Well... tough! If you want to be leaders, you have to take responsibility. It's hard to take initiative, it's scary to risk rejection, but someone has to. And if you want equality, that means you gotta step up and do your share of "approaching".
In online dating, where I put in some effort (sending a serious, thought-out message and not just boilerplate) I get a reply to about one out of every five messages I send. The total track record after about a year of effort is one date per 20 women messaged, or something like that. The picture is better when you're meeting people at parties where you already have something in common (one in ten, maybe?) but I'm assuming the bar scene would be somewhere around 1/20 or worse. I'm in my mid twenties.
b) Are you more nervous when you take the initiative yourself?
I don't know how to answer that second question. I initiated with my ex husband. We were married more than two decades. But he very likely qualifies for a diagnosis of Asperger's and was often clueless when women flirted with him. More "normal" men seem to be shocked and appalled that I would take an interest in them and express it. As best I can tell, it has nothing to do with me being nervous. As best I can tell, it has to do with being perceived as a dragon lady.
But have an upvote, because you are essentially correct.
1. seen as unmanly to not have a women want to sleep with you again
2. seen as manly to not want to sleep with her again anyway
for the two somewhat paradoxical reasons above, men just don't talk about it in open conversation very much.
either way though, outside of serious relationships i'd say that 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. the rest are either pretending or just don't participate in dating/hooking up. this is the cruel reality of modern dating. nobody feels sorry for guys, either, especially not women.
Both men and women get rejected in polite, and awful ways. It's just life.
The good news: that approach filters out the men with gender-relations issues sooner rather than later, leaving more time for those few that make it through.
We've worked in the same building for a few years (different employers) but only small-talked on rare occasions until lately.
If I recall correctly, she mentioned taking in a kitten that had wandered into the lobby of our tiny building. I explained that I had let him in, and out of the cold, before that. She suggested drink and we eventually hit the bar and it escalated from there.
Moral of the story: help save every lost kitten that you find.
As far as I know, women seem to simply give up at the first obstacle. However, the numbers game is on women's favor, so it still works very well for them.
I am not convinced it does work well for women, but I imagine this is not the place for a meaningful discussion about that given the amount of dismissal and negativity I am being met with for commenting on my firsthand experiences. (Edit: I don't think it works well for either gender and I don't like the implied framing that this is a men against women thing. It is a situation where "winning" requires cooperation and doesn't really occur unless both a man and a woman "win.")
If men simply stopped approaching women, then eventually women would be forced to start taking the initiative (or all die single). At that point roles would be reversed and the expectation would become the other way around.
True. I feel like this is gradually happening, I know in the US and Japan but probably other developed countries as well. Women predictably are irritated by this trend and you often hear them complaining nastily that men need to do things like "get off the computer", "put down the video games", and "step up their games" (dating wise).
So... my take on this:
How about a group dating website? When you and friends get a date, there's a notification prompting you to set a group date.
I think women would be far more likely to meet strangers if they can bring friends along. As a bonus, you'd see what he's like around his friends. And if it turns out he's not exactly your type, maybe one of his friends seems a better fit.
Because she can bring her friends along, she'd be much less hesitant to initiate contact with a stranger and much more likely to meet in person.
And because she won't go alone, she doesn't have to worry that others will think of her as a slut when they see her meeting a lot of men. It will look to others as just a bunch of friends hanging out.
She'll probably still get a ton of messages in her mailbox, but this wouldn't be much of an issue anymore since she's more likely to initiate contact with who she wants.
Would be lots more fun than a plain old date too :)
What do you think? Seems like a win-win to both men and women, regardless of sexual orientation!
Honestly, I can see this making women initiate contact even more than I initially thought when you consider that if a friend got a date, WHOA!, now she wants to find a date too so she can go with her friend!
And I can definitely see girlfriends bugging each other to find a date so they don't have to go alone.
Start-up idea, anyone? Do I get a free membership?
