Rachel Lucas says we need a "REAL WOMAN" Manifesto.
posted by Helen at 4:24 PM
Friday, May 02, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Kim du Toit makes some good points about my previ...
- Soft and Aimless or Strong and Calculating?
- Reality Show Campaign Update
- Cholesterol Hell
- Protest Fox's New Reality Show "Bad Dads"
- Try Being Instapundit
- Let's Hear it for Economics Professors!
- Weird Date
- America's Worst Mom?
- Being a Celebrity Cuts Both Ways
35 Comments:
Women traded in the "REAL WOMAN" Manifesto for the communist musings of Friedan. Men have held on to their code.
Her point is good, but even in her post she takes what men have as a code and said that should be for all adults. That's exactly what started this mess.
The problem is that there there has only ever been one requirement to be called a real woman. You got the parts, you're a woman. Women get to do whatever they want. Men have always been the ones who had to work to earn the title.
BS. Back before the second wave of feminism there was a lot of talk and advice about how to be a Real Woman, much of it proferred by men. Read the Second Sex for a good overview.
Here's my input: The Woman Calculator.
jay c,
I hope that is a joke? If not, good luck finding this woman, for your objectification of her would be the deal killer for her, I am sure.
matthew said:
Her point is good, but even in her post she takes what men have as a code and said that should be for all adults. That's exactly what started this mess.
I have to disagree here. Rachel's "Code for All Adults" is:
Mentally, emotionally, and intellectually strong, even if not physically... Hardworking, honorable, honest, dutiful, protective of family and country. Brave, courageous, rational, reasonable, kindhearted, and respectful. Knowledgeable about how to survive in rough times and how to solve problems.
Do men really want silly, weak, featherbrained, lazy, dishonest, dishonorable, self-absorbed, disloyal, cowardly, irrational, unreasonable, cruel, disrespectful wives who wouldn't know how to survive, let alone how to protect the kids, if their husbands weren't around? Good God, what happens if the husband dies? Should the widow go and play the damsel in distress and expect another guy to provide for both her and her kids? One of the most common complaints I hear from men about women is that so many women are parasites. Well, how can we be anything but parasites, if Melissa's "code" doesn't apply to us as well as men?
I think Melissa's code is a pretty good standard to judge whether any person, man or woman, is a decent human being.
I absolutely agree with you Elizabeth.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what men do - they DO seem to want the kind of wives you described for whatever reason. And I DO see those types of pairings around me.
Usually a widow will have pushed for life insurance before the sap, I mean the hard-working husband keels over from a heart attack, but if he didn't take out a policy, that's exactly what widows do if they are still young enough to bring it off - they sponge off the next guy.
Yes, men in general seem to go for parasites. I have never understood it. I wouldn't get a feeling of being needed if I supported a parasite (as most men do, I presume), I would get a feeling of being used.
And if parasitical and childlike behavior is not only not frowned upon in women, but actively encouraged and rewarded, most women are not going to develop any kind of moral system. They don't have to.
Argh. Forgive the typos, please. Obviously that should be "Rachel's code" throughout.
I wouldn't get a feeling of being needed if I supported a parasite (as most men do, I presume), I would get a feeling of being used.
So would I. And if, on the other hand, I was the leech, I couldn't possibly have any feelings of self-worth.
As a prosecutor, I saw a lot of sick, parasitic relationships in domestic violence cases. There is a resentment for parasites, and often that resentment leads to physical violence.
I really hope that's not what most men (and most women) want in a relationship. Now, I don't think it's a parasitic relationship if one partner is a homemaker and primary caregiver for the children, and one is the breadwinner for the family -- I don't have kids yet, but I'm guessing being a good parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. But when one spouse expects the other spouse to do all the heavy lifting -- well, that's certainly not my idea of a good relationship.
This is all too complicated. Here's the code:
Men, don't be bastards.
Women, don't be bitches.
Not a joke at all. I think "objectification" carries the wrong connotation. An attempt at objective analysis is not objectification. It is simply honest. I needed to think clearly about what I wanted and needed. Once I was able to do that, I was free to identify the best women available without force them to conform to my ideals and without having to conform to theirs. They either like who I am or they don't. I'll be happy either way.
The best part is that the woman at the very top of my list seems to return my interest. She wasn't the least bit offended by my "Woman Calculator". If she was, then she probably wouldn't have survived the initial cuts anyway.
jay c,
Whatever works for you and the woman who are interested--good luck!
I also think "objectification" is a much over used word. There is no way that anyone can convince me they don't weigh aspects of a prospective significant other.
No? Not even if he/she is a habitual thief? Or, maybe a chronic liar? Those are attributes and we all look at/for attributes to accept or disqualify.
And joe nailed it. The Golden Rule as applied in broad strokes.
