The PASK project was a meta-analysis of around 1,200 peer reviewed journal articles, if I remember correctly, so any figures are just approximations. While over a decade old now, it is the most comprehensive study ever conducted into intimate partner violence. There is a good summary online.
The following article is more recent and also excellent:
What needs to be recognised is that there are significant barriers to men reporting IPV/DV, such that men are far less likely to report than women. Speaking from personal experience, it can also be difficult for men to even recognise that what they are experiencing is IPV/DV because nobody has ever explained to them that it is something that can happen to them. The hegemonic narrative ruthlessly policed by feminists is that only men are perpetrators and the "women and their children" are the victims. Note how women conflate women and children, cynically using children as human shields, when mothers are at least as likely to perpetrate abuse and neglect against children as fathers, and far more likely than genetic fathers to perpetrate abuse and neglect. Incidentally, while there are a lot of complicating factors at play, children have on average better outcomes when raised by single fathers than single mothers. The most violent relationships also happen to be lesbian relationships.
One of my genetic grandfathers experienced decades of verbal and physical abuse from his wife without ever speaking a word to anyone about it. I only know about it because another member of the extended family accidentally witnessed the abuse. My grandmother obviously thought she had left the house but she hadn't. My father admitted that he and his siblings had lived in fear of her outbursts but never spoke to anyone about it. When I asked what she said or did that was so bad, I've been met with "You don't want to know" and "I could never repeat it". She was vile to my mother, which was one of the two reasons why I was adopted (my maternal grandfather also forced my parents to call of their engagement before I was conceived). I'm repeating this anecdote because it illustrates the conspiracy of silence that surrounds female-perpetrated violence and abuse. Talking about it has long been taboo, I suspect because women work very hard to portray themselves as virtuous, selfless and morally superior. It is the reputational equivalent of make-up. Mess with that image and you will be met with an angry, often extreme reaction. The saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is apt.
Boys are taught never to hit a girl but girls receive no such instruction, yet it would be one of the most effective ways of reducing IPV/DV rates since most IPV is bi-directional (~60%) and bi-directional IPV is more often than not initiated by the woman. In other words, if women don't want to be victims of IPV then they should refrain from using violence themselves. However, our culture teaches the opposite to females. Women are often depicted slapping or hitting men, or otherwise causing them injury, and it is treated as normal, justified or even funny. Imagine if the roles were reversed and men were depicted slapping, hitting and injuring women because the women had said or done something to hurt the men's feelings.
I've been talking about physical violence when in fact women often prefer to use relational aggression, as you would know better than me.
I don't think the problems with feminism started with 3rd wave feminism. You can trace them back at least to the early female suffragists (c1860) who argued that women should be given the vote because they were morally superior and would be a civilising influence on parliament (how has that turned out?!). Fast forward to the Suffragettes and you have a movement that was every bit as vile as 3rd wave feminism. The Illustrated Empathy Gap has an excellent history of universal suffrage in the UK, which details the struggle of both men and women to win the right to the vote. I guarantee you won't think the same way about the Suffragettes if you read it. Their role in the white feather campaign, which bullied and shamed thousands of young men into enlisting; men who had never had the vote either, tells you everything you need to know about the roots of feminism in misandry. As far as I can see, misandry has always been a signifcant element in female culture, just as misogyny has been a significant element in male culture. I consider myself an anti-feminist because I believe in equality.
I don't know if I've addressed your original comment. It wasn't clear to me which comment you were referring to.
No. He should go 50:50 without exception. If he doesn't get a second date then he should be thankful that he's dodged a bullet. Entitled women are insufferable.
it's funny - i love these short, easy to read posts, but i never do that. my next post on dating is going to be huge.
I pay if it was my idea for the date. I'll pay if she prefers that I pay. If it's a first date with a girl who I've never met in person, I go for drinks and I'll pay, even if I find out I don't rly like her. One time a girl (who looked different than the photos, classic) started ordering both food and drinks. She was in it for the freebies. When the check came, I put down half and slid it over to her. Haha that was the end of that.
It makes sense. Muy personal experience is difference: I havent seen any men kicking a woman. And defenitevily the narrative was not "kicking your wife" but protecting your family
I have on the other way seen 2 women with false allegations against men. And 1 women kicking a man with a scisors. Of course, she Will kit go to jail.
We basically agree. I believed that the 2000 were probably fine and even. Not the 1950, and not now.
Enjoyed reading this one and it definitely piqued my interest when it hit my inbox.
Love the idea of a a woman at least picking up some part of a multi-part date to reciprocate. I'm still in old-school in wanting a guy to pay on a date but I don't think that has happened in reality and I've let it slide-- so much more attractive when they do because it shows they are interested.
I completely agree with you that "Our culture encourages maladaptive behaviors for family formation," and given what I know about you and your family preferences, I think it's enlightened and wise of you to raise this as a point. As we have discussed before, regardless of one's feeling about children, we must admit that there is a benefit to society from family formation.
And this point too: Women’s ability to earn money doesn’t erase that tendency; if anything, it sharpens the selection process-- 100%. While it's not like new couples who have just started dating are comparing salaries, there will be some level of sizing up a person for what they are going to bring to the table (different story after they have already been dating awhile, married and they jointly decide on what works for their family).
I confirm. Partner here in Big Law. Almost 7 figures. 1.90, and fit. I dont commit ever. I dont even date: women are not longer worth. And, I dont pay for the first date. Never!
A big part of the problem is that a lot of women aren’t “feminist” in the 90s-20s academic and media promoted way, but we are judged and punished for the most radical elements of feminism… I can’t control the far left, or even really explain them.
Guys should be able to distinguish between women who want to be women and only ask out the variety that he is willing to cover the costs of a date with… If he is not willing, he probably isn’t all that interested in that particular woman in the first place
Women vote for the far left. They go into marches like the 8 march, and declare themselves feminists. Women LOVE the privileges that feminist have them, like gender quotas and affirmative action. You cannot have one with the other: either you recognise that men are generally more capable and assume more sacrifices and have different roles in society as reulst of that, and hence we are teaditionslists, or you assume that women are equal and you are a feminist.