About equality: equalty doesn't mean "all things being the same for both genders". Equality needs be based on each gender's needs. Just like you wouldn't require the same from as a child as you do from an adult (because they are different and have other needs and abilities), there are some things that differ between men and women. Equality should respect that. Equality means being respected by who you are, not by being "the same as a man". Equality doesn't mean "being the same as a man", it means being respected for being a woman.
Take this example: breasts are for feeding children; men don't have breasts; so having "equal rights" in that case doesn't make sense. Rights must be based on each gender's needs, just like disability rights must be based on their needs and abilities, not on "being the same as a able person".
Hope this makes sense, having a difficult time explaining it properly.
I wouldn't say such a conception is inherently problematic, but it certainly raises difficult questions. How can we frame an equality that is based on each gender's needs without importing all the old baggage of gender stereotyping? Who defines each gender's needs -- do we care only about those that are purely biologically, or also those that are deeply embedded in the culture? How do we account for those who don't fit -- either physically or culturally -- into the dominant gender categories? And so on.
But not having parental leave at all would be harmful mostly to the female gender. So because people (excuse me, men) don't need it, a country might not see the need for this law at all, making the situation difficult (primarily) for women.
Frankly, a lot of people see laws as "I don't need it", or "my group doesn't need it", so "I don't want this law to pass". They don't think past that so they don't realize other people might have certain needs.
Which is it?
The issue primarily affects a certain group: women. It became a major issue because women joined the workforce without having their different needs met. Having daddy go to work and having both mommy and daddy go to work are two completely different things.
If women were solely homemakers like the old days, I doubt the issue would ever come up at all. Perhaps if women were still homemakers, but single dads and gay couples became a huge chunk of the workforce.
It doesn't mean that particular law can't benefit other groups too, but it's practically only a issue because women stopped being "just homemakers" (or if you're from my country, "domestic women").
So the group we are talking about here doesn't necessarily have to be women, but historically, that's who it was.
I wasn't speaking from a feminist prespective at all, just like advocating for disability laws wouldn't make you a "disabitaist". It would just make you a person who realizes people have different needs.
I can't really think of an example of where it might be oppressive to give both genders the same rights under law.
For example it would not be seen as reasonable for me to use a brick in self defense against a small unarmed child but it might be if I was attacked by a heavyweight boxer.
It's not something that is limited to gender either, as you could in theory have a weaker man fighting a stronger woman.
As a flipside example everyone has an obligation to pay whatever taxes they owe, that obligation is the same for everyone, in other words it is a criminal offence to avoid paying taxes regardless of whether you are poor or rich. However the amount of tax you have to pay will depend on your income level, as you would not expect a millionaire to pay the same amount of tax as somebody on minimum wage.
The fact is, women like to be approached, much more than they like approaching. It's not even very much a cultural thing as far as I can tell, since it's like that in pretty much every country (there are plenty of exceptions, of course, but I'm talking about in general, overall). It's just how people are.
On the other hand, it can be unfortunate. Take OkCupid -- guys will generally message lots of girls. They have to, because the girls aren't sending many messages. There's no kind of inherent problem there, most girls just want to browse their inbox and occasionally write back to a guy that seems all right.
But when girls complain about how OkCupid "doesn't work", I tell them that's also because they're not being proactive. A guy might browse through 200 profiles in an hour; a girl might get messages from 200 guys over the course of a couple of months (it varies a lot). It's going to take her a lot longer to find the "right" guy. So while there's nothing inherently wrong with women wanting to be approached, at the same time they have to realize that if they want to find the right guy, they're going to have a lot more success if they learn to approach, too. But it's their choice. And it's never something for guys to judge.
The entire article is about women getting more control over the dating process. Valerie Brennan was the one who made the link to leadership in the workplace, not me.
I wasn't really making a moral point. Just practically speaking, if women want to expand their pool of potential dates, they have to proactively take control of the process of meeting guys.
