This is a background issue that has ended up popping up a lot over the last few years. In fact, whenever I do interviews with female interviewers, this topic somehow always comes up: that of the feminization of Western culture and its effects on men, women and relationships. It’s inevitably always the big thing that they agree with me on.
Here’s a funny video of comedian Bill Maher explaining the basic premise in a much more entertaining way than I could:
Here’s my official stance on the issue: legally, professionally and intellectually, women and men are equals and should be treated as equals. Socially and sexually, women and men are NOT equals and therefore should not be treated like equals. This is not an opinion, the differences are based on scientific facts and easily verifiable evidence.
The way men and women experience their sexuality, relationships and emotions are biologically different. Now, obviously, there are wide variances within the genders themselves, but this is besides the point.
Despite being capable and allowed to get ahead in the work force, women generally feel more stimulated and aroused in relationships where they’re dominated and subjugated by a man. Despite having the exact same political and legal rights as men, women tend to become attracted to men that they perceive to be of higher status and more capable than themselves. And despite being just as mentally capable as men, their needs for socializing and emotional connection greatly outweigh that of men.
These differences need to be noticed and honored by both sides, otherwise both sides end up suffering for it.
When modern feminism arose in the 1960′s and 1970′s, despite all of the great things they did for women’s rights and empowerment, there were two major ideological thrusts that have had a pernicious long-term effect on society as a whole. The first was that women and men need to be equal in EVERY WAY, whether it be the bedroom, the courtroom, the voting booth, or the strip club. The second was a reactionary attack on naturally masculine behavior as being anti-women or chauvinistic… you know, things like staring at a woman’s ass or being honest about your intention to have sex with her. These were suddenly seen as disgusting. And men who did them were reviled as pigs.
(I should note that feminism was a large and nuanced movement and I realize that not ALL parts of feminist literature prescribe the stuff above… I’m making a couple MASSIVE generalizations for the purposes of this article.)
As a result, along with more fathers being more absent the past few generations, men are growing up passive, submissive, reactive, and afraid of expressing their sexuality. This crops up in everything from sexual dysfunction, to feminizing behavior, to emotional co-dependence issues and so on. It also results in far fewer attractive men in the world.
This is why I think picking up girls in western countries is by far the easiest: you have absolutely no competition. Men are not aggressive in western countries. On the contrary, they are weak, emotionally fragile, and skirt around expressing their sexuality, trying to put themselves in situations where sexual contact “happens,” and preferably somewhere discrete so that no one else will find out.
On the other hand, women aren’t fairing much better. Growing up, they’re regularly encouraged to assert themselves, to prove that they’re just as good as the boys, and to practice self-respect and confidence by regularly rejecting the now frail and intimidated men who pursue her. She’s strong. She’s proud. And she’s completely miserable in her relationships because the only guys willing to put up with her over-compensating attitude are needy and helpless guys who will do anything for even a modicum of affection.
Speaking to female dating coaches is always an enlightening experience in a deja vu kind of way. What I mean is that the vast majority of issues I help men resolve stem deeply from a lack of masculinity, a lack of confidence and a lack of being assertive. Meanwhile, these female coaches almost always say that the majority of the issues they help women deal with relate to being too assertive, being too demanding, and basically steamrolling every guy who works up the courage to make an advance on her.
Most female clients of dating coaches tend to be highly intelligent, highly successful women. And this is no coincidence. These are the women who have demolished their femininity in order to get ahead in the workplace and in the world. And suddenly, with such professional prestige and such a demanding frame and overbearing confidence, they paint themselves into a corner where they either scare men away or become some entitled that any self-respecting and attractive man will move on. The only men they DO end up with are the ones who are willing to gut what’s left of their masculinity for just one sliver of cold, hard (and efficiently driven) affection from her.
This is the antithesis of attractive behavior. Literally. These women should be finding men who make HER want to gut her masculinity to be with him. A man so powerful and confident that she literally has no choice but to surrender emotionally to him.
Thankfully, there seems to be a minor cultural backlash of “masculinism” that’s slowly pervading the ether. The worst seems to be behind us. Movements such as the Pick Up Artist community, authers such as Warren Farrell, comedians such as Bill Maher, writers such as Tucker Max, television shows such as Californication — it slowly seems to be becoming cool to be a guy again.
I’ll close this out with a small story from David Duchovny, the lead role in the TV show “Californication” — a show loosely based on deceased writer Charles Bukowski, a chronic womanizer and all-around screw up. The show is racy and involves Duchovny having rampant amounts of casual sex with hot girls, usually for frivolous reasons, and almost always getting in some sort of trouble for it.
(I should note that the pick ups represented in “Californication” are infuriatingly inaccurate and should only be viewed for entertainment purposes. Anyway…)
In an interview, Duchovny was asked about what kind of reactions he gets from fans, particularly women, about his role as a total lush and womanizer in the show. And his answer was very surprising.
He said that while most younger viewers were guys, and guys who all thought it was really cool, he said that he’s found that a huge amount of elderly women love to watch the show. The interviewer couldn’t believe it and asked why. The answer makes sense. Duchovny said that he was in New York once and an old 60-something-year-old woman stopped him to tell him how much she loved the show and loved his character. He asked her the same question: “why?”