I have never once participated in any of that garbage. Most women actually haven’t.
Of course men are more capable at most things, and assume a bigger burden of society than women do; but historically, women have made the most sacrifices for others (that may not be the case now)
The reality is, that in the past, some men would go to a saloon, get drunk, sleep with a prostitute, come home, beat his wife, make her sleep with him against her will, and give her a disease, and somehow this was not something that could land him in jail. I, personally, do not want to go back to a world in which it was okay for some men to hit their wives.
Men does at war more as well. And women were also to blame on that (for example, with the "White father" movement). And men continue to die more at war (like in Ukraine, where men were forced to join the army while women flew away).
And women are now making false allegations to get custody rigths.
Men biting their wifes were an absolute exception, and It was never right to kick a girl. Actually, masculinity was the opposite: extremely protective of women.
75% of the people at the Titinic were men: 90% of survivals were women. And the 10% men was ashamed by the society for having survive during all their lives.
There were abusive men? Of course. As now. And as there were (and there are) abusive women.
But 99.99% was about protection of women.
We never EVER have had any period in time were we have protected men more than women. NEVER.
Yeah, um, my dad’s mom was hit by my dad’s dad, and she didn’t see anything wrong with it; so it’s gonna be a hard pass from me on pure traditional living.
Men do make a lot of sacrifices in war; but in non-wartime, which is most of the time, it’s women who are biologically wired for self-sacrifice. The pendulum did swing too far the other direction the last thirty years, I do see that; but I was expected to stay back when my mother died and be there for my younger sister; and help with household expenses when my father got cancer; so the idea of women “not sacrificing” in modern times is patently false.
I have never been into intersectionality, gender neutrality, or stepping stools for women to climb over men; so I’m not your target demographic; however, I work in a man’s field and would never allow my father to choose my future spouse, so I can’t not be a feminist. Does that make sense?
Outside wartime, men tend to occupy the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. They sacrifice their lives and health at far greater rates than women, yet you assert that it is women who are biologically wired for self-sacrifice. My impression is that women are biologically wired for self-interest more than genuine self-sacrifice.
Women are just as violent as men in intimate partner relationships and more likely to initiate bi-directional violence. Women are less capable of inflicting severe injuries, which is why they tend to resort to using knives.
Tim, did you not have a mother? My grandmother, my mom, my adopted mom, and most of my
aunts all have little of their original identity left… because they have poured all of who they are into their children.
I’m not talking about what modern ideologies have done. I’m talking about the way things had been before 3rd and 4th wave feminist law and family court altered things
Even now, women are nowhere near as violent as men in relationships. Where on earth did you get that stat?
I do have guys friends that have had their exes try to hurt them, but it’s at nowhere near the rate my girl friends have had to get out of bad situations.
Here's my question then: why are we clinging to feminism as though it means anything or there is any agreement on what the demands are? What do we gain?
That’s a good question. Hm, functionally, what I’ve seen out in the political field, is a lot of feminist think tanks, PACs, and 501(c)4s have been spinning their wheels to keep themselves employed; or to keep getting money to endorse candidates. I don’t think it’s been about women in general for several decades.
(For context, I had previously considered myself anti-feminist until elderly women argued the point with me about how things were in their day, and by the measure of their generation I was the definition of a feminist)
The irony is that 3rd and 4th wave feminists wrapped themselves in intersectionality in order to stay relevant, but effectively put themselves in a straight jacket, unable to fight for women’s sports and safety when they needed to, or to back off when they realized their policies were harming families (and some refuse to acknowledge this)
But then, so many lobbies have outlived their usefulness and refuse to pivot. Movements do have motion and it’s hard to dam them up and direct the flow elsewhere, but it’s gotta be done
I would say the modern 'feminist' 'movement' hasn't accomplished anything of note, only reordering society according to their social norms. But, I think this is a comment I need to save for the follow up post that clearly needs to be written.
That would be great. I only see things downstream in activistland… where all sides/ideologies/interest groups are running around battleground states bumping into each other
As a Gen X guy who grew up with second-wave feminism and has always been fully on board, I always pay. I also did game theory modeling of evolutionary selection pressure in college, and am well aware evolutionary biology is a problem for strict ideas about quality. I don't care.
For those of us who aren't that special 1% of guys, courtship (while you're young, at least) generally means the guy trying to sell himself to the girl. Traditionally this was the case and I don't think the sexual revolution has changed it much. Young women have always been chasing that 1%, even if in the old days that meant holding out for Prince Charming instead of dating apps. As a salesman trying to woo a partner, of course you're paying when you ask them to dinner.
Why wouldn't you? Is the money that big a deal? Being poor isn't sexy, and stingy isn't either. Are you afraid of being taken advantage of? Being afraid isn't sexy, and she did you a favor already agreeing to the date. You'd have to have a pretty big chip on your shoulder about feminism not to be generous, and that isn't sexy either.
If you take the view that she is something special - and you should at least as a courtesy, if you are asking her out* - you can believe in women's equality without having to impose it on her for your date. Or ever, really.
(*My worldview does not include dating apps, but for me it wouldn't change anything.)
On the flip side, what man would feel comfortable with the woman paying on a first date?
That would be strange. It would also be the last date I went on with that woman.
She's (right up front) signaling, “I don't need you to provide for me.” Which is code for, “I'm going to be your lifelong girl boss!” Nope…
Similarly, why would a man ask a woman for her time, then charge her for it? That's essentially what's happening in that scenario from the woman's side.
But you're correct, today, men and women (in the West) are pit against one another in ways that are strange and counterproductive to society, and the continuation of the human race.
Creepy ass role reversal, and constant unnecessary tension. Antithetical requests between the two sexes, it's just ignorant and unnecessary.
