What do these women want anyway? That was the question men frequently asked when the Women's Movement began decades ago. I was a 20-something guy and, like nearly every man I knew, acknowledged that equal pay and career opportunities for women were long overdue. We fully supported women in their pursuit of equality in the workplace. In truth, that was the easy part for men.
The difficulty for men was that there were no guidelines on how they should behave with "liberated" women in relationships, and men came under a lot of fire. With nothing taken for granted and nothing off the table, men suffered from considerable confusion and anxiety about relationships. The lack of a clear message about what women really want from men appears to still be problematic today.
As women coalesced to support each other's reproductive rights in the 70's, many began barreling through the barricades that had defined sexual behavior for centuries. Inspired by the possibility of the uninhibited, commitment-free "zipless f*ck," as described in Erica Jong's 1973 bestseller, "Fear of Flying," they stepped boldly into the formerly all-male arena of sport sex.
And lots of guys weren't very happy about women enjoying gratuitous sex. Sport sex was a men's domain, wasn't it? While it was cool -- or at least perfectly acceptable -- for guys to have as much casual sex as they wanted, women who behaved similarly were labeled sluts and whores. And it appears that times haven't changed much, because recently, a radio shock-jock called a young woman law student who spoke up about health insurance and reproductive rights not only a slut and a whore, but also a "feminazi." His credibility is questionable, however, because this guy is a confessed drug addict on his fourth marriage. His popularity is limited to all but his mostly disenfranchised male listeners -- and his misogynistic outburst caused more problems for him than it did for women.
Despite the misogynistic views of this prehistoric throwback and his frustrated male supporters, the balance has already tipped in favor of women's equality, and women are competing on an equal basis with men -- and succeeding -- in politics, education, the professions, and business. And the scale isn't tipping back. But that still leaves relationship issues between men and women unresolved. How does the success of women translate into relationships?
Relations between the sexes are changing, and it still isn't clear to many guys what women really want or expect from them. Some embittered men's comments reflect their confusion and frustration. They express their outrage that women won't commit to them, or that women dump them for guys who are better-looking or wealthier -- in short, that women are treating men the same way men treated women for as long as I can remember. Some guys feel that the empowerment of women must mean their demise -- strong women equal weak men, right? Wrong.
My sense is that what women want most from men in relationships today is emotional honesty -- to know where they stand with their partners on a feeling level. In more than 20 years of working with men, I've learned that men absolutely are capable of being emotionally open and honest, but that getting there requires focus. "I like you. I'll call you soon," after a first date, when that isn't really a guy's intention, is an example of emotional dishonesty.
Too many guys are still uncomfortable venturing into the emotional arena. They needn't be. Emotional honesty is actually a very manly characteristic, and one sure to open doors with women. It's quickly developed, particularly with help from other men. Relating to other men on a feeling level also deepens the bond of friendship. This is a win/win in every arena.
If you don't feel comfortable opening up and sharing your emotions with the woman in your life, consider starting out by getting together with other guys who're in the same boat. Create a safe, trusting atmosphere where you can explore a better way of being a man and a partner to an empowered woman. Acting like a man includes being emotionally open and honest. There's great personal strength in that.
Men who insist that women's rights have hurt them in relationships reflect their unwillingness to look deeper into their own behavior. There's a strong and inexplicable desire to maintain the status quo, even though it's a losing position. Warring with women is foolish. Remaining stuck in an anachronistic relationship paradigm, isolates men. Some join men's rights groups to counter women's rights, an ineffective reaction to empowered women. They might consider what kind of woman wants to be in a relationship with an angry, frustrated man who's stuck in the 20th century.
Are they jealous because they don't get the same attention that they give women?
Are they po'd because that is just the truth?
We embrace them, we love them and we lust after them.
Why put yourself in a conversation that has no bearing on your life?
What is it, you want others to know?
That is your attitude?
As I learned at my most recent Iron John Hairy Man Drum Circle Retreat, the New Woman is a mysterious, elusive creature.
Dr. Solin's analysis can be summed up as follows: Empowering, Inspiring, Raw.
Bravo, or should I say "brava" Dr. Solin, as the gender-bound English language needs to change to adapt to a new era of Women's Emancipation!
