How Sexism Hurts Men: “Undateable”
If you were to read a book, written by men, giving straight women advice on how to turn themselves into acceptable romantic partners — a book consistently advising women to adhere to a rigid, narrow window of traditional gender roles if they hope to find and keep a man — what would be your reaction?
Would your feminist sensibilities be horrified? Would you be writing angry letters to the publisher, or posting angry rants about it on the Internet? Would you mock it as a hilariously campy example of ’50s and ’60s social propaganda . . . and be shocked to realize it had actually been published this year?
So what would you think of a book written by women, giving straight men advice on how to turn themselves into acceptable romantic partners . . . which consistently advises men to adhere to a rigid, narrow window of traditional gender roles if they hope to find and keep a woman?
If you’re a feminist — and I’m going to assume that if you’re a regular reader of the Blowfish Blog, you’re probably a feminist — you’re familiar with how social programming guilt-trips and fear-mongers women into rigid and sexist gender roles. It’s not like it’s hard to find examples of it. It’s freaking everywhere. But I think we’re less familiar with how social programming guilt-trips and fear-mongers men into rigid and sexist gender roles. Our feminist sensibilities aren’t on as much of a hair trigger for male gender-role propaganda. And when this propaganda is subtle, I think we often overlook it.
But we have a magnificently un-subtle version of it in a new book: Undateable: 311 Things Guys Do That Guarantee They Won’t Be Dating or Having Sex. Based on the website of the same name, Undateable is an advice book, funny and snarky but with a sincere intent, about common failings straight men have in the dating department: things men wear and say and do that, without realizing it, make them entirely unacceptable to the opposite sex.
Now, I will admit: Parts of this book are superficially funny, and a fair amount of its advice I agree with. Or rather, since one of my main objections to the book is “Who the hell cares what these women or anyone else thinks, who died and made them the arbiter of manhood?”, it might be more accurate to say: A fair number of these authors’ preferences are ones I share. (I don’t like sandals with socks, either.) But I find a huge amount of this book utterly baffling. Many of its “Don’ts” seem entirely neutral, random to the point of being surreal. Don’t own a van? Don’t play video games? Don’t be lactose intolerant? It’s as if the authors were advising men, for the sweet love of Jesus, whatever else they do, if they want women to date them and have sex with them, don’t eat green beans. And for me, many of the “Don’ts” in this book are actually positive “Do’s.” Making the whole exercise even more perplexing. (I like colored sheets, and body piercings, and guys who go to Star Trek conventions. So sue me.)
Much more to the point, though: Taken together, these 311 pieces of advice on how to forge yourself into a dateable guy paint a picture of acceptable manhood — not idealized manhood, not even desirable manhood, just base-level tolerable manhood — that is so rigid, and so narrow, it rivals anything any woman has ever read in any stupid, shallow, “20 Tips On Catching a Man” women’s magazine. It’s so narrow, Odysseus himself couldn’t navigate through it. It’s so rigid, it’d make the manufacturers of Viagra jealous.
The primary thrust of this book is that men ought to be manly — but not too manly. They can’t be girly or sissy . . . but they can’t be macho gorillas, either. They have to find a perfect, razor-thin window of perfect masculinity. And they somehow have to not be self-conscious or anxious while doing it . . .since that’s not very manly.
This narrow window of masculinity crops up most obviously with the advice about appearance. Men have to not look like they care too much what they look like — but they can’t look like they’ve let themselves go, either, or like they’re entirely unconcerned with how they look. (And they obviously have to care enough about how they look to follow the advice in this book.) Signifiers that we typically think of as female are right out: no jewelry, gelled hair, dyed hair, “man-purses,” “girlie” sunglasses, (the phrase “girlie” crops up in this book with astonishing frequency), etc. In fact, injunctions against femininity are probably the most common in this book — and they’re easily among the most venomous. But signifiers that are too obviously masculine are also nixed: sports jerseys are out, camouflage jackets are out, excessive body hair has to be trimmed, shaved, or waxed. (Except eyebrows and chest. You can’t wax your eyebrows or shave your chest. Just back, neck, nose, and ears.) Jeans can’t be too slobby . . . but they can’t be too tailored or embellished. And no colorful flash — not even Hawaiian shirts. (Quote: “Instead, go with a polo shirt or a long-sleeved, lightweight cotton oxford shirt in white, pale blue, or a mild stripe.” In other words: Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring.)