There is no way that anyone can convince me they don't weigh aspects of a prospective significant other.
Well of course people do. Most people just keep their lists in their heads, that's all. How else can a person determine if someone is a good match for them?
Or, maybe people don't do it enough, and that's why there are so many bad marriages and divorces.
This 'real' business can be boiled down to one phrase: "Get real!"
Helen,
If you haven't read the Kim du Toit article that Jay C linked to from his post, you might want to take a look at that and the comments. While it's wouldn't be considered a scientifically valid study, there are enough there to believe that most men do what Jay C does, though somewhat less formally. Moreover, we do it not only for relationships with women, but with other men, too. Women also get two brackets on the scoresheet - the ones we would consider "marrying" (in quotes to include non-traditional pairings), and the ones whom we would pal around with, but NOT be particularly interested in pairing up with. Different set of criteria, especially for men, of course. We don't go home to them at the end of the day, after all, and the range of shared activities is rather different.
Men don't generally talk about this, of course, because many women would freak out and call us cold, calculating, misogynistic bastards.
marbel --
Most people just keep their lists in their heads, that's all.
Those that don't are accused of objectification, which those that do are also engaged in. My point, actually.
To Helen and Jay:
Helen, you may not like Jay's way of rating women, but can you honestly say that most people don't do roughly the same thing, just informally and unconsciously. Also, I don't see how you can consider it "objectification". Have you ever seen formal studies/surveys of mate selection criteria? Some of them look a lot like what Jay does.
Jay, I especially like the fact that you weigh your parent's opinions highly. In "modern" arranged marriages, the children carefully consider their parents' opinions, as well they should because the parents, especially the mothers, are doing all the legwork. The parents also tend to rate potential children-in-law rather formally and explicitly, something like what you do.
Elizabeth,
I think a lot of what's in her code are not really what "real men" are supposed to be. As you say, they are real adults. In times past, hardworking was one of the most important characteristics to consider in a wife. I don't want to go through them all, but basically if it can be classified as "real adult" then it doesn't belong to the "real man" group. My criticism is that I wonder if we went through every characteristic, we'd find the "real man" group to be completely within the "real adult" group, which is what feminism pretty much accomplished.
Matthew --
I don't want to go through them all, but basically if it can be classified as "real adult" then it doesn't belong to the "real man" group.
I'm hornswaggled. Perhaps you could give some examples. Not all, just a few.
BobH,
I suppose people do "rate others," whatever that means. I guess I am taking a more existential look at love, that is, love is not a neat package where you rate someone, male or female, on a checklist. Love comes in all forms, shapes and personalities. I think it is important to be open to the possiblity that a mate may be someone who meets none of your "criteria" but somehow, everything comes together to make that person perfect for you. I have known too many people who found someone who looked great on paper, that is, they met all their "criteria" but they were somehow a wrong "fit."
But that is just my opinion. Maybe this only works for certain people. If Jay enjoys rating others on a checklist to find his favorite date, why not?
I usually tell people to rate their parents opinions pretty highly. Mom and Dad are usually older and wiser and have been around the block a few more times. Best of all, where else can you get advice from someone that sincerely has your best interest at heart?
Trust,
I actually read some research once that said that friend's and family's impressions about whether a person is right for you or not is usually correct--and higly correlated with successful relationships.
Helen
Perhaps what you are considering is the fact that the single most ATTRACTIVE attribute that a potential mate can have is that he/she is ATTRACTED. One study that has been done about once per decade since the 1930s explicitly addresses this. Finding somebody with all sorts of positive attributes is pretty pointless if that other person shows no interest in a relationship with the self. It seems that a lot of the early relationship management revolve around trying to accurately determine the other's level of attraction and adjusting the self's apparent level, to accomplish the desired goal, i.e., attract, repel and/or manipulate.
Actually, I'm even worse than Jay. As somebody who has taken a few too many math and economics courses, I tend to visualize this whole matter as a three dimensional graph, with the x-axis being the level of positive attributes (smart, pretty/handsome, high income etc.), the y-axis being the apparent willingness of the other to use those positive attributes for the benefit of the self and z-axis being time, i.e., is the other likely to have these attributes and/or willingness in the future.
BobH,
And as I think about it, it could be that the way we think or the the way our brain is wired, depicts how we choose our mates. If one is extremely analytical and thinks in a mathematical fashion about the world, perhaps they try to apply that paradigm to other areas. However, people and relationships do not generally add up this way. But if this is working for you, keep it. If not, make adjustments.
I guess I am taking a more existential look at love, that is, love is not a neat package where you rate someone, male or female, on a checklist.
Maybe it depends on how strict the criteria are. I think a person with a long list of attributes is going to have a tough time of it because that long list may represent a "perfect" person who does not exist.