Please be specific.
What are you afraid of?
No answer. If you HATE something, then be man enough to state what you would LOVE and desire in a woman.
Just saying.
Straw man. You've made the assumption that he is fearful of women's emancipation, and then question his motives in being this way.
Which is why I think women are not well suited for long term relationships and/or marriages. As far as marriage goes, this is why, in my judgement, women are now filing 70% of all divorces.
As Margaret Mead, the cultural anthropologist said, to paraphrase "A women needs three husbands in her life. One for sex, one for having kids with, and one for growing old with.."
That's a pretty gross generalization, Terence. And Margaret Mead may have been a pioneer in her field, but it hardly grants the right to be resurrected in these discussions. The fact that she could not hold a marriage for very long reflects more on her inability to plumb the depths of love than it does on her sparkling insight into relationships. Her ideas about women and sex found a welcome foothold in the cultural zeitgeist some 40-50 years ago, but that doesn't mean we should now accept them without critical thought.
There are other explanations for women filing for divorce far more often than men. If you are as much an intellectual as your quoting of Mead would suggest, I'm sure you can dig up far more interesting analyses than what boils down to "that's just the way women are."
- Margaret Mead
"Emotional honesty is actually a very manly characteristic, and one sure to open doors with women."
If you are emotionally open and honest with a woman and don't land in the friend zone within two minutes, call the Guiness Book of World Records. I'd like to know the basis for the premise that such openness is considered manly by women. Ask a hundred men if they have been called "nice" by a woman, then ask how many of those women ever went on a date with them. The words "kind" and "sensitive" also spell romantic doom. I can only guess the author has never faced the frustration of courting a woman born after 1960.
Maybe in your circles. But I haven't found too many guys that are upset in the least bit, nor too many women upset that are enjoying the freedom as well. Those upset would only be the guys who got turned down, or women who hold the litmus test to other women.
Just think about it for a moment. A table of guys in a bar, a table of women in a bar. A hot stud walks in and orders a drink. Both tables notice him. The women may nod in his direction with a little (or a lot) of discussion about about him. The guys turn back to their own conversation. Ten minutes later, a gorgeous woman walks in. Both tables notice her. The guys may nod in her direction with a little (or a lot) of discussion about her. The women most likely will find all the things wrong about her...shoes not matching the dress, hair not done right, too much make-up, etc.
So which group would be upset with this woman having gratuitous sex? It's not so much about being equal as it is to sit on a phone book and make yourself look taller, or dig hole for someone else to make them appear shorter. You seem to be providing a lot of phone books and shovels, claiming it is level ground.
According to scholars, English has over 220 negative and derogatory words for women which attack females and their sexuality generally. English has only 20 such words for men. Why? In patriarchy, women are hated more and they are hated for their sexuality and existence.
Probably because women use more words than men on average. /sarc
Come on now. Who do you think is more negatively judgmental? It's rhetorical, but if you choose to respond, PLEASE think about it and answer honestly. WHO is going to talk negatively about a gorgeous woman who walks by? A group of men, or a group of women? And if a hot guy walks buy, who is going to call him nasty names? I've been around them all my life and you just don't find guys gossiping about other guys or women.
So Pilgrims would put titles on women, and as a society, both the men AND women held women to a "pure" standard. In the 50s not as much as in the 20s. In the 90s, probably only old right-wing conservatives, both male and female. In the year 2012? It is being desperately hung onto by two types of people, both born before 1960...the one that still believes women shouldn't be sleeping around, and the other that likes to point to it and scream "patriarchy!" . Give it 30 years max. When both these elderly types are either too old to hold onto it anymore, or have become history, everyone will finally be able to enjoy the freedom that is here without all the hoopla from the past.
I would and will stand by the statement that women use these words about other women MUCH more than men do. So if your comment about quantity is indeed correct and not propaganda you picked up from somewhere, then I can assure you that men would never use close to 220 negative words. They'd stick to a couple of them. The other 200+, who do you think is using them?
You seem to pretend that if a woman is called a name it HAS to be by a man. But even in your mind, that can't make sense, can it?
Yes, every HUMAN should contemplate that concept, men included. But I mean seriously, what kind of guy wants to be in a relationship with an angry, frustrated woman stuck in any century?
