Asking a Man Out, Part II

Ok, so since a discussion got started - some follow-up questions on the post:

 Generally speaking, men were raised to believe that if they are interested in a woman, they should ask her out.  However, does this apply to the generation of men, say, 30 and under?  Is this the generation of men who were raised with beliefs that women can make the move?  Did the feminist movement make men second guess this?  Do a lot of men today have experience with women initiating?  That, and do men like getting asked out by women, as my friend suggested?  Or do men prefer to be in the driver's seat?  I realize this varies from guy to guy.  I think a lot of men will initially say something like 'oh, it's AWESOME if a woman makes the first move' - however, in their mind, it's a Jessica Alba-esque woman, not an every day woman who they may or may not be interested in in the first place.  Do any of my male readers (I know I have at least five!) have experience with getting asked out by a woman?  Do they have experience rejecting a woman?

As I always say - your thoughts?

Traditions I Don't Like....

When the guy asks the girl's dad for her hand in marriage.

Now, don't get me wrong, this tradition is fine for others. I'm not criticizing other couples for having done it this way. However, I will not be having it.

First off, if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life with a guy, that's my decision and my decision alone (I get it that the asking of the dad is in addition to, not instead of asking the woman, but still). I know a lot of girls who have said they will be very upset if the guy does not ask her father. They feel it's tradition and it's cute and charming and will make the whole family happy. Fine for them. Not for me.

Second - the Jessie Spano in me does feel there's a slightly sexist component to this tradition. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing this originated in a place where dowries were the thing and a man's wife was considered his 'property'. Why the father? Why not both the parents?! What is the old-fasioned thought at the base of this? One man has owned me thus far, now another man is asking to take me over, in a business-like transaction (in the same way one would buy or sell of a piece of a company to another)?

Perhaps a man sitting down both my parents asking them for my hand in marriage is a little more settling to me, but still, I am not a minor. It is my decision to make and their vote in the matter, is, in theory, moot point. Sure, if my parents really didn't want the guy I was dating in our family, it might affect my opinion, but if I had my heart set on him, it would not.

Anyhow. I know there's a lot of room for debate on a lot of these points and that some people just see this as cute/traditional/harmless. And, I suppose, it is all in the eye of the beholder. However, for me personally, as I said earlier - I will not be having it. If a guy were to ask my father, it would be an automatic no on my end. It would show to me that this guy doesn't really know me. It would also say that he cares more about following some soceital tradition than making me happy, which is a red flag to anyone. Actually, it would pretty much say he doesn't care about flat out pissing me off at a moment when he is supposed to be going out of his way to charm me and win me over.

However, as I said earlier, I know several girls who will be very upset/disappointed if their guy does not ask his future father-in-law's permission. Your thoughts? Does anyone else feel the same way I do on this tradition? Are there any other Jessie Spanos out there?

Funny Stuff?

So a friend of mine recently brought up the point that she'd read somewhere - that guys are intimidated by funny women (kind of in the same sense that they are intimidated by women who make more money than them).  A lot of men will say a 'great sense of humor' is very important to them in the woman they date, but they really mean they want someone who will laugh at their jokes, as opposed to make them laugh.  

I kind of think this is true - not across the board with every guy but generally speaking.  I know there have been some guys I knew briefly who found me to 'not have a sense of humor' (because I didn't find them all that funny and didn't pretend to).  In reality, I think I have a pretty great one.   Also, I tend to be the kind of person who thinks I'm funny and I'm typically the type to be making the jokes - maybe this is one of those 'opposites attract' kind of things - two people who think they're funny don't jive because they are battling for the stage.  

Also, I regularly notice articles and studies saying women want a man who can 'make them laugh' - listing this quality as one of the most important ones a woman looks for in a mate.  For me personally, although of course it is important to find someone who I can laugh and enjoy myself with, I certainly couldn't say I'm specifically looking for 'someone who can make me laugh' - I couldn't even put that quality in my top ten.  

Anyhow, I guess, in short (well, at this point, can I even say that?), my question is this - do many guys pride themselves on being able to make the women in their lives laugh?  Are men intimidated by sarcastic women?  Do sarcastic women need to be with men who don't pride themselves on their ability to make a woman laugh?  

All I know is this - I am sarcastic and like to crack jokes (regardless of whether or not people find me funny at times), and I am not changing for anyone.  I am a feminist - I am not going to pretend to be some weak girl who is going to fawn over and fake laugh at some guy who thinks he is funny.  I have a sense of humor, but I don't humor the men who try to date me.  (However, as stated earlier - I don't really take into consideration whether or not a guy can make me laugh - the quality is not all that important to me.)

