comes out fine. Some are bakers and heaven forbid you are a few grams off or the loaf won't rise. And some people prefer all the sustenance in shake form to avoid all the chewing.
Plus, how you look plays into the length of time. But you're right that it mostly comes down to a lack of social skills... But few people want to be everyone's test dummy.
I think you've described a plausible but idealized example scenario.
Personally, my fears are mostly around trying something like what you've described and then realizing too late that I've misread the scenario. For any number of reasons. There are all sort of social hints and clues, some subtle and some not. I can pick up on obvious ones but often have trouble understanding subtext in the moment. The problem with not noticing a key piece of body language or subtext is, the women in question likely cannot tell if you just missed it or are intentionally ignoring it and being a creep.
In the ideal version of the scenario you described, both people walk away with no harm. In less ideal outcomes, the lady tells her friends/coworkers about the creepy guy who wouldn't stop hitting on her.
I just remembered one funny situation - the first time I met a Spanish girl. In my culture, when a girl keeps touching you, touches your hand, leans so closely to you that your shoulders touch, it is definitely a signal. Apparently, in their culture, it is not like that. I thought she was really into me and when I asked her out and she said no, I was pretty surprised. But that was it. No problem, nothing bad happened, she kept talking to me in a friend kind of way.
If you ask politely and you are not insisting or pushing after she says no, there is nothing creepy about it. And if you pick the right situation - I would not bother a woman focused on working out with her headphones on. But if you go to a setting where people usually go with the expectation to talk to people - a Spanish meetup, salsa lesson, wine tasting, party - I see no problem.
Also, you can make really sure she wants to talk to you - just every once in a while, leave your side of the conversation kind of "run out" so there is an opening if she wants to stop talking to you. If she actively inserts another topic, she wants to talk to you. But that is probably pretty obvious... I assume almost everybody with a bit of empathy does that subconsciously.
I think that one thing is easier in my country than in the US - you can go out with someone without explicitly defining it as a date. At first, it really is just a coffee, no pressure. If you like each other, it will escalate, if not, you can still enjoy the conversation, order a coffee cake with that coffee, maybe you will become friends. It seems that in the US, it is more explicit that it is a date - at least based on the TV shows I watched (I never dated an American girl). But I see no reason why you couldn't just do something "innocent" with the woman you like - like skiing with a bunch of friends maybe? - and if it is in the cards, it will happen.
I don't want to sound like some frigging guru or something - it's just that this seems pretty easy to me and maybe some people are overthinking it? But maybe it really is harder in the US - in that case I am glad I live where I live.
I think you're being too cautious. If you're able to realize when you've made a mistake you can apologize and back off. And if you can learn from mistakes you'll only fail so many times before you learn what you need to.
Oh to be clear, I've worked around this in my own life, but for a long long time it was holding me back. It's one facet of my personal cluster of anxieties. Being in a stable relationship has been great for that particular aspect though.
I don't think this is a toxic take either. I think it is the fundamental challenge faced by hetero men. It's a tightrope and over correcting one way or another leads to pick-up artistry or incel behavior. The rest of us do our best to thread the needle.
My current opinion, at least for how I want to do things, is that any dating strategy that starts as a dating strategy is fundamentally flawed. Dating apps, picking up girls at bars/events, etc. are strategies that I'm sure work great if you're a stunningly attractive man. I never had it the worst but getting to the point where I know she's attracted to me takes a time frame and environment that explicit dating avenues do not intersect with. I'll back this up with my assumption that for most of modern human existence these avenues were not realistic or possible. Going with whatever is closest to the natural environment where people come to know each other through shared non-dating experiences should work best.
So if I'm living my life, trying to be a better version of myself, and happen to find someone that's a good match all of this "tightrope walking" gets much easier.
I think these sort of "naturally grown" relationships do ease the dichotomy. The added challenge comes in to the fact that modern life doesn't really have many "third places" where these friendships can grow into romantic interest. The friction I ran into was
So I met people through dating apps. I'm not particularly attractive, but it allowed me to find people outside of my small groups where I could develop friendships, explore interests, with no expectations. I'd just let things flow their course. I met lots of great people including my current partner who is the most wonderful woman I've ever known. It was months before we started "dating" (to her annoyance which she doesn't let me forget) but I wanted to make sure we had laid that foundation before jumping into something.
