Continuing from yesterday…

Kakou Korakos
I certainly agree with you that women are often societally trained to be too passive. Myself, I believe the answer is to quit training them to do that, rather than just nudging "nice guys" to be more assertive. I also agree that being the major decision-maker in a relationship is ultimately both exhausting and enervating — it's not a role I think either gender should have to consistently assume.

I'm fascinated that you initially chose the word 'passive' for women who do not pursue, but 'narcissistic' for yourself. Is this because you find the latter a more active descriptor? Hm… considering you're quite willing to "pursue," so to speak, in your work life, I would guess you're quite capable of doing so in your personal life as well — so it would appear to be your conscious choice not to. Makes sense to me; from what I've seen, we all have a myriad of different "faces" for different aspects of our lives. Also from what I've seen, that's a problem only when we allow one of our faces or masks to somehow stifle or damage us.

So do you consider yourself more… I don't know what phrase to use so I don't cause offense when I'm trying to explicate intense curiosity — um, more self-centered? More disinterested in working that hard? More desiring the ego-boo of pursuit?

Read the rest of this entry »

Continuing from yesterday…

Replies

Erin
(Brace yourself, Erin: I'm going to gush a little. *coughcough* Ahem. ;) )

Thank goodness for folks like you, who don't just think things through before acting — but try their best to pass that on to friends and children!

Heh. All gushing aside, I've really enjoyed reading your calmly practical, rational advice on how you address complex issues. It's been quite inspiring. Thank you!

John
Hm. Glancing at the amazon reviews for the book you've linked to above, I find myself wondering how this is new, regarding dating: both "Make it fun, be happy with your self and get down with your sexual self!" and "Avoid the crazy!" seem pretty basic rules for life, let alone dating. I admit I was not conventionally raised, but am I missing something obvious here? Serious question, please.

Regarding women bonding quickly after sex, I'm not sure I'd agree. I can offhand think of two or three former lovers where I woke up the next morning, thought, "This was a mistake," and got out as quickly and smoothly as I could — and I know I'm not unique in my absolute refusal to "bond" with "crazy." In fact, I'd have to say I've seen more men immediately bond and cling — far more quickly, and for longer — than the women I've seen do it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Continuing from yesterday…

"Whatcha gonna do / When they come for you?"

So why exactly does a bad boy seem to "get" more women? Leaving aside the repugnant assumptions inherent in that query (which would be an article in itself), the simple answer seems to be they're self-centered and arrogant enough to simply keep propositioning one woman after another until they find the ones insecure or weak enough to say yes. This is not to say these women don't know they're with a bad boy, or even that they're happy about it. Hm… thinking about it, I could also see the possibility that a strong and secure woman might say yes, simply because she's amused and would like a quick fling.

Two correspondents sent me links which I found interesting. The first one is Bad guys really do get the most girls (click here if that link is dead). I have two issues with this report — both of which might well be easily cleared up simply by reading the original studies, but unfortunately they're not actually cited. First, it is highly questionable science to examine behavior patterns now in existence — and then assert these must be based on genetic evolution. To do so implies we should be able to find those genes — and I've yet to read a report on the amazing discovery of the male's "selfish-asshole" gene. ;)

Thank goodness for that, too. Biology is not destiny, after all… and we can chose to change our behaviors — like rational and sapient adults.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was going to simply reply to the comments I received concerning the Firestarter titled Why Do We Ask Why Women Seem to Prefer Bad Boys to Nice Guys? However, I realized I had no way of notifying these kind individuals that I immensely appreciated their feedback, and had replied to them. Further, I wanted to muse a little on my writing, since it was a few years ago, and my attitudes have modified somewhat since then. So, once again: a redux. Enjoy!

My initial reaction on re-reading is amusement at myself. On a quick read of the article, it would appear I start with the premise that women do not prefer bad boys, and then I spend a great deal of writing explaining why they do. I should have better stated my conclusion, I fear, so here it is again:

    Women do not have a preference for "bad boys" — when the women are able to develop a strong, healthy sense of self-respect.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read part I and part II of this article

So no, I don't think women like assholes better. I think it's more they believe they don't deserve any better, or they're buying into societal myths about who they must be. They don't feel they can even ask the right guy without scaring him off… and due to shyness or whatever, the nice guys aren't making their interest known, and are spooked by nice girls who ask them first.

We know this on some level — we helped create the rubric. We are society. If we don't like it, it falls upon us to change it — not to just wander around plaintively bleating, "poor us, why don't any nice girls like us — instead of the mean guys who make us feel inadequate?"

Yes, that was unkind. But think about it: aren't we yet sick of asking such a stupid question? Aren't we tired yet of the peculiar and stifling gender roles it implies? Isn't it time to dump such restrictive roles for something better, healthier, and more fun for both genders?

Read the rest of this entry »

Read parts I and III of this article

Our hypothetical young female will probably deeply internalize just how much she sucks. No one could possibly ever like someone who is so worthless as she. She'll be lucky if anyone ever shows any interest in her at all. In fact, she'd probably better latch onto the first guy that comes along.