No online service or the algorithms behind it is going to be sufficiently advanced and AI-ified enough to be able to determine whether or not person A and person B would be a good match.
There are too many variables. What even is a good match? Hell, MOST of the time humans get it wrong. How many times have you met someone who fits about 80% of the bill... but you don't find each other funny enough, or attractive enough, or the sex isn't so good. You can't determine ANY of that via an online service.
The real magic is going to happen in the real world. You put people together and see what happens, plain and simple. Dating sites need to stop focusing on match percentages, political affiliation, BMI, hair color, how many keywords match in your bio, etc...
I am an economically conservative person. I did not vote for Obama and do not want him to be our president. On the other hand, I could easily date and get along with a woman who disagrees with me. (most do actually) I tend to prefer brunettes, but I don't really care what color your hair is. If I was locked into some kind of algorithm or search query in a dating app, I might never meet a blonde girl who shared a lot of my common interests. Maybe you're great at writing a witty/funny bio but you're incredibly shy / dry in person. Maybe you look like you're killer in bed, but in actuality you don't even enjoy sex. None of this will come from a dating service. It all comes from meeting people and getting to know them through real life events.
I'd continue and explain what I think is a good solution to this problem but it will be easier for me to just link to the app when it hits the app store in the next week or two :)
That second sentence is very false, even if you replace "everyone" with "almost everyone". Just 52% of people surveyed by a Durham University study had had a one-night stand (1,743/3300). Furthermore, this sort of behavior is often regretted; of the women who had reported a one-night stand, only 54% said they had positive feeling about the experience.
> Women predominantly reported "regret at being used," with additional comments including: "I felt cheap," "horrified afterward," and "I felt degraded. Made myself look cheap and easy. Total regret."
Popular summary: http://www.livescience.com/2678-realities-night-stands-revea...
Paywalled academic article: http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-008-9036-2?L...
(I predict the results will only change moderately if you restrict the sample pool to whatever particular age range you're interested in.)
I think you're incorrectly generalizing from a very non-representative social circle. I know you're just writing off the cuff, but you don't do anyone any favors when you downplay the very real emotional risks people (especially women) take when behaving promiscuously.
In relationships such as these, one person will be coming from a place of higher value and another will be coming from a place of lower value. That isn't to say the woman is always the one coming from a place of lower value.
Thanks for linking to the articles, adding them to my reading list.
IMHO, the whole point of online dating is to be able to avoid having to be put together with someone you know you won't like. We all know what our deal breakers are and all those matchmaking algo's are great at letting us filter out people we aren't going to get along with.
You say you don't care about their politics, so don't filter on that or rate it as important to you; for those who do, they do filter on that and rate it important to them. It's not the algo that determines your match, it's you setting up your preferences and saying what you like and don't like that determine what the aglo says matches.
It honestly sounds to me like you've not actually sufficiently used a dating site well enough to have such a strong opinion given that your complaints seem rather made up. I could be wrong, but that's my impression. I met my current girlfriend on a dating site and all those things are exactly what made it work so well and contributed to finding what is IMHO my perfect match.
No long-winded profiles,
No browsing through countless fake photos
and no computer "matchin algorithms".
Just fun and chance to be creative :-) If you are interested, take a look and sign up here for beta: http://www.ElimiDateapp.com
You can see it at http://www.ladieschoicevictoria.com/
It's been very interesting so far. We've had a strong positive response from two groups of women: young women who have had bad experiences with more open dating sites, and older women who, speaking generally, aren't totally comfortable with online dating and prefer the privacy of having a profile only visible to people you select. We've got a similar ratio to "Check Him Out", about 60% women, and about 1600 users overall.
We haven't made any effort to monetize yet, but it seems clear that the relative success we have had (including being covered in a local paper) is thanks to both the privacy features and the local aspects.