I think that natural strategy works if it's compatible with your lifestyle. But it can be a challenge just being in groups to meet people (even just friendships).
I think @ColtonE is saying the toxic part is when people say "There's a duality of being expected to make the first move but also being required to never approach a woman when they are not wanting to be approached," but they really mean "fuck these bitches, they owe me sex, they're so entitled, blah, blah, blah." Just like how some people say "states' rights" but they mean "states' rights to pass laws that make it difficult for black people to vote or be represented." Just that reasonable statements get co-opted to represent bigoted positions.
That’s certainly possible, but I can somewhat identify with the frustration being expressed. I may just suck at social interaction, but I’m terrible at picking up when women are signaling their openness to approach and/or interest — it’s often difficult to disambiguate from just being nice/polite.
This has led to a perhaps overly cautious approach on my behalf which just assumes that they’re being nice/polite, because that’s safe and not ever going to risk making someone uncomfortable. 95%+ of the time this assumption is correct, but there have been times when it wasn’t, but I only realize that weeks after the fact. It’s not something I’m good at judging in real time.
I don’t fault anybody but myself for this, but how do I fix it? I have no idea. I generally get along well enough socially and have no problem making and keeping friends with both men and women but that one little bit manages to elude me.
Maybe this? I would posture a guess that in general, men talk to each other about sex and dating in a healthy light (non-incel stuff) less than women do. So posting an article under your own name is likely to provide very limited benefit for other men, while also opening the door for ridicule by others.
I would hazard that men probably talk among themselves less but I don't know that they necessarily do so in a less healthy way. I think that with all the potential landmines we navigate as men that you need a trusted confidant that is inclined to take what you say at face value rather than assuming a toxic interpretation.
Example: people have physical preferences full stop. Saying you went on a date but weren't attracted physically can be a huge risk publicly; some how men are supposed to be horn dogs down to pound anything that moves. But someone who knows you is more inclined to take it as just that; lack of a physical attraction.
I didn't intend to insinuate that they did, that was bad wording on my part. I was trying to exclude the "toxic garbage" discussions mentioned in the article from the quantity of discussions that men have about sex/dating, compared to the quantity that women have on the same topic. Overall, men might talk about sex more than women overall, but much of it seems to be toxic if online forums are any indication.
But I totally agree with you on the trusted confidant piece. Men don't get the benefit of the doubt in a public forum when it comes to the example that you gave. Too many readers would jump to conclusions if they read something on this typic without knowing who the writer really is.
Well said.
This entire article could reasonably be boiled down to this one singular paragraph:
And that's the heart of it. It's pure economics -- if there were a demand, there'd be a supply. There's no demand, hence no supply.
There's so much to unpack in this really short article it's hard to know where to start. At the very top we should probably start with male and female socialization and focus and how it leads to very different media consumption patterns. In broad strokes men are socialized to pay attention to action and resolution. Problems are to be solved. Objects are to be built. Efficiency is to be analyzed. The focus is often on the non human elements in life or the measurable and tangible things. Women, on the other hand, are socialized to pay more attention to the human element. It's no surprise, given their historical role as caretakers of the home, the family, and the community. Problems aren't just to be solved, there's a need to manage the emotional needs of the parties as well. It's less about the objects you build but more about how and who you build them with. Efficiency isn't very important if everyone is unhappy as a result of changing the process.
This difference in socialization is likely behind the differences in media consumption. Men tend to consume more media that is action oriented and women tend to consume more media that is about human interactions. Romance novels, for example, are much more heavily consumed by women than men and the reverse is true for something much less focused on the human such as books on business. There is something special about the topic of romance, however, as gender disparity among readers of romance novels is highest, and while I couldn't find any statistics on relationships blogs and advice media, I suspect strong disparity among gender in this space as well.
Starting from this space it's easy to see how a straight male blog on relationships is just generally speaking not a very likely thing to exist in the first place. However, this begs the question of why the author is curious why it doesn't exist in the first place. The author is not a straight male and it's fairly clear there most likely isn't a very large straight male audience for this sort of thing, so why ask about it's existence? There's a few main trails of thought here that I think are relevant.