The list I carried in my head when I was single the 2nd time was pretty short: I wanted to be sure anyone I spent any time with shared my religious, moral, and ethical values and views on children (as in, to have any and how to raise them), and liked to read. (My first husband did not read and did not tolerate me reading when he was watching tv - how did I miss that when we were dating? Simple, I wasn't looking.)
If I had been looking for someone who was x number of inches taller than me, in a certain profession, who liked specific recreational activities, etc... might have been harder.
Of course there may have been plenty of men with the same non-negotiables with whom I could not form a lasting relationship for many reasons. But why spend time (if one is looking for marriage or other long-term relationship) with people who don't share the same values?
When I married, the first time, I gave no thought to those values, and it was a disaster.
Per Jay, I think coming up with some kind of rating criteria is essential to establishing a successful relationship. From painful experience, the breakup of my marriage of over 20 years, I realize how blindly I went into that marriage. And to counter BobH, attraction isn't the telling factor. My wife and I were both attracted to each other, which just obscured all the ways in which we weren't compatible.
Now that I've finally started dating again, I am facing the challenge of developing my own set of criterion. This takes a lot of self examination, because you can't determine who you would be compatible with without honestly understanding yourself. I've found in my own experience and observing others how easy it is for people to deceive themselves about their own essential nature and temperament. Interests are important, but I think that matching temperaments are the key. Rather than finding out a person's Zodiac sign, I'd much prefer to know their Myers-Briggs type.
I'm an INFP, for anyone that cares.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Helen, I think you might be looking at my calculator from the wrong angle. I wouldn't marry a woman just because she checked off all the right boxes, nor would I refuse to marry her because she wasn't the best available. My Woman Calculator is to help me define what I really want and avoid life-destroying mistakes.
I fell head-over-heels in love with my high-school sweetheart and we married despite my parents' misgivings. I thought she was the greatest thing God had ever made. Actually, that's not true. I wasn't thinking. I was feeling, and "the heart is deceitful above all things." There's nothing wrong with feelings as long as you don't let them run your life. I was married for 17 years before I finally gave up trying to make it work. The problem was one of character. I could have saved myself a lot of pain if I had allowed a little reason to moderate my passions. I'm sure it would be easier for you to see the value of such moderation to a woman in love with a man who will someday be a womanizing, wife-beating drunk. The seeds of those behaviors are almost always present in youth and appararent to someone with a clear enough head to look for them.
So now I have a list of deal-killers and a list of positives. I'm not going to risk falling for someone who can't be bothered to raise her own children. If I do, I'll have a decent system to warn me before I do anything really stupid. It's my own personalized version of Proverbs 31.
Remember that love is far more than "being in love." It's taking out the trash, cleaning up vomit, working out compromises, bringing up children. Physical attraction and good feelings are important to a really helpful marriage. Good character is vital. Without it, all the attraction and romance in the world won't amount to squat.
Duck, I'm an INTJ. My S.O. is an INTP (my complement) / INFP (my advisor). It doesn't hurt that I am also completely smitten.
I meant "really healthy marriage" not "helpful."
duck, within my own personality's version, I am almost 100% lock step with your first paragraph above.
Except that the result of all those years has left me incompatible with anyone now, as far as life partner is concerned. A few friends and acquaintances. I venture no further.
Because of me, not others.
Jay C
I understand where you are coming from. I think, for myself, I always had built-in radar about people's character. I didn't need a list because I could generally read someone's character without any trouble. I mistakenly thought everyone could but that's not true. Many people can't.
As I think about it, the most important aspect of a person for me was always trust. Maybe this is the same thing as a list but I just didn't realize it because it came to me naturally. I once had a friend whose boyfriend I didn't trust from the day I met him. He was a liar and sleazy--she didn't see it until he had betrayed her a number of times. Maybe she has developed some type of list. Perhaps it's useful.
I am a terrible judge of character, at least from initial impressions. I've learned not to trust myself in that.
jay c,
So maybe the list is a way to give yourself some external structure about the way that people behave if you don't have that knack internally. I hope you find what the person you are looking for this time.
Helen,
I think you make a good point that just because someone meets the requirements of what you would consider an ideal partner, they might not really be compatible with you. I remember reading a comment on another blog (Volokh?) about E-Harmony. A person mentioned that he filled out the questionaire to determine compatibility and one of the results was a woman from his hometown that he already knew was not the right person for him. I still think it is important to have expectations, but you might find a good match who doesn't fit exactly what you had imagined.
BobH,
I think you should consider your parents view; they should be able to more objectively notice poor behaviors or incompatibility that you might have overlooked. However, I don't think it should necessarily be the strongest factor, because you could have different values or religious views from your parents.
I didn't read all of Jay's post, just skimmed it. I thought the rating system was a little weird, but the general principles seemed good. I also consider myself analytical, but maybe some people are more so and I hope he finds a good match.
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home