What is wrong with women and men being equal? What is the issue with EXPECTING every person in our current society to be respectful and honest in a relationship, and holding everyone accountable and responsible for their OWN actions? What is the problem with acknowledging that gender does not make one automatically suited for a long-term relationship and another one not? When we stereotype people, we hurt them, we don't help them.
Maybe you just don't see what you're doing. Maybe if one wrote a book on how African American Men could stay out of jail, and did so by telling them to look at the Caucasian men and how good they are already. It is dishonest, hurtful, racist, and just plain wrong! But the author could easily hide behind wanting to "help" solve this huge issue that is perpetuated. But if the market is racists, you may sell it like wildfire in that demographic.
As they should be if you believe women and men have aptitude for things. Why would you need to state it, unless you are inferring "men" don't believe it. This is a main issue I have with your delivery. You take a small group of men you define and apply it to the population. You shouldn't do that.
"And the scale isn't tipping back."
Again, inferring that "men" believe it will be. You create your own paradigm of deceit and then rebuke it as if you didn't manufacture it. That's an easy one to accomplish for your target market, isn't it? Yeah Ken, rah, rah, rah!
"But that still leaves relationship issues between men and women unresolved."
So wait...now that your late-night marketing campaign has created your perceptual paradigm exposing my desperate need, how can your product help me overcome your perception? Does it come with a free set of knives if we order within the next 15 minutes? Come on, you don't give men in general much credit to begin with, do you? You cannot help people by stereotyping them.
NICE!
And down goes Frazier!!!
Someone get Ken a pillow....and maybe a blanket!
Human nature changes very very slowly over time. Our actual behavior changes far faster than our beliefs. Often the result of external forces.
In general people dislike others whom they perceive as being dishonesty. If I tell you I love "X" when in fact my actions say I really love "Y", then it leads to major credibility issues. If this behavior is consistent and intentional is nothing short of moral fraud.
While I cannot speak for most men, my fundamental beef with women is this habitual and incessant tendency by many to say "X' and do "Y." Simply a non starter with me.
Solution: change the way you engage women. You do not have to hate or disrespect them. Katherine Hepburn once remarked, "Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other. Perhaps they should live next door and just visit now and then." So, there you have it.
Cheers!
The women already have their OWN pads. You don't have to invest one penny. Just visit them from time to time with your "A" game.
Isn't life great!!!!!
Why is it that the second men are criticized, there are men that jump on the article and attempt to deflect attention by asking why women haven't been mentioned? That's like reading a recipe for chicken and asking why it doesn't explain how to cook grits.
Is it that the men that comment aren't capable of accepting criticism?
It's the same posters, time after time, that immediately jump on the defensive the second anything non-complimentary is said about men...why is it that these men expect every article to address both men and women? I've yet to see any of these posters comment on articles that criticize women, asking why men aren't also being discussed...
Is it really that hard to take criticism?
LMAO. Take a look in the mirror. You're an expert at this.
I will try to answer this question for you, but you have to be "emotionally honest" with yourself to accept the answer. If you have been around HP or many other sites for that matter and have engaged in a discussion about relationships, or life in general the focus is never and I mean never about Personal Accountability For All Parties Involved. From what I've seen on HP it is mostly about what "he needs to do" while simultaneously disregarding the other half of the equation. No conversation will ever be fruitful if only one person does all the talking and only one side is critiqued?
It's like pleading for a person to to hear you out. They hear you out without interrupting you no matter how painful. You stop talking. They proceed to tell you how they feel. Then you walk away mid sentence without ever hearing how they feel. If more people were "emotionally honest" they would easily be able to admit that HP has a lopsided perspective as to what men and women need to do.
You speak of an article/comment majority that blames men; I expected that response. It's the only response I ever get. You speak of personal accountability, but there is no accountability in your response. Just an excuse which mirrors the same excuses that men give to deflect attention away from themselves. And the funny thing is that, by their responses, you can tell which men belong in the group targeted by the author and which do not. It's beyond obvious. As I've learned time and time again, it's usually the guilty that speak first and loudest.
So, as I asked before, why is it so hard for some men to accept criticism? Why do they immediately shut down or deflect when they hear something they don't like?