The first is that the author enjoys this kind of content and is curious why men aren't interested in the same content. I think this is adequately answered by the above, at least in broad strokes. Another thought in the same vein is that they're transferring what they get out of relationship blogs to the needs of men - that whatever they get out of the writings from women on sex and dating is something that they believe men need or can see how some of them might desire the same thing. To an extent, I think this can also be explained by the reasons above. A cisgender heterosexual romantic/sexual relationship consists of both a man and a woman. If, in general, men are more concerned about outcome (acquiring a relationship, being successful in a relationship, etc.) than they are about the human element (how a relationship makes you feel, the moments that make a relationship special, etc.) then a man might be able to get just as much if not more information from reading a blog about sex and dating written from the perspective they are missing. If they are trying to understand the needs of potential partners, there's no better place to find them then in the thoughts of people who resemble them. A male's perspective wouldn't have a particularly high utility to them, except perhaps when its dressed as a set of action items such as how to pick up women which almost always veers into the territory that the author and many other individuals rightfully consider as toxic (such as pickup artists).
Another potential trail of thought is that the author sees straight men in need of education based on her experiences interacting with them and has decided that it's good to have both male and female role models and is struggling to find the male ones. This would be a transference of an observed educational need. I think it's important to note that this need may be one sided in that it's implied that men would also desire this education. It's also important to note that there's a level of broad strokes thinking here which I think one can rightfully deduce as well as specific strokes which apply more to the individuals likes, wants, and desires and is subject to their own personality. A good example of this is how courtship should play out. Some people feel strongly that the heterosexual male needs to initiate courtship and others might be perfectly fine with the woman initiating. The relative importance of say tips on how to initiate that courtship, where it's appropriate to initiate it, how long one might need/want to know someone before initiating, what words to use when initiating and so on and so forth vary on a personal basis. Seeing a need on one or more aspects of this could represent a broader general need among men as a whole, or simply reflect the social circumstances of where the person exists, how attractive they are, their persuasion towards this kind of behavior and just pure happenstance. I suspect there's a fair chunk of this trail of thought by the author given that they mention a 'so-called crisis in male emotional communication.'
Of course none of these thoughts even begin to touch on a lot of the technical difficulties with respect to writing on this subject as a straight male. I think the author does a good job of bringing up the most salient points of power dynamics and an online audience and how that is likely to amplify its effect to a straight male writer more than a female one, but I don't think they do a good job of mentioning how badly some of these gender dynamics already affect women who do write on this subject. She mentions that women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but fails to mention how articles like that often draw in a lot of negative male criticism even when the author does so in good faith and is sure to couch their words in a way to make it very clear they are speaking in broad strokes and not about men as a whole. The same would be exponentially worse for men writing about toxic women, requiring an even higher emotional burden before sharing their experience which also would undoubtedly be met by some irate individuals on the internet claiming that the author must be sexist and a womanizer. If men are in a crisis of emotional communication, why should the author expect that they have the desire to expend what little emotional energy they have left on the burden of attempting to write about sex and dating in a way which draws more positive attention than negative?
Ultimately these trails of thoughts are different enough that I'm not sure they're all served by simply having more straight men write about sex and dating. While I do think the inclusion of more media of this nature is good for the world in general, the educational need would probably not be particularly well served by this given that straight male consumerism of relationship focused media is fairly low. Scientific and educational books are more likely to meet the eyes of straight male readers, and may do a lot more for teaching them how to have better a sex and dating life than a blog ever would. If we're focused on disparities among consumption habits by gender, de-gendering the socialization of children might result in less disparity. Some of these may not even be problems at all, but simply a reflection of human diversity as it loosely correlates with genetic expression.
I, as a man, with a female long-term partner, have never had a positive or helpful discussion about relationships with anyone other than her or a therapist (personal therapy, not couples). That includes past partners, male and female friends, and parents. (Parents both have very unhealthy history/patterns of relationships, though, including their divorce.)