Thoughts?

Quote

Sarah Palin, just now, on Greta Van Susteren's 'On the Record':

"Sure, I'm a feminist...whatever that means."

She later goes on to talk about the big ticket issue, abortion.

"Sure, we'd all like to see fewer abortions, and make more preventative measures available, uh...uh...."

Interesting comment Sarah.   Someone correct me if I'm wrong - Gov. Palin is for abstinence only education, right?  So what would those 'preventative measures' she's talking about be?  Abstinence?  Isn't that already 'available'? 

Something I Enjoy But Others Might Not

Ok, I don't agree with everything on this and some parts might be a bit extreme.  However, there are some parts I love.

I think my personal favorite is "I'm a nice guy, why don't I get any?", because I've definitely heard men stone cold seriously say this.  As if women somehow owe them something because they are 'nice' to them.  

Filters....

Ok, as I see it, there are some things women should only talk about with other women and men should only talk about with other men.   For example, I, as a woman, discuss issues such as shoe sales, nailpolish, and menstrual cramps only with other women (for the most part - aside from the fact that I just mentioned it here in this public blog).  

However, lately, most men I have met HAVE NOT used said filters.  I realize men discuss both bodily functions and their sexual interests at times, however, I think I can speak for a good amount of women when I say we don't want to hear about it!!  Know your audience!

Maybe it's just me.  Maybe it's a certain level of comfort that implies certain conversation can come into play - it can't.  We women are no less offended by this than you are offended by certain topics of discussion women bring up.  It's that old simple rule that you can't talk about everything with everyone - there's times you gotta filter things.  

All I know is that the next time I receive TMI from a guy, I'm going to begin discussing the pros and cons of various tampon brands.  And I, unfortunately, have a feeling that will be very soon.  

Do Nice Guys Finish Last?

So, as all my readers know, my mother periodically saves me articles from the "other" paper.  Here was one I found particularly of interest:

Apparently, in a previous column (this is what I've gathered from what I read), a man, "Greg", wrote in expressing his frustration that....wait for it....Nice Guys Finish Last!  Hrumph!  He apparently is a self-described "5" out of 10 with a great sense of humor, and, of course, is nice, yet he keeps striking out with the women he pursues.  It must mean, of course, that women just don't like nice guys.  (Insert blogger's eye roll here.)  

  

In this column, both women and men wrote in with advice in response.  There was a general consensus amongst women and a general consensus amongst men, but not between the groups.

Women claimed that this, indeed, in not true.  Greg's issue is that he is going after the wrong women.   He is a 5, perhaps he is going after 8s and 9s...maybe he'd have much better luck in the 4-6 range?  Maybe the problem isn't women, but rather, the kind of women he's attracted to.  Maybe if he's nice but average looking and he really wants to be in a relationship he should look for a nice but average looking girl?

The men had quite a different take - yep, women like nice men when they need someone to drive them somewhere, listen to them, or fix their sink.  Nice guys are great when a woman needs to complain about the jerk they are sleeping with.  However, when it comes to someone to date/sleep with, women want the hot bad boy.  A twice-divorced fifty-something man wrote something to the extent that when women say they want a nice guy, they really are saying 'we want a really really good-looking nice guy'.  

Obviously, I find these men's views of women and what we want to be rather ill-contrived and almost humorous.  However, I could see men finding a lot of flaws in the women's views on the subject - we don't date someone just because they are fair match-up on the looks scale nor is someone simply being equally appealing as ourselves a good argument to date that person.  

I raise a question to "Greg" - what exactly is he looking for in a girl?  We will all say that it's important that we are 'attracted' to our mate - how much this involves actual physical attractiveness varies from individual to individual.  If he expects to lean on his 'niceness' to generate attraction - is he attracted to niceness?   What exactly IS he attracted to?  (Or, what are these other guys attracted to if they are being used for favors by these women they pursue?  I wouldn't call that the work of 'nice girls'.)   These men who complain women don't like nice men - do they like nice women?

So, here is my advice to Greg all of the nice yet romantically frustrated people of the world:  if you are a person whose greatest, and rather noble, selling point is that you are nice - perhaps this isn't an opposites attract kind of deal.  Maybe you should look for someone who, first and foremost,  possesses the same quality.  I can't help believing that he's not quite doing this at the moment, and maybe if he does, it will generate considerably less frustration.  