Her answer… “Men don’t act like men anymore.”
Related posts:
I can’t fully articulate why, but whenever I read statements along these lines coming from dating coaches, it never quite sits right with me.
I get the sense that some guys who talk about stuff like how men are too feminized or that women are naturally happier when the guy wears the pants in the relationship actually are just sort of misogynistic and use the above to justify their bitterness.
I dunno, maybe it’s because I’ve met a couple of creepy douches who treat their docile Asian girlfriends like crap, all the while going on to me about how Japanese girls are more “lady like” and how Western girls are all entitled bitches…
Kevin,
your comment is full of unsupported accusations and ad hominem (intellectually lazy and dishonest) attacks. I could go into why your wrong, but I learned that its a waste of time to argue with brainwashed manginas. Dont worry, there are plenty of masculine women out there to dominate you. And they will, trust me on that. If you say that there is such a thing as an “equal” relationship in terms of power, than you haven’t been in a relationship. Or you were the dominant one and just dont realize it. That happens a lot too. But I doubt it, in your case.
Mark, it’s true. The way things “should” be as determined by groups and movements often doesn’t match up with the reality of biology and science.
well…there is also proof that women arent equal intellectually…
other than that any man shouldnt be ashamed of his sexuality…BUT..if you are androgynous by nature and you pretend to be some alpha-masculine badass you will come across insane…
bill maher fucked up when he did the “feminin vs masculin values” comparision thing…
As a male dating coach who specializes in the types of female clients you describe, I agree with everything here. I would only make one small distinction:
“Socially and sexually, women and men are NOT equals and therefore should not be treated like equals.”
I would say in this regard men and women are equals in importance and value, but markedly different in biology and behavior. There is a natural balance between the sexes that Western culture hasn’t seen in 40 years. Feminism made “being equal” the same as “being identical.”
When I present these concepts to women also, they tend to agree. They yearn for the masculine guy to take the lead. I empower them by turning up their femininity and get them to start inviting connections with guys who will simply approach them and ask them out.
Kevin, I don’t think Entropy is arguing that men should “wear the pants.” Rather, that being a wuss is just not attractive. You can still have a relationship based on mutual respect, but she will love it when you pull her hair in the bedroom.
If you read women’s dating blogs, you’ll see they obsess over things like whether they guy picked out where to go on the first date or asked her to choose. I was surprised to find they’d rather you just decide for them.
Women are attrracted to assertive men, period. Doesn’t mean every girl you talk to assertively will go for you, but you will definitely have a higher hit rate.
Oh and one other comment about men being men. I know a women who is around 50 who spends about half the year in South America. She loves to dance salsa and in particular loves how assertive the men are on the dance floor down there vs. in the US.
I personally still have baggage that makes me uncertain about escalating, but now that I think about it I can’t think of a single time where I was sorry for having tried (even if she did rebuff my advances).
Jason: Thanks for making that distinction, that’s a very important point that I failed to make.
Kevin: You’ve posted a lot of interesting perspective and comments here before, but this time I have to disagree 100% with you. It seems you’re associating dominance and assertiveness with disrespect, when the two aren’t necessarily linked at all.
Mark: Yeah, fair enough.
I think where my reaction comes from is that in the past a lot of guys have talked about this stuff, but I really did feel there was an undertone of sexism and disrespect to what they were saying
That doesn’t mean the ideas you’re talking about themselves are necessarily wrong though.
Personally I’m going to reserve judgment a bit longer about this topic. Doesn’t seem like there are any clear answers yet.
What’s being ignored by your article is that traits of maculinity and feminity are SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED, at its core there is no such thing as maculinity and feminity, it doesn’t exist, there is nothing (behaviour wise) that makes you more of a man or more of a women they are all traits along a spectrum.
You did however hit the nail on the head with saying that a lot of men now adays are lacking in confidence and a lot of women are starting to grow this kind of air of entitlement in western society. Is feminism to blame for this? I don’t think so, the problem is much much more complicated then that.
@dude
I’m gonna chime in too with a blog post of mine that speaks to the different biology of men and women.
http://www.attractthemanyouwant.com/2010/09/a-big-reason-women-dont-understand-men-testosterone.html
I try to educate women on the dramatic effects of hormones in both sexes. This is not socialization. This is deeply rooted in biology. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are based on our biology, not on our sociology.
You definitely missed the quintessential embodiment of this cultural backlash….Mad Men, and specifically, Don Draper. Women swoon over the character’s hyper-masculine persona, particularly in the first couple seasons when his drinking, philandering, and assertiveness where especially pronounced. I’ve learned more about “game” from watching Mad Men than I did from the PUA community.
Great bit by Bill Maher….
I really like the way he makes his point clear. Appearently humour is probably the best way to do that.
But it’s true and in Europe it’s probably even worse.
a) In my library I find books like:
“why women are much better then man”
b) In the newspaper I read articles like:
“men are guilty of the financial crisis”
c) A european politician named neelie kroes said the following: women are so much better then man.
d) if a woman isn’t progressing as quickly as a men in terms of carreer. Immediately she’s being discriminated.
e) the next great idea, a seperation of 50% men and women in high ranking positions.