When I was high school and college age, the only time I'd hear male friends (or even acquaintances) discuss women was in very degrading language. Mostly objectification - "Look at her ass," etc. Some guys wanted to date. Some guys wanted to just have sex. But strangely most of the guys in my social circle at that age really didn't care about girls/women, or at least didn't share their interests. I'd be interested to see how their lives have changed, but I haven't really made any attempts to stay connected with them, not even on facebook.
I think this extends beyond discussing relationships - sharing this information also requires sharing emotions. Men have, until the past 2-3 years (in my opinion/personal observation), been discouraged from sharing emotions. It goes along with discussing mental health a bit as well - I've witnessed some recent improvement with this, too. So if you're only talking about aspects of relationships that are completely disconnected from emotions, it mostly just leaves sex talk and objectification on the table. And if a guy with limited relationship experience feels left out and unable to discuss this with personal friends, it's understandable they might search the internet, and that inevitably will bring up Andrew Tate and similarly biased/inaccurate sources. Whether they believe what they hear or not is up for debate, but this is certainly one way this type of thinking is perpetuated.
Ultimately, it would be nice to see more men discuss their relationship experiences - online, in print, and in person. But it will take a major culture shift for other men to listen to/read about these experiences without looking down on the man sharing as someone too emotional to be taken seriously. Are we starting to see the culture shift? Perhaps. But I think it's also creating a stronger divide (more people veering towards the opposite extremes) with the amount of misinformation out there.
I've had a similar experience. The only useful discussion about a specific relationship I have had is with my wife, and a couples therapist.
This is curious, with most of my male friends I interact with the full emotional range of a soup spoon, but most of my female friends have no problems with listening to whatever I wanted to share.
"Ultimately, it would be nice to see more men discuss their relationship experiences"
I think you could argue pretty compellingly that almost all writing or cinema for the last 500 years has been men discussing their relationship experiences. So much modern tv or movies are just a Dan Harmon or a Steven Spielberg or Shakespeare working through a divorce or a breakup.
Like, I'm sorta out of the dating but of it. Married for 15 years. Relationship is... complicated at this point. But holy shit there's a million people with opinions on complicated midlife relationships out there. I don't lack for opinions. I just don't care about what they're saying.
I've thought of something similar after listening to a podcast about some of the struggles that boys are going through. The general gist is that there is a dearth of positive male role models** giving guidance to young men, which creates a vacuum that poor role models can exploit for money and influence. Subjective, perhaps, but Andrew Tate is a terrible role model. However, he is one of a few men out there making content and explicitly answering followers' questions about what it means to be a man in today's society and how to navigate relationships, sex, and the world at large. That the guidance is harmful isn't obvious if it is the only advice forthcoming.
I agree with some of the points in this article, which is that any man who wants to write about dating under their own name has a difficult tightrope to balance. On the one side, it would be easy to feel like you are bragging, peddling gross pickup artist tips, or objectifying women. On the other, you could come across as whining, blaming, or opening yourself to unfair judgments by being forthright with your own struggles.
I think this is something that there is a need for, but not necessarily much demand. I think people like Andrew Tate get followers by doing the usual influencer gibbering-mouther routine and then carve out a niche of low-quality or harmful content in the areas of sex and dating. I don't think that a columnist who started a wholesome blog or video channel would get anywhere near the engagement. I would like to be wrong, but I suspect there are a number of social factors that will continue to prevent significant changes in men openly sharing life advice other than on anonymous forums. Which, as a father of two boys, is terrible and puts even more importance on the role of men in the lives of their children, nephews, etc.
Edit: ** @ibuprofen had a great point that I want to clarify, which is specifically, I mean role models for men on how to become healthy, happy men, and not through the lens of some other social issue. Additionally, below is a gift link to the podcast/article I mentioned above.
Gift link: The Men - and the boys - are not alright
That's certainly true.
But there is an even greater dearth of positive male role models that are focused on being positive for males. Instead, discussions about positive male role models seem to focus on male role models that value feminism and equity and are positive for others. That's a terrible teenager elevator pitch. No wonder guys like Tate and Peterson capture so much of the market.
I don't even know what such an option would look like. I just know that the people most concerned about positive male role models seem to care more for male impact than for the men themselves. And it doesn't surprise me at all that they aren't more successful.