But the sliver-thin window between “macho gorilla” and “girlie man” applies to behavior as well. Men can’t be bad dancers . . . but they can’t be too good of a dancer, either. They can’t be heavy drinkers . . . but they can’t be lightweights. (And they can’t order “girlie drinks.”) They can’t be aggressive drivers . . . or sissy drivers. They have to exercise . . . but not too much. And they can’t diet. Dieting is girly. I am not fucking kidding you. Quote: “Men are supposed to lose weight by exercising, not by acting like a woman.” Who cares whether it works or not. Although the authors obviously do care whether it works. Being fat is high on their Don’t list. Men can’t be fat. They just can’t manage it by diet. That’s girly. And they have to be assertive and dominant — it’s news to me, but apparently women like men who “TAKE CHARGE” (all-caps theirs) and make all the plans for the date — but not too dominant. And again, not so assertive that they ignore the advice in this book and make their own damn decisions about this stuff.
There are some fascinating exhortations about class in this book as well — exhortations that make the link between class and masculinity vividly clear. In order to be dateable, men have to not give off signifiers that they’re blue-collar or working class. No jacked-up cars; no clothing with skulls or tattoo art; no going to shooting ranges. But at the same time, they can’t be too intellectual or urbane. And no nerdiness at all: no Star Trek conventions; no Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft; no Renaissance Faires. (In other words — nix to practically my entire circle of friends. Most of whom, I might point out, are in relationships. With other Trekkies/ D&D freaks/ Renfaire nerds.) Apparently, ideal manhood — no, strike that, even just barely acceptable manhood — means being comfortably middle-class . . . and staying firmly within that class. No mobility for you, pal. Upward or downward.
Plus the authors of this book are obsessed with money and maleness to an almost comical degree. Men have to pay. Period. They have to pay on the first date; they have to pay on every other date; they can’t use half-off coupons on dinner dates; they have to pay for valet parking. It’s like reading Emily Post from the 1950s. If I might offer my own “Don’t” to the ladies who authored this book: Don’t be freaking hypocrites. Women cannot demand equality and liberation, and then demand that men pay our way. At full price.
And, of course, expressions of sex and sexuality have to be carefully monitored. Men definitely can’t look too sexless. Roughly half the book consists of advice on not seeming sexless. But at the same time, they can’t express their sexuality too overtly. No body piercings; no leather pants; no use of slang terms for masturbation. (Dead giveaway as to the authors’ attitude towards sex: “Not that the word masturbation is so delightful . . .”) And no “prepping for sex.” You know what? I don’t like mirrored ceilings or satin sheets, either. I sure as hell do like men — and women — with dildos, buttplugs, lube, whips, ropes, nipple clamps, bondage cuffs, massage oil, and so on. For me, or for them. Or for both of us. I like men — and women — who care enough about sex to make it a priority in their life. I like men — and women — who honor sex enough to consciously prepare for it, instead of pretending that it sprang on them by accident.
But here was the kicker for me. Here was the “Don’t” that kicked this book up from Mildly Annoying But Sort Of Funny to Prime Example Of Everything That’s Wrong With Gender In Our Society.
If you want to be a dateable man — if you want to be manly enough to deserve a woman (although not too manly!) — you can’t have a cat.
I repeat: You can’t have a cat. Well, you can if it belonged to your dead grandmother, or if you found it on the street and felt sorry for it. But deliberate cat ownership — going to a pet store or a shelter and acquiring a cat on purpose — is verboten.
You can’t have a cat.
You can’t have a CAT?!?!?
What. The. Hell. Is wrong with these people?
What makes them think that masculinity is so delicate, so easily disturbed, that owning a cat will undermine it? What makes them think modern masculinity is so fragile that the entirely normal, even fundamental human activity of loving animals — and the entirely reasonable decision that you like cats better than dogs — puts it into peril? What makes them see this obvious signpost of “nurturing and willing to make a commitment” — qualities that modern straight women are famously looking for in men — as so repulsively feminine it renders men completely unfuckable?
What. The. Hell?
•
Now. I will freely acknowledge: I, and my social circle, are probably not the audience for this book. There’s probably not a big market for books on How To Get Nerdy, Kinky, Non-Monogamously Married Bi-Dyke Sex Freaks To Date You. There is almost certainly a significant population of women — fairly mainstream, fairly conventional, middle-class urban and suburban women — who will read this book, laugh uproariously, and nod in vigorous agreement with everything in it. And there are almost certainly other women who will vigorously agree with parts of this book and vehemently disagree with others . . . agreements and disagreements that will be the complete opposite of my own.