If you would make all those statements about women. You would be called a scumbag. But against men it seems completely normal…
Now it seems completely normal for me to take the lead. But BEFORE I would have taught “oh my god I’m being such a scumbag, women are capable of the same things”.
and that last thing is true! But being equal doesn’t mean being identical.
I can say now that I’m 100% against feminism in it’s modern form. Because it destroys relationships and most of all it destroys sexuality.
There was a recent tv-show that really caught my attention. It was were a women wrote a book on how the glass ceiling is nothing but a myth.
I was releaved because it shows that feminism will be conquered. Because it is a disease that spreads very quickly.
@dude
Have you ever seen the excellent but incredibly inappropriately titled documentary ‘Dr Money and the boy with no penis’? It’s about the strongest proof I’ve ever seen that gender is more than just a social construct. In that case acting on the argument that our physical differences are the only ones we have led to lifelong depression, societal self-exile (is that a term… erm) and tragically, eventually suicide. A compelling case for just admitting that we don’t know half as much as we’d like to think we do, and that blanket statements such as ‘there is no such thing as masculinity or femininity’ reveal the folly of our certainty. Anyway, I highly recommend it and do strongly agree with you that the part social construction plays in determining the nature of our gender needs more exposure
@dude: that train of thought has been taught in Women’s Studies and Gender Studies departments in Universities for decades, but it’s simply not true…
There are biologically verifiable differences when men and women are exposed with the same social and sexual stimuli. There are so many examples, I don’t even know where to start.
Here’s an episode of Bill Maher’s old show “Politically Incorrect” where the panel discusses exactly this. Exactly what you’re saying is debunked by the author/scientist on the panel.
Also notice Sandra Bernhard’s gratuitous “Women are more spiritually evolved than men,” statement as well as Michael Moore (lol) making nonsensical arguments about men starting wars.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw9Q6GTEPYw
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-IyOpESeE
The good stuff is in part two, but both are worth watching.
Research is biased from its first steps in construction and also favors a focus on differences as opposed to similarities. And while research has found differences between men and women here and there, there are by far more similarities between men and women than differences…way more. A good point you did make was the variability that occurs within the genders (because there is more variability within than BETWEEN the genders).
Kevin, don’t shrink back on your opinion in the face of an objective majority. And @ dude, same said. You both bring up some solid points. Mark, you also hit on A LOT of good points in your blog, and I know how you feel/where you’re coming from…but honestly, I think you’re holding on too much to being right in the face of other perspectives here that could help broaden your view (and could that really hurt?).
Mark, if you want, I’m more than willing to have a friendly discussion with you and discuss some factors I think you are missing here. There is a bigger issue in all of this than who is right or wrong. Do you think you can be open enough to learn from your peers?
Paul, while it may be quantitatively true that men and women are far more similar than different, I take issue with your whitewashing the nature of sexual attraction between men and women. When it comes to dating and mating, men and women are markedly different. It is the nature of being a member of a species that even has two sexes that the males and females are fundamentally different. There is no attraction without these polar differences. Start observing animals objectively and you’ll see what I mean. Put simply, it is clear to me you are not educated in these distinctions. This has nothing to do with disrespecting women (or men). It is the opposite. It is the appreciation of the differences between men and women as a natural and welcome phenomenon.
I’m not going to get in the middle of this, but just so you know Paul, condescending “no right answer” closing questions like this:
“Do you think you can be open enough to learn from your peers?”
make you come off as a complete douche who has little respect for the intellect of the people who he is having discourse with. And you know why.
Also every comment that falls along this line of thinking:
“If you view gender as a binary category, you are imposing limits on the behavioral roles of men and women.”
Shows that you are completely brainwashed into believing a theory, written by those who have a financial self interest in its proliferation, that has no basis in reality as evidenced by the entirety of human evolution and biology. No behavioral roles of men and women? Gender is not a binary category? You can’t be fucking serious.
Some guys will believe or do anything for a sniff.
I think if you’ve read this blog long enough, you should know that I have no problem with commenters proving me wrong (has happened numerous times).
I’m open to any counter-evidence or book recommendations for the other side of the argument. These are simply the conclusions I’ve come to through all of my reading… and not to mention my experience with hundreds of women directly, and through speaking to other dating coaches who agree.
Your schema (‘mental map’) naturally wants to reject information that doesn’t coincide with what’s in there already (but will seek out/accept information that nicely fits with it to reinforce your own ideas), so I think suggesting counter-evidence to you is almost useless…especially because you ARE intelligent, and you will go into logical mode the whole time until you can rationalize why your right. Of course, I hope I’m wrong on that one.
You need to participate in a verbal dialogue (ie: not a forum message exchange) and keep an open mind. Most of the women and dating coaches you (and me) interact with are ignorant of the issues we’re discussing here (let alone the issues that haven’t even been brought up here). My invitation to you is open if your mind is. I believe you know how to get in touch.