That is a great point and something I'll add as a quick note to my comment. You might enjoy this NYT article/podcast from the Ezra Klein show.
Gift link: The Men - and the boys - are not alright
A good summary is that there aren't good institutional mechanisms in place to keep track of, report, and respond to the well-being of men in the US. For very good reasons of historical disparities, there are good institutions focusing on women, people of color, and other historically disadvantaged groups. However, with certain trends the article goes into, there is a need for institutions and role models to emerge to focus on men as well.
To your point, what role models exist that focus on helping boys and young men be happy, healthy men, and not through the lens of making other people happy and healthy? The latter is, of course, important, but it is much easier to improve a person's attitude when they feel safe and healthy in the first place.
Thanks, I downloaded that episode for a listen later!
Definitely this!
But also, they need to be role models that young men find more appealing. It's easy in big picture discussions like this to focus on what will make men happier and healthier, but it's crucial not to forget that it must also be a path seen to be preferable by young men from where they're currently at.
The fundamental problem when thinking about how to counter Tate et al is a marketing one.
I agree. Part of the problem is packaging the good lessons in a way that is interesting to the boys and young men. As soon as it sounds like you are moralizing, they switch to something else. It needs to be engaging and helpful.
A non-zero part of how I define my own masculinity is tied to this sentiment - what does being a man mean? It means taking care of those around me, being the strong for those who are currently weak, and uplifting them so that they can stand on their own feet too. Part of that is going to include a rejection of some of the traditional masculine values, which emphasize thinking of yourself over others, or "lone wolf" behavior or measuring yourself relative to others; rather, on measuring yourself against where you were yesterday, and by your impact on your community, and how you help the most vulnerable people around you, especially when no one's looking.
I've presented this to teenagers, whom I used to baby sit. Yeah, at first it does clash with the perception that masc === buff, or "alpha male" or being commanding and telling people what to do; but then I ask them if they think I'm any less of a man for not being buff, given that I can still pick them up. Or any less of a man for sitting back and engaging with others, instead of putting some social barriers up from others to stay aloof and alpha. Or any less of a man for asking for help from others when doing things, rather than telling them what to do. I don't think teens need someone like Tate or Peterson as a role model, especially for relationships - it's just easier to convince yourself you don't care and you're on your sigma grindset than it is to care, be vulnerable to rejection and change and have to pick yourself back up and try again.
This is a total diversion and I don't want to imply you mean anymore than precisely what you said. And I completely agree that as a whole masculinity often gets distilled into "buff," "lone wolf," or "alpha." This is more a tangential thought that occurs to me often.
Some of the absolute best positive male role models for men are people I have found in powerlifting culture. Yes there are a lot of toxic personalities, it kept me away from the sport for a long time. But it is also the place I've found some of the best examples of a positive mind set encouraging allyship, openness, community, and self improvement. People who would be excellent positive masculinity influencers even though their main output is lifting oriented. But some days I just want to grab them by the shoulders and tell them "I know your lane is lifting, but please consider expanding your platform to general life advice."
And just to reiterate, this is a diversion. I don't think there is any correlation between being buff and being a good person.
I've felt this way about a few communities I'm apart of.
My phrase is "Some of the worst people I've ever met but some of the best too."
Thank you for reminding me - and to complement, I think this is a pretty good - and entertaining - take on the topic of masculinity in the movies: Why Movies Need Masculinity
And another related to the topic of this discussion: Terrible Relationship Lessons Movies Are Teaching.
BTW, I like both Like Stories of Old and Moviewise - one is pensive and kind of introverted, the other funny, but both smart.
Something I'm surprised I didn't see in either the article or the comments so far is the fact that effective dating advice for men needs to be tailored to the man asking for help. Reading what worked for others often leads men to read the wrong type of advice—the kind that their personality already expects. As others here said, men who need assertiveness training keep reading about how they need to be sensitive and the men who need tact will never read any of it, let alone care.
An already borderline-aggressive man reads advice for someone who struggles with self-confidence. You may have pushed him into the independent rediscovery of PUA tricks. One of the hypothesized sources of incels is men who read correct advice aimed at the overly aggressive horndogs, then take the black pill when that advice doesn't work for them.