This nonsense is not by accident either. Nothing gets this far to the side of stupid -- without some serious nudging and thought manipulation. And that's exactly what's happened.
However, I think some people are beginning to snap out of it. Slowly but surely, more men and women are doing what they want, not what “society" tells them they should want.
So you're saying that the signal there is that she doesn't need you? I am reading underneath here that being a provider is still crucial, and to be needed. Which is human.
To an extent yes. It's not necessarily that she "needs" a man, literally for survival. It's more that she would be telling the man that, "I don't *need* you!" "I might tolerate you..."
This in turn makes the man a commodity.
I suppose the woman could think the same way, but the difference is that the man would pay -- because it's his duty (a societal norm). The woman would pay to "prove a point."
"This argument convinced me because all around me, I see evidence that neither sex has transcended the reproductive incentives we evolved with, even in the six decades since birth control decoupled sex from marriage. Women still view the first date as a signal of whether a man is willing to provide resources. And I get why even the most feminist-leaning women still expect a guy to pay: we want selective equality, and I don’t even mean that with contempt. I recognize biological reality. The pressure to reproduce shapes human behavior more than we like to admit, so our stated and revealed preferences don’t align."
I don't think we'll EVER evolve past those reproductive incentives, and if we did, I think we would be horrified at the society which resulted (imagine if technology and money and institutions were used to satisfy the desires and goals of those with money, without any regard for morality or tradition or natural human dynamics).
A lot of this confusion comes from the fallacy that these cultural artifacts (dates, makeup, relationship priorities, desires for commitment) are PURELY matters of culture and choice. How many women believe they're actually choosing men based on personality, or 'compatibility'? How many women say that they CHOOSE to wear makeup (or heels, or nice clothes), regardless of what men think? How many women don't understand why men won't CHOOSE to date older women, if they have options (they're so much more mature! More experienced! More successful!)? People are mistaking their thoughts and impulses for the drivers of these decisions, when they're more like signals to a much deeper sociobiological process playing out unconsciously. The best you can do is be aware of it, but many folks don't like to acknowledge it because it punctures narratives of feminism and subjectivity and personal agency (and fate and astrology and destiny, and all the rest).
Of course, these things (makeup, dates, priorities, life plans) are cultural but they're firmly rooted in biology. Dates are unequal because women are much more choosy about sexual partners because their reproductive resources are much more valuable-biology. Women wear makeup because physical appearance is a more important variable for male mate selection, in every culture (that I know of)-biology. Women are much more focused on commitment and connection before sex because pregnancy is a huge risk for them, and so they're still operating with these neural and psychological impulses, even in the age of birth control-biology.
If you're a woman who thinks that you have a choice over your romantic tendencies, then choose to be attracted to short men (a massive genetic red flag) or low status men. I don't mean 'not rich' men; I mean disorganized, lazy, unassertive men. These traits are basically irrelevant for men but they're extremely salient for women, because women WANT a protector and a provider. But if you're a woman you should be able to see past the laziness and sloppy lifestyle, and love the person within. Right? Or is this just a nonnegotiable, and you're not interested in the person within a lazy and sloppy and irresponsible man? We all know the answer.
This kind of thinking seems to be more common among women (thinking that personal thoughts and feelings are the important ingredient, plus some element of magical thinking) but I'm sure they're extant among men too (I don't date men).
Just don't think that you're some kind of sentimental supercomputer who's making good choices based on feminine intuition and a mystical calculation about who's 'right' for you. That kind of thinking traps millions of women in relationships with narcissists and abusers, with whom they have great chemistry. Why are such men so attractive to certain women? Sometimes there are psychological factors at play (some women seem to be uniquely disposed toward selecting bad men). But among young women, a man with 'dark triad' traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) are generally MORE attractive than others. Why? Biology, probably.
I can't find anything to disagree with, though I chafe at the makeup thing simply because it is used to deny that women have agency in choosing to wear makeup in the first place. That said, I will grant that women may wear makeup to make themselves appear to have the traits a man finds attractive rather than the makeup itself being the attractor. There is a cost to being a woman in this particular class, which does mean I'd have saved money over time. But those were still choices. At no point was I willing to tolerate a lazy man. Even if a woman thinks she's attracted to a man without ambition, over time that will reveal itself to be a self-delusion (speaking from experience). Save thing with assertiveness. Non-negotiable, indeed, but at least I admit it to myself. I made the wrong choice the first time I marriage because of the dissonance of stated and revealed preferences.
WAAAAAAYYYY too much attention is paid by both sexes to who pays for what. It's such a stupid measure of another person. Do you vibe? Do you like each other? *Can he pull his own weight financially*? (Many men, as you point out, can't.) And anyway, women shouldn't rely on men for financial in/dependence. NEVER rely on another human being for that. My mother taught me well.
I have now spent years on dating apps and been on dozens of first dates. I’m sympathetic to both sides. I always pay (even though 85% of the time the woman tells me afterwards that we don’t have the ‘chemistry,’ which strikes me as fairly irrelevant when selecting a spouse to be honest) but I can certainly see his side.
Norms are changing and people should definitely be more FLEXIBLE. They should also try to maintain consistent worldviews. Women: if you think it’s important that women make equal pay to men (for unequal work, which is the implicit desire of many feminists) then expecting a man to pay, or to make more money than you, or be a provider, makes little sense.
This might seem inconsistent with your deepest romantic desires. I get that. Perhaps, in that case, you should re-examine the feminism…
I suspect that she didn’t REALLY like him. If he were more attractive or exciting I think she may have made a different decision.
Well going back to your explanations grounding biology, the drive to date up as it were doesn't disappear with women making their own money. So, a man arguing that it should be split will do himself no favors by making it an economic argument.
It’s commonly overlooked that women are financially in the hole by the time they even show up to the date. The imbalanced aesthetic maintenance society places on women for her to be made up, hair done, waxed etc usually means she’s already incurred the debt of that dinner check before it’s even laid on the table.