I am TOO Predictable

So my good friend and loyal blog reader Ana commented in a previous post that I must have some thoughts on John McCain picking a female running mate.  

I think this is an insult to women's intelligence everywhere.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle Sarah Palin's qualifications and accomplishments - I am sure she rightly belonged on the short list.  However, I am also 100% positive the ultimate deciding factor that put her in the spot over Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc., was anatomical.

It's not this alone - it's all of John McCain's camp's cheap attempts to swoop up Hillary's supporters.  Although some would say this is politics as usual, sometimes it's so blatant it becomes laughable.  A couple weeks ago, Carly Fiorina from the McCain camp made some comment about the how they (especially Mr. McCain) were offended by Hillary Clinton not being shown 'the amount of respect she deserved' during the primary campaign.  

The REPUBLICANS were concerned about making sure Hillary Clinton was shown enough respect?  These words would have frozen hell over five months ago.  If Hillary had pulled off a last minute miracle and was the nominee at the moment, would John McCain's camp be singing the same tune?  I think he'd be changing his stance on waterboarding, while recommending her to be the first experimental subject.  If the McCain campaign has so much respect for Hillary Clinton, why didn't he pick her for the vp then?  

Now, it's not that McCain's pandering - all politicians, including my girl herself, pander.  I've seen Barack Obama speak at a college campus once in person and multiple times on television - let me tell you, one would think the biggest crisis in our nation is the interest rate on student loans (No, I will NOT be nice to him). 

It's not that John McCain has made a very transparent, calculated political move.   It's that he thinks we, the people who have vaginas, will fall for it because we are all that easy to please and distract.  Nevermind the fact that he's made it clear he wants to take away our reproductive rights, that he's voted for health insurance companies to cover viagra but not birth control, or that he's voted against equal pay for equal work.  

John McCain is a real champion of feminism and women's rights!?!?  I think not.  

First Report From the Democratic National Convention

Who will be more irritating over the next couple days of convention coverage - Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews?  I'd be inclined to put my money on Olbermann, but Matthews somehow just pulled out in front with an early lead.   

Dating Double Standards

So, there was an article in the, ahem, other paper - it was an excellent piece entitled something like "Why Can't Carrie Think Big?"   In short, it addressed that fact that many people comment on Carrie Bradshaw (SJP) dating a man (Chris Noth) who might be 'out of her league' per societal standards.  

I've heard criticisms of the Carrie/Big relationship from women moreso than men (most likely because more women are familiar with SATC).  Here's my beef though - we VERY often see and seem to accept the beautiful girl paired with the average joe guy - Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen in Knocked Up, Heather Graham and Mike Myers in Austin Powers, Christie Brinkley and Billy Joel in real life, etc.   However, we RARELY see the reverse.  I honestly can't even think of another example other than Carrie and Big.

Why is that?

Whenever there's the latter mismatch, there's always the whole 'oh, he's really funny' (Sidenote:  funny is ALWAYS the first quality society seems to think women want in their man - if this is true, why aren't we all dating clowns or stand-up comedians??!).    Or, if not funny, it's assumed that the man has some other attractive quality, such as intelligence, successfulness, or kindness.  

However, Carrie Bradshaw is witty and independently successful - she should get the same absolution less than perfect looking men get, no?  Why is it assumed that men will pick their romantic partners solely on superficial qualities, yet women are expected to look at the big picture?

On a similar note, I remember, a couple years ago, one of the networks had a dating reality show called "Average Joe", in which a bunch of moderately-attractive-at-best men were vying for the hand of an attractive woman.   I didn't watch this show, but from the few commercials I saw, it didn't appear as though this leading lady was going to win Miss Congeniality any time soon.  So, what was their reason for pursuing her (aside from the fact that it was a reality show and there was probably some financial prize they were pursuing as well)??   

I find the whole situation ironic - it was fine for these men to apply superficial standards when picking a mate, but this woman was urged to look beneath the surface.  On the same note, I do not remember there ever being an 'Average Jane' counterpart to this show.  Why is it that a woman dating a less than perfect man is widely embraced, but a man with a less than perfect woman is generally non-existent - at least in Hollywood?

It seems as though the double-standard is alive in well in the eyes and minds of both men and women.   Do we still see a woman's primary role in a relationship to be 'sitting pretty'?  Why can't we accept the idea of a man being attracted to wit, ambition, or a kind soul over appearance?  Are looks really THAT important to men?

I honestly don't know if I think men are more superficial than women on the whole - a faithful part of me wants to think they are not.   However, why do we struggle with the idea of the hot guy with an average girl, but the pairing of the hot girl and average guy is a duo of heroes?  