Also, I don’t want you to feel like my intention is to rip you apart over the phone. I’m open to hearing your take on things too, Mark. Just trying to bring some balance to the issue here.
And…to the men who have contributed pro-feminist insights here, I applaud you. These are very sensitive issues and are so rarely discussed in the pickup scene with as much perspective as in the comments here. You are truly doing a service by contributing to a much needed conversation. As a feminist and as a lover of all women, thank you.
One more thing here: Feminism was a good thing politically and economically for women and society, but it wreaked havoc on relationships between men and women largely because major figures in the movement insisted on slogans like “The Personal is Political.” Make no mistake. Feminism was a well-justified and angry reaction to centuries of male oppression, but the unintended impact it had on dating and mating has been devastating for both men and women. Trust me. I work in the field and I see it over and over again. I am re-educating people one person at a time and they are thanking me for it.
I’m a long time blog reader and I can say with full confidence that Mark can accept and use criticism/differing viewpoints better than pretty much any other dating coach in the industry I’ve followed. I’d say you need to trawl through his archives a bit before you make a judgment like that.
@Paul: The process you describe is something that everyone does naturally, it’s just a question of to what degree. That’s what makes debates and discussions debates and discussions.
I appreciate your invitation, but logistically, I’m on the other side of the planet and am only online for a few hours per day. And on top of that, I don’t see how a dialogue is more useful than reviewing books/information on my own. Again, if you have websites or books you’d recommend, I would be happy to read them. Also, if you’d like to start an email discussion, that would be most convenient for me.
Oh, and I’ll add that I agree with everything Jason is saying. He seems very experienced in this subject as well.
when you click my name the most ironic website about feminisn ever will open…i always get a good laugh out of it…
@Mark and others
Yeah of course there are biological differences between men and women but if you look at studies that try to explain behaviour through the use of biology they are usually very biased and seriously flawed. The root of these biological theories comes from social darwinism and the positivist era, if you do some digging darwin himself said that his theories were not to be used on people. The positivist movement itself is heavily critizied because of the perspective it comes from –> white upper class eurocentric.
The one big problem with biological theories trying to explain differences between men and women is that having such rigid categories for masculine and feminine traits doesn’t account for all the crossover, every woman displays traits that would be deemed masculine and every man displays traits that would be called feminine, how could this be if we have biologically wired traits that are supposed to be different from one another, doesn’t make any sense does it? Biological theories assume that we act on instinct, we don’t, thats what separates us from other animals, we are a product of our socialization.
Another point I wanted to add is that traditional gender roles didn’t appear until industrialization, chew on that one.
Trying to blame feminism on why so many guys are having trouble with dating is bullshit, male dominance is the direct result of the oppression of women, this is just a very very recent chapter in history, society wasn’t always like this and yet we were able to fuck and make cute babies long before so sorry dudes feminism is not the problem.
My take on why both men and women are having so much trouble in this area these days is that society as a whole is becoming much more stressful, we think we have more freedom but the truth is that its becoming much more rigid.
As for book recommendations check out http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Talk-About-Overcoming/dp/0684835398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289937225&sr=8-1
Its about male depression, but the author goes into detail about male socialization and why we`re getting so fucked up by it. Its a good read.
I’ll look into that book dude, although I think your anti-positivist argument is a little dubious. You could just as easily say that these biological differences and markers in these studies are EFFECTS of gender differences and not the causes.
As for a lack of gender roles pre-industrialization… are you serious? How many conquerors were women? How many women ran plantations or the feudal system? How many female Caesar’s were there? How many women were in the Roman Legions?
I don’t buy that for a second.
What do you female dating coaches say about this issue, like what is Erika Awakening’s take on this? Speaking of Erika, who was better in bed Erika Awakening or the girl from Part 2 of the tale of 3 lays?
I haven’t spoken to Erika in forever, but I imagine she’d agree with me. Other female dating coaches I’ve talked to agree with me.
As for your second question… lol…
come on tell me, everyones doing it. jk jk
This is interesting as well (psy aspect):
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/men-and-women-are-psychologically-very.php
@ Mark
I didn’t say there weren’t gender roles pre-industrialization, I said traditional gender roles didn’t exist till then, traditional gender roles being women have very restricted mobility in the public sphere,feminism changed this aspect of society.
There is evidence from anthropologists that societies were much more egalitarian way back, but not all of them of course. In Europe those societies with male hierarchies were able to take over the ones that were more egalitarian and hence we get male domination as a norm. And no they didn’t take over because they were more manly and alpha it was because they had better access to resources. I’m making mention of Europe because this is where a lot of ideas that have become “common sense” or “natural” in the western world come from, it would be blissfully ignorant to look past European influence.
So back to the point, TRADITIONAL gender roles have only been around for a short time(women are second to men) as I said before people have been making babies WAY before this so feminism is not the issue. Its much more complicated.
I should enroll in a women’s studies class next semester those girls are gonna love me, btw I didn’t learn this stuff from a gender studies/women’s studies course, this has been from psychology, anthro, sociology, politics and history.
Oh and answer the question about Erika we want to know!