That's entirely your choice and problem. I always went 50:50 on first dates because it was an efficient way of weeding out entitled women. I don't care how physically attractive you are, or how much you spent on your appearance, if you are ugly on the inside. There is no way of disguising that. It becomes apparent when you open your mouth, or even from your body language, and it leaves me cold.
I may be in the minority but the strategy has served me well. I'm married and more than happy with my choice because our relationship is built on something that is not ephemeral.
Really enjoy the guys in the comments with no default photos that comment that this isn’t a factor
There’s also other costs! Like how about if we’re seen flirting with a guy at a networking event? It’ll cost professional connections, or a potential contract, because women who allow themselves to be feminine are seen as unprofessional… So I take a financial hit to show vulnerability, sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars, and he can’t pay for a date?
There’s a reason most women have become so rigid. Men hold all the cards for relationships and occasionally show us one (although my boyfriend now is incredible and I don’t deserve him, so I can’t complain)
Here’s a different way to make my point: what could men do, as individuals or as a collective, to upend these social standards? What could women do? Who has more power over the situation?
I think women place far too much emphasis on this. The men I know (and I know a lot) don’t care that much about a woman’s hair or makeup, and waxing won’t matter on a first date. There’s a massive industry (growing every day) which features goods and services meant to enhance the beauty of women but I don’t think that’s a ‘society’ thing. It’s a woman thing. It’s a problem (monetized insecurity) that seems to be growing worse and that’s not happening at the behest of men. It might be a natural dynamic of intrasexual competition in a rich and shallow culture.
‘Society’ in this context is a meaningless term. A woman can choose to use the products, and perhaps gain the beauty bonus, or not. In neither case can that be seen as a cost of the date, just as buying nice clothes or going to the gym wouldn’t be considered a cost for a man. If you want to change society’s beauty standards, stop wearing makeup, and find a man who doesn’t care about it. They’re out there.
In theory, a man should pay for the first date. But in practice, doing so in the United States often highlights a deeper issue: the way many American women signal an incomplete or selective approach to feminism.
It’s an interesting contrast. In countries like Iceland or Norway, women often insist on paying their share—and that doesn’t preclude intimacy or interest. Feminism there seems more fully integrated into social norms. In the U.S., however, feminism can sometimes feel like a pick-and-choose ideology, where certain parts are embraced and others conveniently ignored. That selectiveness can make the movement appear less serious or coherent.
If you want a second date you should probably pay for the first date. But if you want a woman who takes feminism to completion you might consider a Non-American.
If you want a traditional wife, it makes a lot of sense to go to a traditional culture abroad (or a traditional culture in the US, if you can tolerate those) to seek one there. Or pick the full egalitarianism of Scandinavia if that suits you better.
I think women are in a bind. If we don’t have our own money and go for a high status man, he’s going to eventually wander. If we do have our own money, then the standards are different. I don’t know that I would ever feel safe in a relationship without my own career.
That’s because-wait for it-it IS incoherent. Feminism is really just a way for borderline attractive women to game the system through a pseudo sociopolitical movement. Body positivity, colorism, #MeToo-all of these things land more make perfect sense when you translate them into mating terms. Ever notice that the highly in demand women are rarely out on the front lines of these movements? There’s a reason for that-because they’re already getting their needs met as a direct result of the very patriarchy feminism looks to smash. Rush Limbaugh was right: “Feminism was an attempt to give ugly women a chance”.
At the same time, feminism also allows women the ability to play fast and loose with the rules they have set-to determine when and where said rules apply and when they do not. In other words: Only hot guys apply. Street Harassment, the aforementioned #MeToo and others were all attempts to weed out the unwanted men from approaching-but as is often the case with the lady folk, they never though far enough ahead to ask if whether feminism can actually get them the men they really want. We all know the answer to that question and as per usual feminists and women more broadly want men to fix the problems feminists brought about in the first place. I am very happy to report that a small but growing number of men are tapping out of that game. Men are rightly-and finally- saying: “You broke it ladies-YOU fix it”.
Men have every right to demand upfront what they’re doing with a woman-whether she’s truly an egalitarian or a traditionalist-and demand that the ladies pick a lane and stay in it. No toggling back and forth when and where it suits them.
Another thing I’m heartened to see of late is that men are slowly but surely starting to cool their jets, take a few cold showers and start doing some simple math-and the math just ain’t mathin’ for a lot of guys. The average cost of a date is now several hundred dollars. Foodie calls are common, with a full third of American women having admitted going out on dates they had no romantic and certainly no sexual interest just for the “free food”. “Finesse culture” has now permeated the love and romance landscape. And try as he might, but Scott Galloway cannot convince guys that embarking on a Six Million Dollar Man rebuilding of themselves is worth all the trouble and hassle of trying to win over the hearts, minds and behinds of the ladies that’s on offer in the country these days. The numbers bear all this out.
The ladies have gotten what they wanted-to be equal. The men have said: “You will have it”. Enjoy, ladies!
Honestly this made me laugh in the best way; well put. I’m gonna steal “pick and choose ideology”. I think it’s no accident that I felt more ok with femininity after going back to Hinduism.
You do a great job of articulating the complexity of a seemingly simple thing.
Interestingly, I’m not sure “always split” is equal either. For example, if the date-maker suggests dinner at an expensive restaurant, it would be inappropriate for them to ask to split the bill.
Both parties can’t have it all.
P.S. I always paid, whether it’s fair or not didn’t seem relevant.
The PASK project was a meta-analysis of around 1,200 peer reviewed journal articles, if I remember correctly, so any figures are just approximations. While over a decade old now, it is the most comprehensive study ever conducted into intimate partner violence. There is a good summary online.