I don't think we've solved the problem, but I do say that the experiment suggests to me that some combination of safe and local is the essential ingredient that the author is looking for.
Obviously locality makes it a lot easier but even then, there had to be a point where you had 5 users and nobody else. How do you get past that?
First, I posted the site on a local subreddit, which got us up to about 20 users. We started telling friends and friends-of-friends, and my partner ponied up about $800 to run some radio ads. Fun fact: radio stations will whip up an ad for you as part of their fee. It was pretty fun hearing that on the radio.
After that first hundred users or so, we started sending press releases out to anyone we thought might care. This was much easier being local, and easier still because my wife is a writer with some experience being on the receiving end of PR press releases, and she wrote it up for us.
We were lucky enough to be featured in the local paper of note, got an interview on local radio, and a week later we were up to about 1000 users. The rest we've picked up more or less organically through word-of-mouth and/or google.
Edit: This was back in October. I wrote this mostly about the technical details, but it has some experiential stuff too: http://adambard.com/blog/my-experiences-deploying-a-small-cl...
Pre-registrations for online dating are different than with other kind of consumer apps. Daters eventually stop being single. So pre-registrations are most useful if they are for a short period of time - no more than, say, eight weeks. This ensures that your profiles are accurate (single people are actually single and will become active users once you launch.)
Girls who are promiscuous often seem to have an attitude of "If I fuck enough guys, eventually one will marry me".
the price of admission to be 'considered' by an attractive man is to grab drinks and sleep with him.
the price of admission to be 'considered' by a slightly less attractive but still-qualified man is to go out with him and let him buy you dinner.
women won't even talk to men they don't find attractive, either physically or mentally. it would be like talking to a beggar, or a person who doesn't speak the same language.
very simple really.
Because at the end of the day only UGLY people say
"Beauty is on the Inside."
In such a case there are obvious risks that one takes when meeting someone who is a) a stranger b) very likely significantly physically stronger c) already expressed some level of sexual interest.
Creepy is about the danger of a hit in social status from being associated with someone with low status, whether that low status be because of poor social sklills, being ugly or anything else. It's about the possibility of contamination.
For men, yes. Dr. NerdLove offers more information on the female experience (http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/05/labeling-men-creepy/). To summarize: "78% of the victims of sexual assault or sexual violence are women", so it comes down to perception validated by the statistics.
Even with the above, "creepy" remains a gender-neutral label
Why are these girls using it? Because other attractive girls are using it. IMO, they used the growth model for social networks (the same that Facebook used:
Get sorority girls as users. In the case of Tinder, some top-tier sororities had rushees use the app and the number & quality of guys who 'liked' you influenced if you got in. Once sorority girls use it, then other high-status girls will use it. Then the guys start using it because the girls are there. Then it's a chain reaction until it circles back to the tech crowd who aren't a part of that culture, at which point tech journalists try and pinpoint why the app was successful and get it wrong because the original users are bored & gone by then.
Rather interesting to me that IAC acquired Tinder.
The CEOs of every major online dating site are men, with the exclusion of newcomer Coffee Meets Bagel. OkCupid, for example, has about 30 people, and fewer than five team members are women. These women have relatively minor roles in product development.
Women don't like using online dating sites. Female users are harder to sign up, much less engaged than men, quit sites faster, and are less likely to convert to paid memberships. It's worth considering whether this has anything to do with online dating sites being designed primarily by men. Online dating sites monetize via their male users, which perpetuates designing for the male experience.
People input basic information. Age, sex, location. How far you're willing to travel for a date, how many dates a month you want to go on. That's it. You pay $20 a month for the service and the software pairs you with someone else for a date randomly. No suffering through poorly-written and dishonest profiles and pics. If you don't like the person you're paired with, oh well, you'll have another date next week.
The idea is we are our own worst enemy when it comes to finding mates and to let nature take its course as much as possible.
Ask 50 women before you launch. :)