I think you have to go pretty far back to find “egalitarian” societies… back to hunter and gatherer days at least 5000 years ago. In most ancient civilizations (Greek, Roman, Mogul, Babylonian) women were often not even allowed outside of their homes, not to mention not being able to work or do anything except cooking and cleaning. Polygamy was also far more common.
I recommend the book “Secrets of Love and Lust” by Simon Andreia (might have mispelled that, at a net cafe right now). He does a pretty good job of summing up the evolution of marriage and gender roles throughout history, stretching as far back as pre-agricultural societies.
@ dude: You mentioned a couple of things that were beyond I was thinking but I find it very interesting and will look into it that. I’ve heard of egaltarian societies through Helen Fisher and recently, though I’ve only skimmed it so far, Sex At Dawn.
@ Mark: Some book suggestions would be Transformations by Mary Crawford, In Our Own Words by Mary Crawford & Rhoda Unger. Also, have a look at some feminist forums. I learned a lot from interacting with women who were feminists, products of an over-sexualized society ideal, and everywhere in between, and talking about these subjects. The emphasis in these books is on the female experience, and the historic influences that have permeated society. A big misconception about feminism is that it’s man-hating, but these women have immense compassion for men. Also, check out a documentary on YouTube called ‘Dreamworlds 3′. Some noteworthy stuff in there.
@ Jason: If you view gender as a binary category, you are imposing limits on the behavioral roles of men and women. The issues we face today in relationships are complicated for reasons that started long before the feminist movement, which I think you have a negative and inaccurate view of. While I trust that you have good intentions and something to offer those you help, it couldn’t hurt to broaden your view. I think you could benefit from a more informed approach. Really, what it comes down to is awareness. I have intensely studied this material both academically and personally, and it has shifted a lot for me. And as always, I’m open to discuss this with anyone personally.
Good grief, Paul, you’re the one who’s blurring the topic at hand. I most certainly do not look at gender as a wholly binary issue. I am very specific about where I see the differences.
“The issues we face today in relationships are complicated for reasons that started long before the feminist movement, which I think you have a negative and inaccurate view of.”
This is simply not true from my observation of case after case. It is in fact feminism that shattered the previously established attraction dynamic between the sexes exactly as Mark described. Baby boomers and their parents didn’t need dating coaches! GenXers and GenYers do!! GenX men have no solid models for masculinity and manhood because the old ones were vilified by Feminism. And GenX women exercise their masculine sides (activated by entering the business world) so much in the dating arena they are not attracting the men they want. I see this OVER and OVER again!
When it comes to choosing a sex partner or a mate for life, men and women employ COMPLEMENTARY but DIFFERENT strategies. Now it is certainly possible for men and women to switch positions where the man assumes the feminine aspect and the woman assumes the masculine aspect in the relationship, but that’s rare. But in ALL cases, it’s the POLARITY of differences in mating behavior that cause attraction and trigger selection between the sexes. This is remarkably well understood and demonstrated OVER AND OVER in the field. You simply have to have the ability to observe it.
So this is not a question of my “awareness” because my opinion is based on my empirical observation AND agreement from men AND WOMEN when I discuss the fallout of feminism on the modern dating landscape.
And I don’t think that Feminism was all bad either. It was a justified reaction to thousands of years of male oppression. But the error happened with the feminist leaders of the 60′s declared that the political must be made personal. For real.
@ Mark
Yeah man of course you have to go that far back to find egalitarian societies, in the grand scale of things of human history going back 5000 years is nothing, humans as a species have existed around 200,000 years and most of these hunter-gatherer societies lived with relative equality amongst genders.
Dude you’re stressing the importance of biology and completely ignoring where exactly we come from, do you not see the irony in that?? It doesn’t matter how the fuck they lived 5000 years ago in ancient greece, people have been bumping uglies and making babies WAY before that WHILE living with relative EQUALITY amongst genders! My god I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. I will give that book a look over, but I’m gonna guess that the information in it is gonna come from a very narrow and eurocentric perspective. Sorry the whiteman but just because you see something from your perspective as right doesn’t make it so.
@ Jason miller
You are spinning in circles and clearly have no idea what you are talking about, show me the proof that baby boomers and generations previously didn’t struggle with dating, you are totally ignoring how the advancement of techology and post-materialism is shaping present day society. I can see your argument that feminism might have wrecked the previous “patriarchal dating dynamic” which again only existed till very recently and could be summed up as “GIRL YOU GOTTA FIND A MAN NO MATTER HOW SHITTY OF A GUY HE IS BECAUSE YOU CAN’T GET ANYWHERE WITHOUT ONE” as opposed to now where women have much more options and have more mobility in the public sphere. This is a social shift yet you are trying to tie biology into this which makes NO SENSE!
Jason quit scamming people you are worse than mystery with your bullshit theories.
@Dude
I am not scamming people and my opinions (not theories) are based on my empirical observation. I wouldn’t make these claims if I haven’t seen them in action REPEATEDLY.