The following article is more recent and also excellent:
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/article/male-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence-insights-from-twenty-years-of-research/193401/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
What needs to be recognised is that there are significant barriers to men reporting IPV/DV, such that men are far less likely to report than women. Speaking from personal experience, it can also be difficult for men to even recognise that what they are experiencing is IPV/DV because nobody has ever explained to them that it is something that can happen to them. The hegemonic narrative ruthlessly policed by feminists is that only men are perpetrators and the "women and their children" are the victims. Note how women conflate women and children, cynically using children as human shields, when mothers are at least as likely to perpetrate abuse and neglect against children as fathers, and far more likely than genetic fathers to perpetrate abuse and neglect. Incidentally, while there are a lot of complicating factors at play, children have on average better outcomes when raised by single fathers than single mothers. The most violent relationships also happen to be lesbian relationships.
One of my genetic grandfathers experienced decades of verbal and physical abuse from his wife without ever speaking a word to anyone about it. I only know about it because another member of the extended family accidentally witnessed the abuse. My grandmother obviously thought she had left the house but she hadn't. My father admitted that he and his siblings had lived in fear of her outbursts but never spoke to anyone about it. When I asked what she said or did that was so bad, I've been met with "You don't want to know" and "I could never repeat it". She was vile to my mother, which was one of the two reasons why I was adopted (my maternal grandfather also forced my parents to call of their engagement before I was conceived). I'm repeating this anecdote because it illustrates the conspiracy of silence that surrounds female-perpetrated violence and abuse. Talking about it has long been taboo, I suspect because women work very hard to portray themselves as virtuous, selfless and morally superior. It is the reputational equivalent of make-up. Mess with that image and you will be met with an angry, often extreme reaction. The saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is apt.
Boys are taught never to hit a girl but girls receive no such instruction, yet it would be one of the most effective ways of reducing IPV/DV rates since most IPV is bi-directional (~60%) and bi-directional IPV is more often than not initiated by the woman. In other words, if women don't want to be victims of IPV then they should refrain from using violence themselves. However, our culture teaches the opposite to females. Women are often depicted slapping or hitting men, or otherwise causing them injury, and it is treated as normal, justified or even funny. Imagine if the roles were reversed and men were depicted slapping, hitting and injuring women because the women had said or done something to hurt the men's feelings.
I've been talking about physical violence when in fact women often prefer to use relational aggression, as you would know better than me.
I don't think the problems with feminism started with 3rd wave feminism. You can trace them back at least to the early female suffragists (c1860) who argued that women should be given the vote because they were morally superior and would be a civilising influence on parliament (how has that turned out?!). Fast forward to the Suffragettes and you have a movement that was every bit as vile as 3rd wave feminism. The Illustrated Empathy Gap has an excellent history of universal suffrage in the UK, which details the struggle of both men and women to win the right to the vote. I guarantee you won't think the same way about the Suffragettes if you read it. Their role in the white feather campaign, which bullied and shamed thousands of young men into enlisting; men who had never had the vote either, tells you everything you need to know about the roots of feminism in misandry. As far as I can see, misandry has always been a signifcant element in female culture, just as misogyny has been a significant element in male culture. I consider myself an anti-feminist because I believe in equality.
I don't know if I've addressed your original comment. It wasn't clear to me which comment you were referring to.
No. He should go 50:50 without exception. If he doesn't get a second date then he should be thankful that he's dodged a bullet. Entitled women are insufferable.
love seeing all these comments.
it's funny - i love these short, easy to read posts, but i never do that. my next post on dating is going to be huge.
I pay if it was my idea for the date. I'll pay if she prefers that I pay. If it's a first date with a girl who I've never met in person, I go for drinks and I'll pay, even if I find out I don't rly like her. One time a girl (who looked different than the photos, classic) started ordering both food and drinks. She was in it for the freebies. When the check came, I put down half and slid it over to her. Haha that was the end of that.
I think that is all reasonable and I’d have done the same at the end there.
It makes sense. Muy personal experience is difference: I havent seen any men kicking a woman. And defenitevily the narrative was not "kicking your wife" but protecting your family
I have on the other way seen 2 women with false allegations against men. And 1 women kicking a man with a scisors. Of course, she Will kit go to jail.
We basically agree. I believed that the 2000 were probably fine and even. Not the 1950, and not now.
Enjoyed reading this one and it definitely piqued my interest when it hit my inbox.
Love the idea of a a woman at least picking up some part of a multi-part date to reciprocate. I'm still in old-school in wanting a guy to pay on a date but I don't think that has happened in reality and I've let it slide-- so much more attractive when they do because it shows they are interested.
I completely agree with you that "Our culture encourages maladaptive behaviors for family formation," and given what I know about you and your family preferences, I think it's enlightened and wise of you to raise this as a point. As we have discussed before, regardless of one's feeling about children, we must admit that there is a benefit to society from family formation.
And this point too: Women’s ability to earn money doesn’t erase that tendency; if anything, it sharpens the selection process-- 100%. While it's not like new couples who have just started dating are comparing salaries, there will be some level of sizing up a person for what they are going to bring to the table (different story after they have already been dating awhile, married and they jointly decide on what works for their family).
Nice one!
I confirm. Partner here in Big Law. Almost 7 figures. 1.90, and fit. I dont commit ever. I dont even date: women are not longer worth. And, I dont pay for the first date. Never!
A big part of the problem is that a lot of women aren’t “feminist” in the 90s-20s academic and media promoted way, but we are judged and punished for the most radical elements of feminism… I can’t control the far left, or even really explain them.
Guys should be able to distinguish between women who want to be women and only ask out the variety that he is willing to cover the costs of a date with… If he is not willing, he probably isn’t all that interested in that particular woman in the first place
Women vote for the far left. They go into marches like the 8 march, and declare themselves feminists. Women LOVE the privileges that feminist have them, like gender quotas and affirmative action. You cannot have one with the other: either you recognise that men are generally more capable and assume more sacrifices and have different roles in society as reulst of that, and hence we are teaditionslists, or you assume that women are equal and you are a feminist.
