dating advice for white girls?

[GuyInTaiwan]

Maybe, when women go out with "bad guys" it's for the reason that they actually like that the excitement of it, or maybe it's for evolutionary reasons. The idea that they've been conditioned into it seems flatly wrong to me since this conditioning by society has really only existed for a few decades. Prior to that, women were actively told not to go for "bad guys" (yet some still did). There was a real social stigma attached to it in most traditional societies (including Western). I just don't buy this "woman as victim of society" line. Not in this day and age.

[914]

I didn't actually say "women go for bad guys".

I said women end up with guys who are no good for them - we're not talking the motorcycle-riding rebel boys here, we're talking the losers, the cheaters and the douches. We're not told to fall for them - my point is that some women do it anyway because we are taught through many channels that our worth is proven through having a man, and we've also got one major problem in that we don't listen to our gut when we know one of these guys is no good. I do agree the latter issue is women's own fault.

If you think that dating these guys is "exciting", then you don't know many women.

It's not "evolutionary", either - that doesn't even make sense.

If you think we're not being sent messages through social and cultural conditioning, you haven't got a clue what it's like to grow up female. In this day and age it's not overt, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Saying it doesn't exist is about as silly as saying "you ladies won the war for equality" when we still have all sorts of inequality to deal with, from pay to expectations of child-rearing vs. work to women who are public figures being crucified in the media in ways men aren't to all sorts of idiotic assumptions about what women "want" or what they "mean" or how they act or why the issues they face are somehow justified.

Have you ever had family members care more about your wedding than your graduate degree? Have you ever been told, by a doctor no less, "When you have children..." and having that doctor balk when you say "I don't plan to"? Have you ever had an insult openly lobbed at your weight, attitude, looks, life goals or personality and had it followed up with "no wonder she's still single" or "with that attitude she'll never get / keep a man" or "I feel sorry for any man she pins down"? Have you turned down someone's advances and been called a "bitch" because you weren't interested in giving him something he was not entitled to? Have you had your mother - your own mother - tell you "maybe your standards are too high" when you finally dump that loser guy? Have you ever watched single guys in their 30s get high-fives while you, at 28, get tongue-clucks and pity and "he'll come along, sweetie"? Ever been on the receiving end of BS like "well it's just natural that women want to pin down men/earn less in female-dominated industries/don't communicate well/are needy/are better off staying home with kids, that's NATURE"? Ever watched a fat, pompous cheating bastard win a presidential primary while a female candidate got eviscerated for her fashion choices and steely personality a few years earlier (I'm talking Hillary, not Sarah)?

Ever been a female expat who hears things like "Well those Western women just need to do [x] if they want to compete [with Asian women]?" while you sit there and think "Compete? For what prize?"

Yes, many women rise above this, and more should, but to say the messages don't exist is ignorant at best.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Of course people (or a subset of people) go after dangerous people because they're exciting. Otherwise the nerdy guy in class would get all the girls. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In a hunter gatherer society, a certain level of risk taking is beneficial (too much is, of course, detrimental). It therefore has value in a mate (or more particularly, a male mate). There is still a leave over of this genetically. Furthermore, people (both men and women) just like to have fun now, damn the consequences later. Instant gratification is more instantly gratifying, and this also has evolutionary bases.

I think you're living in denial about this. People (both men and women) engage in all sorts of self-destructive behaviour based upon short term thinking. None of this has anything to do with societal conditioning, or rather, you can't condition irrationality out of existence. Additional irrational behaviour may be conditioned into existence to some extent, but irrational behaviour, including in terms of who people do or don't date or marry, has existed basically since there have been people, and it also exists across cultures. It's because the evolutionary pressures that humans encountered tens of thousands of years ago required a very different set of responses to what we encounter now. However, whilst there may be dire consequences from bad decisions now, they rarely lead to death before reproductive age. Thus, evolution doesn't flush such genes out of the gene pool. So, our genetics are still largely tens of thousands of years behind where we're at, or where you would like to be at, culturally.

All the rest of what you wrote is just your rant. The media, politicians, etc. portray all sorts of people, including men, in a either a positive or negative light depending upon what's in the best interests of the media or politicians concerned. Go and watch a sit-com about a family these days and tell me who is more likely to be the useless buffoon, the principal male character (husband/father) or the principal female character (wife/mother). At best, they'll both be idiots, but it will never be the case that the wife/mother is the idiot and the husband/father shamelessly puts her down for being an idiot at every turn. Look at the rates of graduation, both from high school and university, amongst men now. Look at the rates of incarceration between men and women. Look at the numbers of men vs women who die whilst at work. Look at which side family law typically comes down on. There is an enormous subset of men in society falling through the cracks. Society at large fails both men and women, at times in different ways, and at times in the same ways. Yet this problem will never really be solved (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try) as humans are essentially irrational and our world/societies are far too complex for us to really get a grip on.