But . . . well, actually, that’s exactly my point. Here’s what my wife Ingrid said when I was ranting to her about this book: “There are a million different ways to be a man, and there are a million different ways to be a woman.” And we each need to find out for ourselves what being a woman or being a man means for us . . . and how we want to express that. Yes, fashion is a language, with a common vocabulary; and yes, we should have a basic familiarity with that language so we can be sure we’re saying what we want to. We don’t want to say the sartorial equivalent of “My hovercraft is full of eels” when we’re trying to say, “Please direct me to the railway station.” Ditto manners. But if we’re going to make contact with people who we, personally, will connect with — people whose feelings about masculinity and femininity are simpatico with our own — we need to have the courage and confidence to say, “Here is who I am” . . . and not, “Here is another sheep in a blue polo shirt who’s insecure about his masculinity and is terrified of being abnormal.”
And you know the weird thing? In theory, the authors of the book actually agree with me. Sort of. In the introduction, before they get to the Litany of Bad Manhood, they say this:
There may be a few of you who read this book and think, Who the hell do these women think they are, telling us what to wear, what to say, and how to act? I’ll do whatever the f*** I want. To that we say, GOOD FOR YOU. Seriously. As one of our guy friends said, “Everyone’s got the right to develop their own swagger.” And we couldn’t agree more. If you love your bowling shirts and think your pinkie rings are hot, then keep wearing them and tell us to go jam it. Because in the end, what women really love is a guy who knows what he likes and has the balls to stick to it. So guys, listen closely, because this is what you really need to know:
THERE IS NOTHING SEXIER THAN A MAN WITH CONFIDENCE.
Okay. Fine.
So why the hell did they write this book?
Why do they tell men to develop their own swagger . . . and then spend 184 pages describing the exceedingly narrow window in which that swagger can take place?
Why do they tell men to be themselves, do what they like, and tell the world to stuff it . . . and then write a 184-page how-to manual for anxious self-consciousness, describing in detail how the things men like are appalling?
Why do they tell men to have confidence . . . which they then spend 184 pages undermining?
I have no idea.
But then, I’m obviously an idiot.
After all, I like men with cats.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 11:41 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 11:43 am The Blowfishies wrote:
Damn, David Bowie, Brian Eno, Adam Ant and David Byrne will be devastated to know those were all mercy fucks.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 12:45 pm Anna wrote:
How does one say “My hovercraft is full of eels” with clothing? Nothing in my closet is quite getting it across….
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 1:01 pm twistedpyxie wrote:
Bits. Guess all the guys I’ve ever slept with have been Doin’ It Rong..
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:00 pm Vernon Balbert wrote:
Cats are one of the most successful predators ever. There’s nothing wimpy about being a predator or admiring them. :) (Besides that, they’re cuddly and fuzzy. Oops, I blew it.)
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:17 pm Darlene wrote:
The moment I knew I would marry my husband is when he held out his ice cream bar for his cat to have a taste…
And he wears Hawiian shirts.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:23 pm Karen wrote:
Anna: Think steampunk fishmonger.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:29 pm scott wrote:
I suppose I AM the intended audience of this book. I’m 41, straight and single. I am supposed to need this book.
I don’t.
You’re right: it’s insulting and backward. I wouldn’t give it or its authors the time of day.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:51 pm jemand wrote:
The following pictures are TEH TOTES HOTTESSTNESS!!!
http://www.manofest.com/Galleries/Bizarre/30-Men-With-Cats/Men-With-Cats-2-8316.html#joomimg
http://aylawolf.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/an-excuse-for-pictures-of-hot-men-with-cats/
http://www.menandcats.com/
http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecouncil/candy-land/cute-boys-with-cats-the-blog-f/index.php?page=1
Etc. Men must have cats! Otherwise I am not interested. Although… in the process of *getting* a cat because previous living arraignments didn’t allow for one is acceptable as well.
