Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
If a guy is always asking a girl, what she would like, he is lost. Yep, women like to take a back seat in a relationship

Really? {raised eyebrows}

An awful lot of modern feminist commentary is about women becoming active in their own lives and within the mythos of society. Women realise that they are cast as audience for male behaviour and are now openly questioning the centrality of the male view as the essential dominant ideology. It may not impact your generation, but the next couple of generations of women ain't gonna take that shit no more

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 12:38:18 PM EST
The emphasis is on always.

There is a difference between what is registered by the feminist ideology (with best intentions) and how the attraction chemistry actually goes. The latter does not change in a couple of generations. Would you really get excited with a guy with no dominance trait?

by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 01:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about what excites other women, so my opinion on the matter isn't relevant. But I doubt that a man whose self-esteem is dependent upon the subservience of their "partner"  is likely to be the sort of rounded human being many women would prefer

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If guy's self-esteem is dependent on anything, women will notice that.

As for the behavior of the other side - I really notice that I know more than before.

by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The other side?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's no way I could put up with some guy trying to tell me what to do. My husband would be considered meek by some people, but he's actually just smart. I fell in love with his kindness. He's NOT a fighter, so that role falls to me (for example, in dealings with any employers who try to get away with being unfair to him.)

Can't say I didn't look for alpha males when I was a lot younger, but didn't find any I could live with, and I didn't know myself and my needs back then, either. Once I wised up, I looked for kindness.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher

by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 05:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are reasons for long-term and situational attraction factors to differ. And interpretation of the 'essential' alpha qualities can be wide. Trying to tell what to do might signal needy weakness to you, while kindness - a royal strength.

The last decades show increasingly one-sided social media influences on young women, narrowing their emotional (or economic) focus, making them reluctant to wise up, compromise. Especially pop music videos, the clubbing atmosphere 'subtly' scream "Attract alpha" to them. The internet, smartphones give women more power and potentially a global scope of options - with the default behavior influence pretty narcissistic. And then we have fashion, cosmetics industries, women magazines, with apparently similar effect of their agenda. No wonder if the primal triggers are more involved then before, especially when most guys cannot keep accessing them.

by das monde on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 04:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Social media influences on young women, IMO, have not become any stronger today than they were in the early twentieth century. They may be more easily accessed, but the newspapers and magazines and, more to the point, the societally-enforced rules (in schools, churches, workplaces, homes) were very influential, compelling even, a century ago.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher
by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 04:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're very likely mostly talking about culture there, but it's impossible to disentangle.

If you want to say that in the culture you operate in that certain traits generally denote a high value mate, then fine. Don't go ascribing them to nature, and don't overgeneralise: you can't tell the difference. It's just-so stories.

Would you really get excited with a guy with no dominance trait?

I might, in theory: would depend on the guy wouldn't it?

Humans are complicated little apes with a whole pile of social and sexual strategies available to them, and the choice of which ones are used depend both on nature and nurture. We tend to think that the ones that we're used to are the natural, proper ones.

Frankly, I think the culture we operate in is so utterly fucked up about sexuality that there's very little sense of it to be made: did you know that there exist quite a lot of people who define themselves by which bits they (would) like to rub on which other bits? It's a very strange basis for self-identification.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having some basis of comparison, I have to say that Western feminism adds to fuck up of sexual strategies massively.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is yet another layer of "so-so" story, adding to confusion and statistics to failed delusions. Would be pretty good for population control, I might guess.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's not an answer. In what way is it a just-so story?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rather unkindly, feminism offer suggestions (for both sexes) in unhelpful directions, without empirical or real psychological basis. So nice guys do not know what women actually want - nor women themselves (in a predictive sense). That's a social game we play - not everyone has to grasp everything.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hhahahahahahaha,

Sorry, that's funny

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet having been married to a prominent feminist and having bought into all of that even before I had met her, nothing surprises me more nowadays than the degree to which younger women seem to be reverting to social stereotypes - within the dominant patriarchal paradigm...

Perhaps it is coming from a base of increased self confidence and educational and career success but the sense of a war between the sexes for dominance or even equality just doesn't seem to be there. Some things are just taken for granted, and many others are not deemed worthy of challenge.

Perhaps I am mixing with the wrong people and have lost touch with those living on the edge.  Maybe I need to get out more!

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 06:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reverting to stereotypes? I think it's a matter of perceptions.

Firstly, you'd have to demonstrate that the visible feminists of our youth were more than a small minority. A very influential, culture-transforming minority, but forty years ago, the great majority of women had unreconstructed subservient attitudes.

Now, it's more difficult to identify a feminist -- they look like everyone else, for one thing. I say this as the father of two young feminist women who don't hesitate to dress glamorously or flirt in stereotypical ways; a superficial analysis of their social media traffic wouldn't necessarily give many clues either -- you need to know the codes and understand the irony.

But social stratification and modern tribalism have fragmented the cultural space, and I can't speak for the worlds which are outside my social spheres.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My experience would be similar - right down to having two feminist daughters who can do glamour when they want to. I suppose the nature of feminism has changed too; it's no longer a matter of throwing away the bras and heels and quite aggressively challenging female stereotypes in relationships, sexual norms, the work place and social spaces and more a case of getting ahead on their own terms with people who don't get in their way.  The widespread adoption of more "liberal norms" has made political protest and activism (and consciousness) less necessary with conservative organisations like the Churches ignored rather than protested against and becoming much less influential in discourse more generally. I also wonder has feminism become more of a middle class professional women thing - the people who perhaps need it least, whilst leaving the lives of many working class women relatively untouched. However education has also proved a great leveler, with many women outperforming men at all levels and achieving much greater career success and social status than heretofore. There is still a long way to go, but also perhaps a confidence that things are, for now, still heading in the right direction.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...getting ahead on their own terms... outperforming... achieving... career success and social status

Sorry, did someone say patriarchy was dead?