I have never once participated in any of that garbage. Most women actually haven’t.
Of course men are more capable at most things, and assume a bigger burden of society than women do; but historically, women have made the most sacrifices for others (that may not be the case now)
The reality is, that in the past, some men would go to a saloon, get drunk, sleep with a prostitute, come home, beat his wife, make her sleep with him against her will, and give her a disease, and somehow this was not something that could land him in jail. I, personally, do not want to go back to a world in which it was okay for some men to hit their wives.
Men does at war more as well. And women were also to blame on that (for example, with the "White father" movement). And men continue to die more at war (like in Ukraine, where men were forced to join the army while women flew away).
And women are now making false allegations to get custody rigths.
Men biting their wifes were an absolute exception, and It was never right to kick a girl. Actually, masculinity was the opposite: extremely protective of women.
75% of the people at the Titinic were men: 90% of survivals were women. And the 10% men was ashamed by the society for having survive during all their lives.
There were abusive men? Of course. As now. And as there were (and there are) abusive women.
But 99.99% was about protection of women.
We never EVER have had any period in time were we have protected men more than women. NEVER.
Yeah, um, my dad’s mom was hit by my dad’s dad, and she didn’t see anything wrong with it; so it’s gonna be a hard pass from me on pure traditional living.
Men do make a lot of sacrifices in war; but in non-wartime, which is most of the time, it’s women who are biologically wired for self-sacrifice. The pendulum did swing too far the other direction the last thirty years, I do see that; but I was expected to stay back when my mother died and be there for my younger sister; and help with household expenses when my father got cancer; so the idea of women “not sacrificing” in modern times is patently false.
I have never been into intersectionality, gender neutrality, or stepping stools for women to climb over men; so I’m not your target demographic; however, I work in a man’s field and would never allow my father to choose my future spouse, so I can’t not be a feminist. Does that make sense?
Outside wartime, men tend to occupy the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. They sacrifice their lives and health at far greater rates than women, yet you assert that it is women who are biologically wired for self-sacrifice. My impression is that women are biologically wired for self-interest more than genuine self-sacrifice.
Women are just as violent as men in intimate partner relationships and more likely to initiate bi-directional violence. Women are less capable of inflicting severe injuries, which is why they tend to resort to using knives.
Tim, did you not have a mother? My grandmother, my mom, my adopted mom, and most of my
aunts all have little of their original identity left… because they have poured all of who they are into their children.
I’m not talking about what modern ideologies have done. I’m talking about the way things had been before 3rd and 4th wave feminist law and family court altered things
Even now, women are nowhere near as violent as men in relationships. Where on earth did you get that stat?
I do have guys friends that have had their exes try to hurt them, but it’s at nowhere near the rate my girl friends have had to get out of bad situations.
Here's my question then: why are we clinging to feminism as though it means anything or there is any agreement on what the demands are? What do we gain?
That’s a good question. Hm, functionally, what I’ve seen out in the political field, is a lot of feminist think tanks, PACs, and 501(c)4s have been spinning their wheels to keep themselves employed; or to keep getting money to endorse candidates. I don’t think it’s been about women in general for several decades.
(For context, I had previously considered myself anti-feminist until elderly women argued the point with me about how things were in their day, and by the measure of their generation I was the definition of a feminist)
The irony is that 3rd and 4th wave feminists wrapped themselves in intersectionality in order to stay relevant, but effectively put themselves in a straight jacket, unable to fight for women’s sports and safety when they needed to, or to back off when they realized their policies were harming families (and some refuse to acknowledge this)
But then, so many lobbies have outlived their usefulness and refuse to pivot. Movements do have motion and it’s hard to dam them up and direct the flow elsewhere, but it’s gotta be done
I would say the modern 'feminist' 'movement' hasn't accomplished anything of note, only reordering society according to their social norms. But, I think this is a comment I need to save for the follow up post that clearly needs to be written.
That would be great. I only see things downstream in activistland… where all sides/ideologies/interest groups are running around battleground states bumping into each other
As a Gen X guy who grew up with second-wave feminism and has always been fully on board, I always pay. I also did game theory modeling of evolutionary selection pressure in college, and am well aware evolutionary biology is a problem for strict ideas about quality. I don't care.
For those of us who aren't that special 1% of guys, courtship (while you're young, at least) generally means the guy trying to sell himself to the girl. Traditionally this was the case and I don't think the sexual revolution has changed it much. Young women have always been chasing that 1%, even if in the old days that meant holding out for Prince Charming instead of dating apps. As a salesman trying to woo a partner, of course you're paying when you ask them to dinner.
Why wouldn't you? Is the money that big a deal? Being poor isn't sexy, and stingy isn't either. Are you afraid of being taken advantage of? Being afraid isn't sexy, and she did you a favor already agreeing to the date. You'd have to have a pretty big chip on your shoulder about feminism not to be generous, and that isn't sexy either.
If you take the view that she is something special - and you should at least as a courtesy, if you are asking her out* - you can believe in women's equality without having to impose it on her for your date. Or ever, really.
(*My worldview does not include dating apps, but for me it wouldn't change anything.)
I really was supposed to have been Gen X. Born a few years too late.
On the flip side, what man would feel comfortable with the woman paying on a first date?
That would be strange. It would also be the last date I went on with that woman.
She's (right up front) signaling, “I don't need you to provide for me.” Which is code for, “I'm going to be your lifelong girl boss!” Nope…
Similarly, why would a man ask a woman for her time, then charge her for it? That's essentially what's happening in that scenario from the woman's side.
But you're correct, today, men and women (in the West) are pit against one another in ways that are strange and counterproductive to society, and the continuation of the human race.
Creepy ass role reversal, and constant unnecessary tension. Antithetical requests between the two sexes, it's just ignorant and unnecessary.
This nonsense is not by accident either. Nothing gets this far to the side of stupid -- without some serious nudging and thought manipulation. And that's exactly what's happened.