“I can see your argument that feminism might have wrecked the previous ‘patriarchal dating dynamic’ which again only existed till very recently and could be summed up as ‘GIRL YOU GOTTA FIND A MAN NO MATTER HOW SHITTY OF A GUY HE IS BECAUSE YOU CAN’T GET ANYWHERE WITHOUT ONE’ as opposed to now where women have much more options and have more mobility in the public sphere.”
The statement that there was an economic incentive for women to marry pre-feminism is absolutely true. Women are free to choose men they want now, not settle for the ones that will save them financially. So you are absolutely right that women are empowered in this regard.
But when it comes to attraction and dating, I can tell you personally that THEY DO NOT FEEL EMPOWERED! So when you remove patriarchal gender roles and remove economic incentives for women to marry from the equation, then people have an infinite range of possible attraction frameworks to work from. In addition, we have women SOCIOLOGICALLY assuming the masculine role in dating and the men SOCIOLOGICALLY having no point of reference when it comes to being a man.
“This is a social shift yet you are trying to tie biology into this which makes NO SENSE!”
Dude, the biology is the only thing that remains constant throughout this historical/sociological shift. It is the FOUNDATION for attraction and selecting a mate. Once people are educated in the dating dynamics at this level, they are empowered to make better decisions and invite MUCH MORE opportunity into their lives. They begin to operate authentically and consciously. It’s just that simple.
To accuse me of spewing bullshit is to invalidate all the people I’ve personally helped as a coach. You invalidate my helping people feel better about themselves and assume their personal power, both men and women.
Because you attack me so strongly indicates to me you might be feeling disempowered yourself. If you do, I feel for you. I’ve been there myself. It sucks. But there are ways out of it. If you don’t feel that way, then I made a wrong assumption about you.
Dude, even in hunter-gatherer societies, there were clear gender roles for women (the gatherers) and the men (hunters). Although they enjoyed general political equality, the social and professional divisions were still there. I guess my point would be that a purely egalitarian society in human history is the exception, not the norm.
As far as calling Jason a scammer… have a little more respect and maturity for people with differing views, otherwise your comments will be deleted.
Gender roles yes patriarchal hierarchies not so much, yes 100% equality between genders didn’t exist, it was kinda like now to a lesser extend even, there is still quite a bit of female oppression around.
Fine I won’t call Jason a scammer but the issue that I have with you Jason is that you aren’t coming from any reputable knowledge base, you’re going by your own personal opinions. By the way having a few people agree with your opinion is not emperical evidence, thats not gonna hold up scientifically sorry dude.
you wrote:
“But when it comes to attraction and dating, I can tell you personally that THEY DO NOT FEEL EMPOWERED! So when you remove patriarchal gender roles and remove economic incentives for women to marry from the equation, then people have an infinite range of possible attraction frameworks to work from.”
Wow for a guy that claims to be empowering women thats a pretty misogynistic viewpoint. You’re claiming that the best way for guys to get women is for women to be oppressed, alright there buddy.
Yes, and the argument I’m making is that so-called “gender equality” in the social and sexual realm has never existed until the last 50 years.
Jason may not be a scientific expert, but neither are you, and neither am I… Every person in these comments is just a guy who has read a lot of books on the subject and/or had a lot of personal experience with the subject, myself included. So misrepresenting his view as “misogynistic” is unnecessary.
I suggest that we all agree to disagree and move on…
Dear Entropy,
You seem to be harboring some unresolved conflicts with your mother, let me fix this for you.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRUUUUUUBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
@ Jason: You talk of removing patriarchal gender roles, but by your own words of what you do, your business reinforces, thus intensifying, prescribed male and female roles. ‘Sexual polarity’ is just a fluffy term for gender roles, and reinforces that traditional (ie: masculine constructed) lens view of relationship behavior. I had to struggle with this one myself for a while, because I learned so much from (sexual polarity) all the knowledge guys like you and Mark are putting out there, but there is another corner to the room not many people are looking at. I’ve seen it and can’t turn away from it at this point. While I personally trust your intentions are good, and I am sure you are satisfying your clients and earning money, what we are discussing here is a non-business matter. This is about awareness. Spending five academic years in psychology and gender studies to be an MFT (in addition to the personal ‘experiences’ the coaches have cited here), I think I have a lot of perspective on this issue. Though it seems like you are insightful, based on your descriptions of feminism and gender issues, I think you still have a lot to learn. Of course, you don’t need this knowledge to be a better business man, and from what you said I’m sure you’re doing alright for yourself, but on a societal level, I would strongly encourage you to explore this area of study more, even if only for the bigger picture. But yeah, it could make you question a lot of what you practice in your business should you do so, and that would be difficult for anyone in your position. As a coach myself (until I am a licensed MFT), I can relate to the inner conflict it brings. I am still sifting through a lot of it and don’t have any definite answers/alternatives to present just yet…but there is without a doubt a serious issue at hand.
@ Mark: If you’d like input from scientific experts, I am more than happy to put you (and you too, Jason) in direct contact with more than just a couple of mentors and associates I know who are accredited experts. We’re talking 40+ years of experience here in psychology, gender, counseling and research…not a private coaching business and experiences with women. Yes, you are both successful at all of this; I don’t think anyone can deny that based on the customer testimonials and such, but I think there is an issue MUCH MUCH bigger than business being overlooked here, and I’m just hoping that everyone who reads this will be willing to see what they can learn going forward.