Battle of the Bloggers

So the other day, I wrote this post about dating and romance.

My good and long time friend Matt wrote a comment in response - scroll down on the above link to see it.  I'd like to debate some interesting points he brought up.  

He asked the question - is this really a broken system that needs to be fixed?

My thoughts - is it a broken system?  In some ways, yes.  Can it be fixed?  That's a more complicated question.

Here's the main dilemma for women that I see in the old fashioned system - it's a lot about sitting around and waiting to be picked by a man; it's not the mutual selection process I think dating, ideally, should be.  

Matt (and other men) will probably argue here that it is a mutual selection process - women can say no to being asked out, marriage proposals, etc. - they have a choice in the matter.  Also, there's the point that having to be the one putting it all out there and asking another out, wearing one's heart on one's sleeve, having to face rejection - it's no picnic in the park for a guy at times.

However - let's look at it for a girl - what is she supposed to do if there's a guy she likes (we have thoughts, feelings, attractions and preferences too) - if he isn't asking her out, is she supposed to sit there silently and assume if he wanted her, he'd say so?  What if he is shy?  How come men can go after whom they want but women can't?  Isn't this system all about sitting and waiting to be picked?  Isn't there some old truism the importance of taking action to get what one wants?

So, the system has evolved (perhaps) - somewhere somehow it suddenly became acceptable for women to pursue men - and it started happening.  Also, it suddenly became acceptable for women to casually sleep with men they might not be in a serious relationship with, to live with their boyfriends without being married, etc.  

Now, I have often crudely stated that the modern woman can fuck anyone she wants - but ultimately she has only fucked herself.  I think one of the biggest perks of monogamy, for men, was physical intimacy - however, now men can get easily find a one night stand in a bar - men can get some of the best perks of a relationship without one.  

Also, with a lot of couples living together and basically having all the perks of a marriage (minus the legal technicalities) - what's the motivation to take an extra step and tie the knot?  I've actually heard stories of couples who have decided to tie the knot because one person in the relationship has lost a job and needs health insurance - that's pretty far from romantic, in my book.  I think women - generally speaking - have more enthusiasm for tying the knot - but what's a woman to do other than sit and wait for a proposal from her man?  

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't a good amount of men out there who still value monogamy, relationships and marriage - I know they're still out there.  However, as the dating system has evolved over the past 40 or 50 years, are women any better off?  In romantic relationships between men and women - are women still sitting and waiting on men to act?  (<--I'd like to refer to this line as a "Carrie Bradshawism".)

Matt (and others) - I expect a response.  

Some Things Never Change....

So, let me preface this blog post with this - some people feel I have ill-contrived views dating and relationships.  I feel everyone else has ill-contrived views and I'm right.  

A lot has changed in dating in relationships in the past, let's say, century.   Today's modern woman can approach a man and ask him out if she wants - it is totally accepted as normal.   She can sleep with whomever she wants - be it a romantic partner or casual fling.   She can live with a man without the ring if she so chooses.   Some would say she has all the freedom and control she could ask for.

However.

One thing that hasn't changed - the job of proposing marriage is still considered a man's domain.  Of all the couples I know personally (not just peers but family members, etc.) - I do not know one single couple where the man didn't ultimately pop the question (although some will argue that they, as a couple, had discussions on the matter beforehand, that it was a mutual decision, etc. - it was always ultimately the man who bought the ring and asked the question).  

Although some might argue that a woman COULD propose - I think it's safe to say that it's still considered taboo.  Whenever there's a story about a woman proposing - there's a presumption that the man wasn't ready and was pressured.  

So, that leaves me with one question - ladies, are we still living on men's schedules?  I definitely think the process of going through with getting married is, generally speaking, more important to women than to men - I think as long as a man feels secure that his woman isn't leaving him, he's pretty much content; where women are all about the process of getting married (sometimes to a ridiculous extent).  Ladies, are we better off than we were 40 years ago?  Would it be better if more women started proposing now?  Am I the only one who views this as a potential problem?  What would fix this conundrum?   

Defending the Wrongfully Accused

Now, in today's Sun-Times, within the first three pages, one can find stories on three separate instances of men who killed/tried to kill their wives.

People around the office have been commenting on it. Many women have been making the comment 'I'm glad I'm not married' or 'I'm never getting married'. Whenever there are very public stories of very unfortunate situations involving a married couple (such as this, or a raging celeb divorce - oh, we've got those in the daily paper too!) - these lamentations come out.