However, I think some people are beginning to snap out of it. Slowly but surely, more men and women are doing what they want, not what “society" tells them they should want.
So you're saying that the signal there is that she doesn't need you? I am reading underneath here that being a provider is still crucial, and to be needed. Which is human.
To an extent yes. It's not necessarily that she "needs" a man, literally for survival. It's more that she would be telling the man that, "I don't *need* you!" "I might tolerate you..."
This in turn makes the man a commodity.
I suppose the woman could think the same way, but the difference is that the man would pay -- because it's his duty (a societal norm). The woman would pay to "prove a point."
"This argument convinced me because all around me, I see evidence that neither sex has transcended the reproductive incentives we evolved with, even in the six decades since birth control decoupled sex from marriage. Women still view the first date as a signal of whether a man is willing to provide resources. And I get why even the most feminist-leaning women still expect a guy to pay: we want selective equality, and I don’t even mean that with contempt. I recognize biological reality. The pressure to reproduce shapes human behavior more than we like to admit, so our stated and revealed preferences don’t align."
I don't think we'll EVER evolve past those reproductive incentives, and if we did, I think we would be horrified at the society which resulted (imagine if technology and money and institutions were used to satisfy the desires and goals of those with money, without any regard for morality or tradition or natural human dynamics).
A lot of this confusion comes from the fallacy that these cultural artifacts (dates, makeup, relationship priorities, desires for commitment) are PURELY matters of culture and choice. How many women believe they're actually choosing men based on personality, or 'compatibility'? How many women say that they CHOOSE to wear makeup (or heels, or nice clothes), regardless of what men think? How many women don't understand why men won't CHOOSE to date older women, if they have options (they're so much more mature! More experienced! More successful!)? People are mistaking their thoughts and impulses for the drivers of these decisions, when they're more like signals to a much deeper sociobiological process playing out unconsciously. The best you can do is be aware of it, but many folks don't like to acknowledge it because it punctures narratives of feminism and subjectivity and personal agency (and fate and astrology and destiny, and all the rest).
Of course, these things (makeup, dates, priorities, life plans) are cultural but they're firmly rooted in biology. Dates are unequal because women are much more choosy about sexual partners because their reproductive resources are much more valuable-biology. Women wear makeup because physical appearance is a more important variable for male mate selection, in every culture (that I know of)-biology. Women are much more focused on commitment and connection before sex because pregnancy is a huge risk for them, and so they're still operating with these neural and psychological impulses, even in the age of birth control-biology.
If you're a woman who thinks that you have a choice over your romantic tendencies, then choose to be attracted to short men (a massive genetic red flag) or low status men. I don't mean 'not rich' men; I mean disorganized, lazy, unassertive men. These traits are basically irrelevant for men but they're extremely salient for women, because women WANT a protector and a provider. But if you're a woman you should be able to see past the laziness and sloppy lifestyle, and love the person within. Right? Or is this just a nonnegotiable, and you're not interested in the person within a lazy and sloppy and irresponsible man? We all know the answer.
This kind of thinking seems to be more common among women (thinking that personal thoughts and feelings are the important ingredient, plus some element of magical thinking) but I'm sure they're extant among men too (I don't date men).
Just don't think that you're some kind of sentimental supercomputer who's making good choices based on feminine intuition and a mystical calculation about who's 'right' for you. That kind of thinking traps millions of women in relationships with narcissists and abusers, with whom they have great chemistry. Why are such men so attractive to certain women? Sometimes there are psychological factors at play (some women seem to be uniquely disposed toward selecting bad men). But among young women, a man with 'dark triad' traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) are generally MORE attractive than others. Why? Biology, probably.
I can't find anything to disagree with, though I chafe at the makeup thing simply because it is used to deny that women have agency in choosing to wear makeup in the first place. That said, I will grant that women may wear makeup to make themselves appear to have the traits a man finds attractive rather than the makeup itself being the attractor. There is a cost to being a woman in this particular class, which does mean I'd have saved money over time. But those were still choices. At no point was I willing to tolerate a lazy man. Even if a woman thinks she's attracted to a man without ambition, over time that will reveal itself to be a self-delusion (speaking from experience). Save thing with assertiveness. Non-negotiable, indeed, but at least I admit it to myself. I made the wrong choice the first time I marriage because of the dissonance of stated and revealed preferences.
WAAAAAAYYYY too much attention is paid by both sexes to who pays for what. It's such a stupid measure of another person. Do you vibe? Do you like each other? *Can he pull his own weight financially*? (Many men, as you point out, can't.) And anyway, women shouldn't rely on men for financial in/dependence. NEVER rely on another human being for that. My mother taught me well.
I have now spent years on dating apps and been on dozens of first dates. I’m sympathetic to both sides. I always pay (even though 85% of the time the woman tells me afterwards that we don’t have the ‘chemistry,’ which strikes me as fairly irrelevant when selecting a spouse to be honest) but I can certainly see his side.
Norms are changing and people should definitely be more FLEXIBLE. They should also try to maintain consistent worldviews. Women: if you think it’s important that women make equal pay to men (for unequal work, which is the implicit desire of many feminists) then expecting a man to pay, or to make more money than you, or be a provider, makes little sense.
This might seem inconsistent with your deepest romantic desires. I get that. Perhaps, in that case, you should re-examine the feminism…
I suspect that she didn’t REALLY like him. If he were more attractive or exciting I think she may have made a different decision.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/serenity-self-indulgence
Well going back to your explanations grounding biology, the drive to date up as it were doesn't disappear with women making their own money. So, a man arguing that it should be split will do himself no favors by making it an economic argument.
If I initiate by asking for the date, I am intending to treat my date to a nice evening.
Yes, I said ‘treat”.
It’s commonly overlooked that women are financially in the hole by the time they even show up to the date. The imbalanced aesthetic maintenance society places on women for her to be made up, hair done, waxed etc usually means she’s already incurred the debt of that dinner check before it’s even laid on the table.