Alternatively, our hypothetical young female can internalize the media's classic good girl role instead, which is nothing more than a nurturer of others — a civilizing force, as it were. What does a properly good girl want in a guy, in the artificial realm of media?

They want someone who lets them really, completely fulfill that role — who needs their specific nurturing and civilizing. If she's the best nurturer ever, then obviously she doesn't suck. Her love will somehow save the wild boy, domesticating him into a good provider.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted November 2003

Thanks for article inspiration to Jonathan, who pointed me to an LJ which made me initially start thinking about this. Thanks for suggestions on this article go to George, Ian, and Dave, who made it a better read. You all rock! ;-)

I've heard the plaintive question 'why do women want bad boys instead of nice guys?' so many times I finally had to answer. Short answer — they don't. They're doing what they're taught to do.

I've been considering this ever since I first heard the question in college. My answer then was a startled, "But they don't!" Since then — through personal experience, observation of those around me, and watching media portrayals of relationships — I'd have to say my answer is still correct, but I understand the empirical evidence behind it better now.

Let's look at this analytically, assuming a hypothetical young female who is interested in guys. What are her peers, society, and the media teaching her regarding relationships?

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally written in the early 1990's for an absolutely amazing class on the bible as history and literature. My later notes, to clarify the paper, are in blockquotes.

The story of Genesis in the bible has been used throughout history as an excuse for, and explanation of, why women should be subjugated by men. This does not mean that Genesis actually says such a thing. It mostly means that men throughout the last 2000 or so years have used the story to justify their (often aberrant) behavior. Their rationale seems to run along the following lines: god created man before woman, therefore man is more important than woman. As god demands obedience, and abuses those who disobey, so man has the right to do the same to woman. After all, she is a "second thought," she is merely the "helpmate" (the usual translation of the word from the original written language) of man.

This rationale conveniently forgets everything created before man is not considered more consequential than him. If things were created in increasing order of wonderfulness (which is today generally believed), then woman (not man) is the shining pinnacle of the deity creating in Its own image.

A closer reading of Genesis will reveal that it says nothing of the kind. Indeed, there are arguments to be made which say (if anything) that woman is as important, if not more so, than man. For intellectual entertainment, I will delineate one below.

Read the rest of this entry »

I've changed somewhat in the handful of years since I wrote the Firestarter titled "What is Friendship?" I like to think my opinions have grown and matured somewhat as well. This is, therefore, a sort of musing friendship redux.

In retrospect, my writing seems a bit rough to me, and the article itself is pretty short, both in length and in actual content. I suspect I was a bit too directly addressing a particular issue in my life at that time; I find I usually learn more when I try to branch out while researching a subject. Also, the sole incident I mention in the Firestarter is so vague as to be meaningless to the reader. I may take this opportunity to clarify it further, but for now I'm simply musing on what I've concluded since then regarding friendship.

Perhaps the most important thing I've learned over the past five or so years is that friendship is not assuming control over someone, and it's not a list of demands. Expecting others to live up to your unstated expectations is a rather unfriendly act, and I know I would not appreciate someone expecting me to jump through constant and unpredictable mental hoops for them. The people you (generalized "you") call friends are emphatically not expressions of your self-worth, after all. Further, for me at least, someone worth having as a friend will not allow the discourtesy of incessantly testing them so.

What is Trust?

Read the rest of this entry »

What is friendship?

20 May 2008 In: FIRESTARTER, Ethics questions

Originally posted October 2003

I ask this question because I've always had fairly strong ideas about "real" friendship, as opposed to simple acquaintanceship. To me an acquaintance was always someone you'd be happy to smile and greet pleasantly, or chat with, or do a simple favor for, but with whom you'd not made any really strong or deep connection. I have acquaintances I've known for decades, for example.

A friend, on the other hand, was someone for whom you were willing to extend yourself, and whom you knew would do the same for you. For example, I would think a friend would have the courage and integrity to take me aside and quietly let me know if I was making a fool of myself in public, and vice versa. We'd also be happy to brag about how well the other was doing, if something wonderful happened in our lives.

A friend emphatically is not someone who backs you up without question when you're telling a lie, though. I've seen this occur in two separate instances, and both times it was rather a shock to watch people I'd formerly respected do this. A friend, to me, would quietly and privately ask if their friend was aware what they'd said was inaccurate. The two people I saw did not do this. When I asked them later, privately, about why they'd backed up statements they knew were lies, both individuals shame-facedly told me they were quite aware the people they'd supported were lying through their teeth! However, they'd known the person since high school, and were afraid to antagonize them, for fear they'd be abandoned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bestiaries depict mythical, moralizing animals, but are also potential allegorical sparks that can bloom into brilliant mental bonfires. My bestiary is this mythologizing animal's fascinated exploration of beauty & meaning in the wonder of existence -- in the hopes of inspiring yet more joyous flares of intellectual passion.

Enjoy!

Sponsors

Collie’s Bestiary

Archive

Categories