I would like to propose an alternative theory - in these specific cases, it's not the institution of marriage - it's the asshole(s) involved in it.

Now, granted - let me say this. I'm not married. I don't know what it's like to be married. And, I understand that planning a life with and being with the same person day in and day out for decades on end can be challenging and stressful in many ways. I understand that it's something that one doesn't truly understand unless he or she is experiencing it, and I understand that it might push one to do things he or she normally wouldn't.

WITHIN REASON.

Is murder within reason? Um, not so much!!!

When people hear stories like this - they look to blame marriage. I'm not sure who or what is to blame, exactly, but I don't think marriage is the right target. I'd sooner say to swear off the opposite (or, I suppose, same) sex, dating, romance, relationships, or people in general. Although I'm not sure these are the right targets either, I think they're closer to the bullseye.

Here's my personal take - it takes a certain kind of person to murder someone. We all have certain limits to our character. A normal, decent, good person is not going to be driven to murder by marriage. He (or she) will address conflicts within the relationship in other ways. Most people I know who have sworn off marriage are either a) in a relationship that is pretty close to the equivalent of being married or b) still quick to trust and date.

Not that I'm saying these people should be swearing off all of the aforementioned. However, in the same sense that I wouldn't want to be married to the kind of person who would do something so horrendous, I wouldn't want to be casually hooking up with him either. If someone is a questionable character - what good is ANY romantic involvement with the person?

My proposed solution...I don't really have one. But I think people are using marriage as a scapegoat to justify staying in a relationship with or getting involved with someone whose character is questionable, as if this makes everything ok (it's ok, cause we're not married!). I think we need to more objectively evalute and be more cynical to other people, not institutions. Although I realize that just because two people are good people doesn't mean they can necessarily make a relationship work with each other (in or out of marriage), I think if there's a red flag that one shouldn't be married to someone because of issues of character, the same goes that one probably shouldn't be dating him or her, either.

(Me, recommending cynicism. Surprising?)

Indecent Exposure

So, twice today, on two separate occasions, I saw a man sitting in a car masturbating!!?!?  YUCK! Ew, ew, ew!  This was NOT how I wanted to spend my day off!!  One on of the occasions - it was blatant intentional harassment, so I was able to get the license plate and reported it (he apparently was blatantly intentionally harassing other women in the area, according to the Chicago police).

My question - why!?!?  Ok, I get why to do said act - but in public!?!  Are they homeless?  They both had decently nice cars, so I'm guessing not.  Do they not have an appropriate place where they can do said act?  The second man seemed to be attempting to be discreet about it, but SERIOUSLY.

Now, I get it that the kind of men who do this, these exhibitionists - the first guy I came across - are pervs who are in some way getting a kick out of this - but still, I'm wondering - how?  What's the thrill?  Do they, in some way, think this is a turn on to women?  Let me tell you something - it's not.  It was in better judgment when Britney flashed the paparazzi.

(I'd insert a joke about how if you want to turn on a woman, flash your WALLET at her - although I'm afraid some people might take this the wrong way.  Oops, too late.)

Here is my advice, gentle....err, I mean, men - ALWAYS assume we DON'T want to see it.  If we happen to feel otherwise, I promise, we'll let you know.  Thank you.

Sweetie

I bet most of my readers are surprised I have yet to comment on Barack Obama referring to a female reporter as 'sweetie'....

Just wait....

Feminism

So, observation: two of my female blogging buddies have gone out of their way in their blogs to point out that they ARE NOT feminists. On the same note, I've noticed more and more women regularly publicly proclaiming their outright dislike for feminists.

Now, I can understand if one personally doesn't identify with the feminist movement or that one wouldn't self describe as a feminist. However, it seems as though there's some dirty perception of feminists.

Now, I AM a feminist. I try not to impose my feminism on others (sometimes).

However, it frustrates me at the notion that there's something dirty about being a feminist - as if I protest showering and let all forms of hair grow out of control (I don't). Or, that maybe I am a feminist by default as a defense mechanism because no man would want me (I don't perceive myself this way). Or, that I'm a man-hater (women annoy me equally as much).

I think what annoys me is that there is some notion that women shouldn't be feminists because men don't like feminists. This is probably true for a select group of men. For me, if a man doesn't like girls who are feminists, it's kind of like if he doesn't like girls with brown hair - he's clearly then the wrong guy for me.

So I'll end this with an open-ended question: what is the reason for distancing oneself from feminism?