Tell me anyone could even imagine proposing an idea like this for women yet look at how it not only doesn't warrant indignation, but has lots of approval when concerning men (including from the men themselves, who have been conditioned to see their role as overgrown simpleton -- note that "Manland" has lots of free junk food and video games, but not one book or chess set, for instance -- as acceptable):

See, you see the modern world as treating women like shit. In many ways, I'd agree with you. However, I'd also argue that has occurred precisely as a reaction to many so-called "societal advances". Much of the advancement of women has come at the expense of the emasculation of men, be it in the media, the education system, the criminal justice system or the family law system. What is the modern positive role of the male? The traditional roles are out now because they're too sexist. So, what does that really leave a man but to be a deadbeat father, player or man child? Witness the absurd rise of the so-called man cave. Back in my grandfather's day, men had their sheds where they hung out and did "manly stuff" (whatever the hell that was). Yet those sheds were also worthy of respect because they actually served a useful function for the family (i.e. fixing or making stuff). Now, men have been reduced to trying to claim their own zone of autonomy, but it's a caricature of masculinity because it's like a giant playpen for three year olds. This is what masculinity is now: perpetual adolescence.

I actually don't really have a problem with that simply because I don't allow it to define who I am and I don't surround myself with people who do. I understand that the media (indeed, many of our institutions) is made by morons, for morons. You haven't figured this out though and buy into it. Don't like the idiocy you see in a magazine? Don't read the magazine. Don't like what you see on the idiot box? Turn it off. The rest of it outside the media is screwed up, but as I've pointed out, it's pretty screwed up for men too.

[finley]

What struck me about that video is that a lot of consumer behaviour must be driven by women. Despite men supposedly being in charge of the economy, it seems to me that plenty of men would, if given the choice, buy nothing in their entire lives except a TV, a games console, two pairs of underpants, a pot-noodle delivery service, and a cardboard box to live in. And an internet connection. I conclude, therefore, than women rule the world.

[NonTocareLeTete]

Have you ever had family members care more about your wedding than your graduate degree? Have you ever been told, by a doctor no less, "When you have children..." and having that doctor balk when you say "I don't plan to"? Have you ever had an insult openly lobbed at your weight, attitude, looks, life goals or personality and had it followed up with "no wonder she's still single" or "with that attitude she'll never get / keep a man" or "I feel sorry for any man she pins down"? Have you turned down someone's advances and been called a "bitch" because you weren't interested in giving him something he was not entitled to? Have you had your mother - your own mother - tell you "maybe your standards are too high" when you finally dump that loser guy? Have you ever watched single guys in their 30s get high-fives while you, at 28, get tongue-clucks and pity and "he'll come along, sweetie"? Ever been on the receiving end of BS like "well it's just natural that women want to pin down men/earn less in female-dominated industries/don't communicate well/are needy/are better off staying home with kids, that's NATURE"? Ever watched a fat, pompous cheating bastard win a presidential primary while a female candidate got eviscerated for her fashion choices and steely personality a few years earlier (I'm talking Hillary, not Sarah)?

Ever been a female expat who hears things like "Well those Western women just need to do [x] if they want to compete [with Asian women]?" while you sit there and think "Compete? For what prize?"

this whole thing had me laughing and nodding my head (perhaps, especially, the last part... and being called a bitch for turning down people's advances, and your observations that powerful women are often seen as shrill and judged by how they look instead of what they think/arguments they make...well put.)
Likewise, I have to agree with Guy that men are increasingly coming under attack as well. I say increasingly because it seems, even in my lifetime, that men are getting more messages like, "in order to be desirable, you must do x, y and z" and are also overwhelmed by images and advertising that undermines a deeper sense of self (it's not what you do, who you are, or what you know that's important, it's how you look and come off.) and I've seen more examples of the Homer Simpsonesque portrayal of men, which I find disconcerting.
Charlie Brooker did a segment on how men are portrayed on TV. god I love this man.

The part I'm talking about starts at 13:25, but if you have the time, watch the whole thing. Brilliant.


It's unfortunate for all of us.

[Icon]

Truly, media is making a mock of relationships. The "models" portrayed are really disgusting, most of the time. Homeresque is actually the less of all evils.