That's entirely your choice and problem. I always went 50:50 on first dates because it was an efficient way of weeding out entitled women. I don't care how physically attractive you are, or how much you spent on your appearance, if you are ugly on the inside. There is no way of disguising that. It becomes apparent when you open your mouth, or even from your body language, and it leaves me cold.
I may be in the minority but the strategy has served me well. I'm married and more than happy with my choice because our relationship is built on something that is not ephemeral.
Really enjoy the guys in the comments with no default photos that comment that this isn’t a factor
There’s also other costs! Like how about if we’re seen flirting with a guy at a networking event? It’ll cost professional connections, or a potential contract, because women who allow themselves to be feminine are seen as unprofessional… So I take a financial hit to show vulnerability, sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars, and he can’t pay for a date?
There’s a reason most women have become so rigid. Men hold all the cards for relationships and occasionally show us one (although my boyfriend now is incredible and I don’t deserve him, so I can’t complain)
AFAICT, human females don't dress up, wax, etc. for men, but for each other.
Here’s a different way to make my point: what could men do, as individuals or as a collective, to upend these social standards? What could women do? Who has more power over the situation?
I think women place far too much emphasis on this. The men I know (and I know a lot) don’t care that much about a woman’s hair or makeup, and waxing won’t matter on a first date. There’s a massive industry (growing every day) which features goods and services meant to enhance the beauty of women but I don’t think that’s a ‘society’ thing. It’s a woman thing. It’s a problem (monetized insecurity) that seems to be growing worse and that’s not happening at the behest of men. It might be a natural dynamic of intrasexual competition in a rich and shallow culture.
‘Society’ in this context is a meaningless term. A woman can choose to use the products, and perhaps gain the beauty bonus, or not. In neither case can that be seen as a cost of the date, just as buying nice clothes or going to the gym wouldn’t be considered a cost for a man. If you want to change society’s beauty standards, stop wearing makeup, and find a man who doesn’t care about it. They’re out there.
In theory, a man should pay for the first date. But in practice, doing so in the United States often highlights a deeper issue: the way many American women signal an incomplete or selective approach to feminism.
It’s an interesting contrast. In countries like Iceland or Norway, women often insist on paying their share—and that doesn’t preclude intimacy or interest. Feminism there seems more fully integrated into social norms. In the U.S., however, feminism can sometimes feel like a pick-and-choose ideology, where certain parts are embraced and others conveniently ignored. That selectiveness can make the movement appear less serious or coherent.
If you want a second date you should probably pay for the first date. But if you want a woman who takes feminism to completion you might consider a Non-American.
If you want a traditional wife, it makes a lot of sense to go to a traditional culture abroad (or a traditional culture in the US, if you can tolerate those) to seek one there. Or pick the full egalitarianism of Scandinavia if that suits you better.
I think women are in a bind. If we don’t have our own money and go for a high status man, he’s going to eventually wander. If we do have our own money, then the standards are different. I don’t know that I would ever feel safe in a relationship without my own career.
Huh?!?! But you can control your standards! If your standards are too high, that's a "you" problem! Women like that made their own bind!
That’s because-wait for it-it IS incoherent. Feminism is really just a way for borderline attractive women to game the system through a pseudo sociopolitical movement. Body positivity, colorism, #MeToo-all of these things land more make perfect sense when you translate them into mating terms. Ever notice that the highly in demand women are rarely out on the front lines of these movements? There’s a reason for that-because they’re already getting their needs met as a direct result of the very patriarchy feminism looks to smash. Rush Limbaugh was right: “Feminism was an attempt to give ugly women a chance”.
At the same time, feminism also allows women the ability to play fast and loose with the rules they have set-to determine when and where said rules apply and when they do not. In other words: Only hot guys apply. Street Harassment, the aforementioned #MeToo and others were all attempts to weed out the unwanted men from approaching-but as is often the case with the lady folk, they never though far enough ahead to ask if whether feminism can actually get them the men they really want. We all know the answer to that question and as per usual feminists and women more broadly want men to fix the problems feminists brought about in the first place. I am very happy to report that a small but growing number of men are tapping out of that game. Men are rightly-and finally- saying: “You broke it ladies-YOU fix it”.
Men have every right to demand upfront what they’re doing with a woman-whether she’s truly an egalitarian or a traditionalist-and demand that the ladies pick a lane and stay in it. No toggling back and forth when and where it suits them.
Another thing I’m heartened to see of late is that men are slowly but surely starting to cool their jets, take a few cold showers and start doing some simple math-and the math just ain’t mathin’ for a lot of guys. The average cost of a date is now several hundred dollars. Foodie calls are common, with a full third of American women having admitted going out on dates they had no romantic and certainly no sexual interest just for the “free food”. “Finesse culture” has now permeated the love and romance landscape. And try as he might, but Scott Galloway cannot convince guys that embarking on a Six Million Dollar Man rebuilding of themselves is worth all the trouble and hassle of trying to win over the hearts, minds and behinds of the ladies that’s on offer in the country these days. The numbers bear all this out.
The ladies have gotten what they wanted-to be equal. The men have said: “You will have it”. Enjoy, ladies!
Schrodinger's feminism
Honestly this made me laugh in the best way; well put. I’m gonna steal “pick and choose ideology”. I think it’s no accident that I felt more ok with femininity after going back to Hinduism.
You do a great job of articulating the complexity of a seemingly simple thing.
Interestingly, I’m not sure “always split” is equal either. For example, if the date-maker suggests dinner at an expensive restaurant, it would be inappropriate for them to ask to split the bill.
Both parties can’t have it all.
P.S. I always paid, whether it’s fair or not didn’t seem relevant.
Then you get into thorny issues about class. And that women, ironically, are often in more precarious positions than the men they're pursuing.
Can you explain your point further? Are you saying that women are less financially secure?