@ dude: We should talk sometime. I don’t know much about your background or how involved you are in the activism side of things, but I’d love to connect on this topic with you and see what your deal is. Not many men are as willing (let alone informed) to go on a pickup blog and spit this stuff out…and certainly not enough men are involved in the movement to bring full equality around…and I think until men are the initiators for advocacy in these matters, women will ultimately always be held at a minimum arms length disadvantage. I am all about the men’s movement too (NOT the seduction community). Hit me up sometime!
The likely reason you conclude this is fluffy is because it’s not something that can be adequately researched in science. It literally is a vibe thing. People give off that masculine or feminine vibe and other people know which is which. Yes, confidence is attractive. There is a feminine confidence/vibe as well as a masculine one. Gender roles don’t even enter into it because feminism decoupled gender roles from the dynamics of attraction.
This is the space I operate in. It’s not based in science and I’m the first to tell you coaching is an art that is based on the refinement of observed results at the level of the individual. It has not been subjected to the austere conditions of the scientific method.
I take strong issue if you still assert that the notion of sexual polarity, and therefore attraction, is a “masculine construction.” I have personally observed couples where the woman naturally carries the masculine vibe and the man carries the feminine. And they live in perfect harmony. Bear in mind attraction is not a choice. I only educate people to pay attention to these things at the energetic/vibe level.
Anything we can do to give people a useful perspective and context around how that works is empowering. It may not be scientific, but if they are happy with the results, how can that be so wrong to you? Is your world view so perfect that the rest of us must be wrong? There is room for people to gravitate toward yours and mine at the same time. As long as we’re contributing and making progress.
Then you better publish your findings quickly because according to you the rest of us obviously don’t know what we’re doing and we’re getting apparently good results based on incorrect presumptions. If you’re going to start a revolution there’s no better time than right now. And maybe a back and forth of comments on a blog is one of the worst ways to launch it.
What is the much much bigger issue that you’re referring to?
Jason, you’re still missing the point…
This is not about science or a right/wrong argument. I think I said at least a couple of times that you and Mark have some good points, but there is additional knowledge you could both benefit from.
I invited both of you to a direct discussion with me, and I haven’t heard anything from either of you (except for Mark who is on the other side of the world, but I still think something could be arranged).
And Jason, you and Mark were the one’s who first brought up science with talks of empirical research. I offered to put both of you in touch with some excellent sources, to which you both also have not responded to.
I already know the information you and Mark dispose to the public. If you’re interested in broadening your perspective, you know how to get in touch. I won’t be responding to your posts any longer so have a blast.
I love how you’ve tackled this very controversial topic with such audacity.
What you lament about American men is even more true for over 90% of men in Confucianized countries and cities like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Shanghai, and Seoul.
Given the complexity of this issue and the brevity of a blog post, I think you’ve done a great job here.
Best, Asian Rake David
I might be beating on a dead horse, but as for that whole science thing, here’s something interesting:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7167579-have-researchers-found-the-liberal-gene
In summa: new research has shown that behavior – while certainly heavily influenced by societal/cultural factors – is also somewhat influenced by genetic components on a smaller/familial level.
(This is assuming that the science was performed correctly. Remember everyone – scientists can be full of shit too. PROTIP: to be on the safe side, assume most sociologists/psychologists/economists are full of shit, because they rarely perform anything correctly.)
What we’ve been shown time and again is that, empirically, men and women are vastly different but the causes for this have never been clear. A purely biological cause for gender differences appears to be incorrect, as does a purely sociological cause. Instead, a theory closer to the truth may be that our behavior is more determined by individual variances in both genes and environment but this theory is unclear as well.
Don’t even the get cultural guys started on the whole shallow, materialist society thing.
Nothing has actually been proven and very little has been falsified by anyone, at any point. Any scientist who claims to “know” the answer is acting unscientific and irresponsible, and is not to be trusted.
All in all, though, when it comes to dating, the biology vs. culture thing strikes me as irrelevant. Even from a cultural standpoint, almost every culture that has ever existed has stressed the differences between the genders and these cultures have probably been passed down through the ages. In general, women will still want dominance in men, men will still want submissiveness in women, so we have absolutely no choice but to act as desired if we’re going to get anywhere in dating. Even if the belief that we are different by nature is stupid, ridiculous and scientifically incorrect (it probably is, by the way), it doesn’t matter. Gender roles aren’t going anywhere.
I will add that happiness studies have shown women’s happiness levels in America steadily declining since the 1970′s. They’re at an all-time low since they began measuring it.
May mean something, may not. Just saying…
Kevin,
your comment is full of unsupported accusations and ad hominem (intellectually lazy and dishonest) attacks. I could go into why your wrong, but I learned that its a waste of time to argue with brainwashed manginas. Dont worry, there are plenty of masculine women out there to dominate you. And they will, trust me on that. If you say that there is such a thing as an “equal” relationship in terms of power, than you haven’t been in a relationship. Or you were the dominant one and just dont realize it. That happens a lot too. But I doubt it, in your case.
