Here’s a cool trick to see if a man actually respects you: try disagreeing with him
A friend of mine did something with online dating where, before meeting a person, she’d say no to something minor without a reason for the no. For example: “No, I don’t want to meet at a coffee shop, how about X?”, or “No, not Wednesday”, or “No, I don’t want to recognize each other by both wearing green shirts”. She said how the potential dates reacted was a huge indicator of whether she actually wanted to meet them, something I readily believe.
I’ve mentioned this to a few people and sometimes I get very annoyed and incredulous responses from guys about how are they supposed to know that it’s a test if the girl is being unreasonable? How are they supposed to know that and let her have her way? I find it difficult to explain that if you find it unreasonable for someone to have a preference of no consequence which they don’t feel the need to explain, then you are the one being unreasonable. You can decide for yourself that it sounds flaky and you don’t want to date her, but you don’t have a right to know and approve all of her reasons for things in order to deign to respect that she said no about it. Especially in the case of someone you haven’t even fucking met yet.
The point isn’t to know it’s a test, the point is that if you would only say “yes” if you knew it was a test, then what if it’s not a test, but because she hates coffee shops, or because she’s attending a funeral Wednesday and doesn’t know you well enough to want to share that, or whatever else? Because if you’re making rules for when other people can have preferences and not explain why… yeah, that is a thing they can reasonably want to avoid.
@ all the angry dudes in the replies: the point is not to trick or manipulate men. The point is to see how a potential romantic partner reacts to a minor inconvenience. If they say, “oh, ok, would seven work instead?” or “well there’s this Armenian tea house I’ve been meaning to try out, want to go there?” then that’s a good sign that they’re safe to date. If they throw a fit and/or demand to know every little detail about your rationale over something as simple as rescheduling dinner plans, that’s a bad sign. A really bad sign.
It’s like this, dudes. Women in Western society are socialised to cooperate and compromise. Some men are socialised to get all their own way, all the time. These dudes are incredibly dangerous to women their partners,* and the only way to tell them apart from the OK guys is to pay close attention to how they react. If you’re one of the OK ones, this isn’t about you. Learn to take “no” for an answer, and you’ll be fine.
*Updated to reflect the fact that abusive men can target any gender, and the fact that I used this screening tactic to good effect during my Big Gay Slut phase.
Lately I’ve been doing this thing where when men give me shit at my job, I choose to instead speak to their wives/girlfriends/female counterpart. I had a dude today try to yell at me and I ignored him and instead spoke in a very level voice to his wife instead. He literally stomped his feet like a fucking toddler and said “stop ignoring me! I’m talking!” And his wife said “George, please use a quieter voice. You’re embarrassing me.”
You are a genius and I’m using this
Lol I learned it from my mom. She does this all the time and eventually the guy either sulks off somewhere or adjusts his behaviour and THEN she’ll address him. I did this with my friends puppies when I was training them and it works the same tbh
it always amazes me when a man says he doesn’t know how to iron, wash his clothes, or cook. Like, don’t you feel embarrassed saying that…smfh
All the people in the comments saying “they were never taught how” can somehow learn how to speak dorthraki and watch YouTube to learn how to make a furry suit but can’t use the internet’s infinite resources to learn to wash their underwear got me fucked up
I can stomach bro-type boys who actually are quite sweet and loveable beneath their bro exterior significantly more than like, guys who study philosophy and write “poetry” but beneath it all actually have the skewed moral compass and heedless self absorption of your common or garden bro.
I think my biggest “huh” moment with respect to gender roles is when it was pointed out to me that your typical “geek” is just as hypermasculine as your typical “jock” when you look at it from the right angle.
As male geeks, a great deal of our identity is built on the notion that male geeks are, in some sense, gender-nonconformant, insofar as we’re unwilling or unable to live up to certain physical ideals about what a man “should” be. Indeed, many of us take pride in how putatively unmanly we are.
Viewed from an historical perspective, however, the virtues of the ideal geek are essentially those of the ideal aristocrat: a cultured polymath with expertise in a vast array of subjects; rarefied or eccentric taste in food, clothing, music, etc.; identity politics that revolve around one’s hobbies or pastimes; open disdain for physical labour and those who perform it; a sense of natural entitlement to positions of authority (“you should be flipping my burgers!”); and so forth.
And the thing about that aristocratic ideal? It’s intensely masculine. It may seem more welcoming to women on the surface, but – as recent events will readily illustrate – this is a facade: we pretend to be egalitarian because it suits our refined self-image, but that affectation falls away in a heartbeat when challenged.
Basically, the whole “geeks versus jocks” thing that gets drilled into us by media and the educational system isn’t about degrees of masculinity at all. It’s just two different flavours of the same toxic bullshit: the ideal geek is the alpha-male-as-philosopher-king, as opposed to the ideal jock’s alpha-male-as-warrior-king. It’s still a big dick-measuring contest – we’re just using different rulers.
It’s just two different flavours of the same toxic bullshit: the ideal
geek is the alpha-male-as-philosopher-king, as opposed to the ideal
jock’s alpha-male-as-warrior-king.
I want to use this post to clear something up. When I talk about toxic masculinity it always causes a big backlash, and I’ve noticed it’s mainly because men don’t know what it means. When I say I hate toxic masculinity, I do not mean that I hate that you’re a man or that I hate masculinity.
Toxic masculinity is THIS. Toxic masculinity is when men reinforce the idea that men should suppress and ignore softer displays of emotions that are associated with women. Toxic masculinity is reinforcing the fear of physical affection between men because it makes them appear too feminine or even ‘homosexual’.
It has to stop. Let men cry. Let men hold each other. Stop perceiving things that are ‘feminine’ as weak because outing your emotions is not weakness, it’s strength.
Pretty sure if my dad spent time like this with my brother he’d be 100 percent better over all.
There’s mad pics of my dad lounging like this with me and my siblings.
Children need physical affection like this. And in a society that raises boys to be standoffish about *any* non sexual contact, much less homosocial contact (case and point: my autocorrect switches homosocial into “homosexual”).
Kill your toxic masculinity, love your fucking kids
shealwaysreads 