My beef with feminism is that in Western industrial cultures it's just business-patriarchy in drag.

You get all the usual capitalist work ethic nonsense and some cash to pat you on the head for being a good little cog and - er - that's pretty much it.

Nothing actually changed politically, except that the labour pool got bigger, people of both sexes became completely oriented towards work and income, votes remained largely valueless, consumption increased, and labour became cheaper.

Now, you could say that this is an improvement on the old ways of kirche, kuche, kinder.

But there's still no real self-determination happening here. The social goals are still being defined and reinforced externally,  there's still a huge propaganda industry telling everyone how to act, think, and feel, and women are still passively accepting this, largely without questioning it. Even so-called radicals either agree that this is all entirely good, or don't think it's important enough to question.

Because - you know - what everyone does all day isn't any kind of political issue.

The biggest difference is that men are now accepting it too. Before feminism family - no matter how dysfunctional - was a political motivator for men. (I'm not suggesting this is an ideal goal, I'm just pointing out the history.)

Now that we're all rats competing with each other, the motivations for progressive politics are harder to find, and less sticky and compelling than they used to be.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 11:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, feminism bad because it didn't kill capitalism...  the poor working-class male doesn't even have his wife to look down on any more... Sad.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 11:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Asian cultures are sort of behind in feminism, right? Would you say that (particularly) East Asian women suffer from old-fashioned subservient roles more than in the West, and that is the biggest problem for most of them?
by das monde on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 06:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The study mentioned (third-hand, via the NYT) is Egalitarianism, Housework,
and Sexual Frequency in Marriage
, and it's mildly interesting. It's a meta-analysis of US household data collected in the early 1990s, from which the authors conclude that couples which stick to "traditional" gender roles (woman does the housework, man takes out the garbage) have more sex than those who have a more egalitarian distribution of work. They explain this by the notion of "sexual scripts" :

Among teens, sexual scripts are highly gendered and link sexual activity to masculinity and femininity [...] Given the general importance of gender, we suspect that scripts continue to link sexual behavior to masculinity or femininity among heterosexual married couples.

With the proviso that this is WEIRD research (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), and that the data is rather dated, I wouldn't be surprised if it were generally applicable. Perhaps Chinese men are getting more sex than us pussy-whipped westerners?

I tend to subscribe to a hypothesis mentioned in the paper (but not testable with their data set) : that sex is rationed by women (on the basis that men generally want more than women) in exchange  for whatever a woman wants. This fits well with highly gendered sexual scripting, and is observably much less frequent in egalitarian relationships.

So, in sum, if less-frequent sex is the price to pay for egalitarian relationships (which correlate strongly with mutually satisfying relationships, by the way) then that's OK with me personally.

And yes, I agree that

East Asian women suffer from old-fashioned subservient roles

But if you're asking whether having more frequent sex is a compensation for them, then I wouldn't know.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 09:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tend to subscribe to a hypothesis mentioned in the paper (but not testable with their data set) : that sex is rationed by women (on the basis that men generally want more than women) in exchange  for whatever a woman wants. This fits well with highly gendered sexual scripting, and is observably much less frequent in egalitarian relationships.
Observably less frequent in egalitarian relationships... - With what data sets?! The image over there is opposite:
In a lot of ways, sajiao is a strategy to get a man to do what his Chinese girlfriend or wife wants him to do; this is very similar to how some western women use sex to manipulate their mate.
If (say) a Japanese woman is withholding sex, it generally means that the intimate relationship is in a serious trouble, it is over basically (unless the man gets IT soon).

Also, "men generally want sex more than women..." needs qualification, such as "...until SHE wants it more". There is one book that both feminists and PUAs love.

by das monde on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Observably less frequent in egalitarian relationships... - With what data sets?!

I'm relying on anecdata, but I don't think you would disagree if you actually understood me. I don't see the contradiction here. Indeed, the concept of saijao that you introduce is an excellent example of highly gendered sexual scripting, as is the fact that "some western women use sex to manipulate their mate".

"men generally want sex more than women" was a quote from the study I linked above, and of course not a good predictor of any individual relationship.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 10:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:

Perhaps Chinese men are getting more sex than us pussy-whipped westerners?

I saw a young middle class chinese girl interviewed on Euro Tv and she was saying how sexually uptight she found europeans.

<boggles> (ht Colman)

Then there's this

All the Single Ladies - Kate Bolick - The Atlantic

In 1969, when my 25-year-old mother, a college-educated high-school teacher, married a handsome lawyer-to-be, most women her age were doing more or less the same thing. By the time she was in her mid-30s, she was raising two small children and struggling to find a satisfying career. She'd never had sex with anyone but my father. Could she have even envisioned herself on a shopping excursion with an ex-lover, never mind one who was getting married while she remained alone? And the ex-lover's fiancée being so generous and open-minded as to suggest the shopping trip to begin with?

What my mother could envision was a future in which I made my own choices. I don't think either of us could have predicted what happens when you multiply that sense of agency by an entire generation.

But what transpired next lay well beyond the powers of everybody's imagination: as women have climbed ever higher, men have been falling behind. We've arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up--and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don't want to go out with.

Oh dear...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2014 at 02:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series