First off, props to Mark for bringing this topic out in the open and providing a space for discussion.
Seems to me that there are simply two different viewpoints being argued here: the first is that men and women are both having dating issues (100% true, why are we on this website otherwise); and the second that by prescribing gender roles or polarities or opposites we are limiting the roles of women (probably of both parties, since were prescribing roles to them, but we’ll say women because historically they have gotten the short end of the stick).
The missing link here is that these two arguments have the same goal, but different timeframes. It is well established that gender roles/sexual polarities/complementary opposites attract (evidenced by past thousands of years), and so if your goal is to help men and women solve their dating issues today, then that seems to be the natural and established solution to recommend. It’s important to note here that recommending some gender role to establish an attraction dynamic does not mean recommending a return to feudal or historical dynamics – just A dynamic, preferably one ascribed to by the majority of the current population so you have a reasonably sized pool of mates to attract and choose from.
Now on the other side, if your goal is to further the freedom of men and women to choose their role and for society to become more open to “blurred” or open gender roles, then any gender role assignment or ascription that is not fluid may seem oppressive. It is important to note here that such a change requires an intricate dance between men and women, an ebb and flow of dominance and submission that can be stopped at will and in which both parties have equal say. I think this can happen, but the crucial thing is that this requires a very high level of communication and self-awareness that most men AND women today lack. To be able to take and cede control in such a way that both parties do not feel oppressed or kept down – feel in control of the flow – requires a degree people-reading and emotional awareness that many people today do not have. So I think of that is your goal, the path to it involves cultivating that awareness and encouraging others to do the same.
This leaves me with two thoughts: 1) it makes me wonder if the “traditional” gender roles were as oppressive as we make them out to be – we’ve all heard the old saying that the man controls the money and the house, but the woman controls the man. Reminds me of the scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding (I’m Greek, great movie) where the mother reminds the daughter that “the man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck – and she can turn the head any way she wants.” Kind of a funny metaphor, but true. Not of course to say that this is the ideal relation between men and women, but an example of a traditional one that can work.
2) I forget now, but I’ll leave it saying that any “equal” relation between women and men based on this taking and ceding of dominance and control is highly advanced. Definitely something to aspire to (and I think as one becomes more and more experienced in the dating world and becomes more in touch emotionally, this naturally happens. I imagine Mark aspires to this sort of relationship), but advanced. And to look at it from a different level, the sort of power balance that develops between a couple has to do with both their levels of communication and emotional self-awareness. Lots of relationships may end up looking like traditional gender roles because of this development of what each person can give. In the same way, one may end up looking like our “ideal” relationship of taking and ceding power according to the needs and emotional expression abilities of both parties because of this same balance between the two’s levels of communication and openness.
So if my book here has any conclusion, it’s that awareness of your own emotions and the ability to communicate and assert them to others is decisive in how a relationship shapes up. Surely there are many men and women who are not up to the challenge. But there are a growing number who are. Which means that how much emotional openness you demand in your relationship, at this point, is going to limit the number of people you will want to date.
This is a great comment and seems to sum up the issue well. Thanks.
I’d like to add something. I see Warren Farrel recommended in the article. In his book “The Myth of Male Power” (excellent 3 hour interview on youtube) he makes the point that women’s liberation was not a liberation from men, but a liberation from the old gender roles. This is the primary point of the whole debate and the point that has been forgotten. What is creating the problems between men and women in todays cultural climate is that there has not yet been a men’s liberation. The primary oppressive gender quality that is still being forced on men is the desensitization and being cut off from their emotions.
Men needed to be emotionally crippled to go to war, to compete, and to work in horrible jobs for 10 hours a day. Any open display of emotions around men will get you put-downs, you’re gay for being so sensitive – you are punished for having emotions. This is an oppressive group function to cripple you emotionally and to help drive old society forward, it’s not masculinity.
Conversely, because men are emotionally crippled they have traditionally fallen in love with women because women were allowed to keep their innocence and their purity. Women who were promiscuous were frozen out and and labelled whore and slut. As a group society could not afford the men to lose the illusion of female purity, their one chance of being loved. Gays used to be hated and hissed at by women because they didn’t support the old gender roles. Today as we all know gays and women are best friends.
If a guy doesn’t have success with women today, it’s not because he’s weak and un-masculine, it’s because he believes in female purity. I’m a skinny guy and I’m more than average effeminate. I get a lot of crap from other guys all the time because of this, yet I have no problem with getting the hottest girls of all interested in me. How? 1. I have an exeptionally well developed contact with my feelings. 2. I don’t believe in female purity (trust me guys, she WILL fuck your best friend given the chance) and so don’t expect any woman to make me happy. I make myself happy.
Any guy who thinks that he has to be alpha is subscribing to an old gender role and is oppressing himself. Look around you, the hot girls go with the nerds, the fatties go with the machos.
I agree, men and women should be treated equally and have equal rights. I happen to enjoy Californication, so it is a dichotomy for me to like it.