I am trying to find teh word in English, help me native speakers: the problem is the "benchmarking" we are doing, the comparison, the goal setting. True, al societies may have adifferent idea of what constitutes the "ideal partner", but from the globalization of media and standarization of prcatices, well, I do not think we are in a good place right now. We should be partners, not at war. And I hate the b-word.

I am also aware of the other side of the coin. GiT's post is very relevant in my country, where ironically men are suppossed to be even more chavinistic, but the truth is, instead of relationships, most people have economic exchanges. The stories ... I especially like this part:

See, you see the modern world as treating women like shit. In many ways, I'd agree with you. However, I'd also argue that has occurred precisely as a reaction to many so-called "societal advances". Much of the advancement of women has come at the expense of the emasculation of men, be it in the media, the education system, the criminal justice system or the family law system. What is the modern positive role of the male? The traditional roles are out now because they're too sexist. So, what does that really leave a man but to be a deadbeat father, player or man child?

Back in the ol' country, over 70% of houshold -families- are led by only by a woman, not a couple. The closest relationship men have with their kids is alimony. It is demanded of married men to have mistresses, as in plural, or else their masculinity is called into question. Women have mostly given up, and either do not have kids at all, get themselves a kept-man, or "breed" -for lack of a better word- with several guys who pay alimony for each kid and that's it, as the law demands that or else they go to jail. I have often wonderd if it is some kind of political ploy, if the ruling class wants the party to be the substitute daddy for all the kids, or maybe some plot to keep people poor. Anyways, it is a disaster.

[finley]

I have often wonderd if it is some kind of political ploy, if the ruling class wants the party to be the substitute daddy for all the kids, or maybe some plot to keep people poor.

Quite possible. There are plenty of countries where political and social conditions are deliberately arranged to keep people poor and miserable. This ensures lots of compliant workers prepared to slave away in shitty conditions for the benefit of a parallel economy - the oligarchy and rulers who benefit mightily from milking the system. It isn't difficult or expensive to provide the basics of life, and I don't believe for a moment that anyone with the smarts to assume political power is too dumb to arrange those. Burma and N.K. are the archetypal examples, but there are plenty of others which are broadly similar, and plenty of shades of grey. Most Latin American countries simply carried on doing what the Spaniards showed them, because it "worked" extremely well.

And the word you're looking for is possibly "validation". It's not so much that we compare ourselves to what we see in the media: we use it to determine if we're 'doing things right'. Which is why (a) I actively avoid the media, and (b) I'm a cantankerous old git.

[GuyInTaiwan]

finley: I read somewhere once that women spend at least 70% of a family's disposable income, and I'm guessing they do a lot of the non-discretionary spending too.

What kind of irks me about those guys at Ikea is that sure, I don't exactly relish the idea of shopping for furniture either, but if we're talking about spending thousands of dollars, you'd better believe I'm involved in the decision making. I bet they don't just go out and buy a car without their wives being involved, so why would it be any different with any other major purchase. Yet this is where we're at. The guys have bought into this idiocy also.

Non: Definitely. There are all sorts of images of men now. Guys are expected to have a six pack (as in visible abdominal muscles), no body hair, and smell like a bouquet of flowers at all times. Those supposed male magazines such as FHM probably contain as many, or more, unrealistic images of men as they do of women. They're also unbelievably vacuous magazines generally. Yet this is where we are at in our society.

Icon: I have absolutely no doubt that the state absolutely loves single mothers on either welfare or alimony. Once the nuclear family is smashed, the state becomes the surrogate father or family. Of course, you can't say this though for fear of being branded either a chauvanistic reactionary, a conservative reactionary, or both. Allowing people to be self-sufficient, which is broadly how the nuclear family evolved as an economic unit historically is the worst thing the state can ever do because then it makes itself redundant.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Non: I watched that Charlie Brooker video and part of another. Very funny.

[NonTocareLeTete]

Non: I watched that Charlie Brooker video and part of another. Very funny.

Yeah, guy kills me. Actually, I was thinking that when someone gets upset about people criticizing Taiwanese culture, maybe we should refer them to his videos. "See, we don't only do it to you, we do it to ourselves, and WE LIKE IT!"
I always feel like I'm treading a fine line between worthless, total negativity and legitimate cultural criticism. Either way, I'll emerge with my critical thinking skills intact.

Haha I just noticed the subject of this thread. We've come a far way from dating advice for white girls, so I'll offer this: When it seems like you're surrounded by western men who are acting like kids in a candy shop and couldn't give you the time of day with all of the local good on offer, remember this- there are guys out there who still appreciate you - they're just a bit harder to find in Asia.