I would never give any dating advice online. Not in current state of society where I could get into trouble or shunned. I wouldn't do so even in person if I didn't know the person well. Society's current state is shit and heterosexual men are almost being hunted (in my eyes), so I refrain from such topics.
Maybe I just gave the answer to the question above...
I like to see other commenters here having kinda the same opinion as me. It is nice to see that not everyone got absorbed by current state of things.
I'd be very interested in hearing other users' takes on this.
My thoughts split the reasons into two intertwined groups: individual and societal.
Individually
Some part of me is just a bit uncomfortable with media that is focused on individuals romantic relationships. In particular rom-coms and romantic literature. Even fictionalized it feels voyeuristic. The conflicts that make these stories engaging (cheating, lying, love triangles, cuckholding) almost feel triggering to me in some ways. I'm fine with these concepts in service of a larger story, but as the raison d'etre, no thanks. (I do watch rom-coms with my partner, they're fine but internally I approach with trepidation.) Stories of true love and family are beautiful and I prefer them to scandalous drama, but I'll probably cry and I'm not always emotionally prepared for that.
Now talking specifically about columns as the featured article describe. What am I going to get out of this? The author described it pretty well.
No one is interested in a one guy's game or lack there-of. I do have friends (male and female) who I discuss relationships with; I have my trusted cohort that know me that will soundboard my thoughts and be receptive of my feelings. Likewise I'm happy to discuss relationships with literally anyone that is looking for that type of support. But as a subject it doesn't fit into material consumed for entertainment; it's too personal and requires a lot of vulnerability.
Societal
I think the power imbalance plays a big part. Flip through positive masculinity social media and what you see is strictly men who uplift women and adore their partners without a shade of criticism. That is a good thing! Conversely, the lane is narrow where a man can discuss a (romantically engaged) woman in a bad light. It comes off as demeaning, superficial, misogynistic: toxic. The author mentions some of the conflict between being sensitive enough to discuss these things but necessarily aware enough to avoid doing so publicly:
I don't think this is a problem. As men we have a long way to go developing our collective emotional intelligence. We have resources even if they don't look like the resources women engage with. I don't think male relationship columnists would be a particularly impactful salve. There are other foundations to be laid first.
IMO, ths is a major spot where feminist advice about men's issues goes awry. There is no we. Men do not have the solidarity with other men by sake of being male that both advice and criticism of male behavior assumes. Treating men as a cohesive community causes people to talk past each other when their personal experiences mismatch.
Point taken, men aren't a community but we are a population. We can talk about populations in the aggregate. You could survey men and intelligently talk about distribution, averages, outliers etc. I wouldn't even be surprised if such a study found a bimodal EQ distribution.
Bimodal within men or bimodal with men at one pole and women at the other? Neither outcome would be surprising to me.
The population being men, I meant bimodal among men.
That checks out in my experience. I wonder if it would truly be bimodal or just another example of the male variability hypothesis. The bell curve for men may simply be flatter than for women, putting more men on the extremes without being fully bimodal.
Maybe that's a bit off-topic. Men do write about dating and sex, but it's often PUA bullshit.
For useful advice from men that won't turn you into a pig, check the following.
Attract Women Through Honesty is a good, effective, non-toxic book about dating.
She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman is an excellent book about sex.
Let me know honestly if I'm just judging a book by it's cover but this makes sex sound like work and not very engaging. Is it... For lack of a better term... More balanced in it's presentation or is it just about pleasuring women?
Yes, you are definitely judging a book by its cover. Your impressions are incorrect.
Ian Kerner is a sex counselor and psychotherapist. His advice is rooted on research and clinical practice. This book does not turn sex into a series of mechanical steps you must follow, but it does provide valuable insight and advice which may enrich the sex lives of both men and women by providing them with the tools to achieve whatever desires they may have in the bedroom.
Thank you for the information!
Have you read The Man's Guide to Women by the Gottmans? Curious how it compares to those two.
I have not. Only the one book was enough for me to achieve my goals. Now I'm married with children so I don't feel very compelled to read dating manuals right now :P
Very fair! Sometimes I like to read to make sure I'm not missing anything, or just to get ideas.
Inequality.
Different men have such different experiences that you can't write a manual that "works for everyone".