Anyway.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 2:52 pm DapperAnarchist wrote:
To be honest, this sort of thing worries me, in a completely personal way. While I’m currently happily in a relationship, I’m moving away soon, and at some point in the future will probably be hoping to find a relationship with someone with whom I have little to no previous social connection (I’ve been in the same college for 5 years). I’m a wargamer, unapologetically so. I have a collection of metal and plastic models of cybernetic soldiers from the 41st millennium. And I’m worried that will put me outside peoples “acceptably male” category. Other than that, I’m a philosopher, I like suits, I have a beard, and I enjoy martial arts and biking, most of which seems reasonably masculine (at least the suits and beard part), but I’m worried that my hobby of wargaming will produce laughs, because I know it has for other people. Its not on people’s standard “acceptable maleness” list, and so I may not be either.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 3:20 pm Narvi wrote:
@Anna: Like this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/popculture/c9e9/
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 3:44 pm Travis wrote:
Terrible. I’m single, but not desperate to hook up with one of the authors of that piece of shit.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 4:22 pm Greta Christina wrote:
Oh, btw, I forgot to mention about jeans: They can’t be “dad jeans” that sit at the waist, but they can’t be too low-rise either. And they can’t be light blue — too girly, apparently — but they can’t be black, either. These women are obsessed with jeans. Apparently only dark blue 501s that sit at the hips will do. (Although their obsessions with jeans is nothing compared to their exegesis on socks. Which must be read to be believed.)
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 5:06 pm DSimon wrote:
Here is how I expect the authors of that book would respond if they read this critique: “Lighten up, will you, it’s supposed to be a humor book!”
And here’s my response: “What, so that makes it immune from criticism? Especially when you’re giving advice that you really think is a good idea, even if you’re doing so humorously?”
A hypothetical girl who insists that I have to change my hobbies and interests and mannerisms before she’d date me… is not actually interested in me. She’s interested in some hypothetical guy, somebody with different hobbies and interests and mannerisms. I’m not going to become that guy so as to move closer to the center of some bell curve of attractiveness.
Instead, I’ll just go looking for a different girl who I’m actually compatible with.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 5:32 pm arensb wrote:
I haven’t read the book, but I’ve looked over the site, and the most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that these tips aren’t make-or-break absolutes that spell the difference between chick magnet and shoggoth. Rather, they’re things that will lose a man points when Jane Vanilla Average is assessing him. Combined with a certain amount of over-the-top snark that makes for entertaining reading: “Undateable” is a catcher title than “How You Might Be Hurting Your Chances of Getting a Date Without Realizing It”.
Of course, since I haven’t read the book, I could be wrong.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 6:16 pm Jim wrote:
I cannot think of a less desirable woman than Jane Vanilla Average. You have to settle and change yourself and you still won’t be happy? Well where do I sign up?!
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 9:01 pm spacefall wrote:
I actually, literally doubled over with laughter when I got to the bit about cats being verboten. I mean, I saw it on the cover and thought, what, men with cats are undateable? But somehow I just didn’t believe that could actually be what the picture was trying to communicate.
But what do I know? I also like nerdy bearded guys who sometimes wear the wrong kinds of jeans, and are also intellectual and handcuff-wielding.
on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 11:11 pm MaxVolageSF wrote:
@DapperAnarchist
Don’t let it worry you. I would fail the vast majority of this silly (sad) book’s rules. But I found that women seem MUCH more likely to respond well to mutual respect & honest communication, than trying to follow any dumb checklist. Playing manipulation games is rarely any kind of winner for any meaningful relationship. Another handy approach I have found: Minimize hidden agendas.. they pretty much get you into trouble.
All the best
Max
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 6:59 am Rugger wrote:
Maybe I’d pay more attention to the authors comments if I were attracted to whiny self-centered bitches like them. They deserve the losers they are going to end up with.
My 1981 Mercedes Benz Diesel is a chick magnet, at least for the class of woman I am attracted to. I would not be attracted to a woman that is attracted to a guy becase he has a hot muscle car. Those women deserve all the misery they are going to get later in life.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 7:42 am Kim wrote:
A guy who loves cats would be right up my alley. So would a nerdy guy who goes to sci-fi conventions.
What a dumb book!
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 8:06 am steve wrote:
@arensb: I’m not sure “shoggoth” is the opposite of “chick magnet”. I’d think a good would get women all the time, if ya’ know what I mean.
Having proven myself nerdy, I’ve got to say that a few years ago this kind of nonsense almost drew me in. I was 26 and had been rather unsuccessful at dating up ’til then. Eventually I realized what several previous commenters have pointed out: pretending to be Mr. Standard Male will only attract Ms. Standard Female. Screw that: I don’t want her.
I once met one of the world’s top Magic the Gathering players, and later observed him in a dance club. He had very convincing charisma and confidence. Every young woman in the room was watching him. Having a nerdy hobby doesn’t make you undateable, but a lack of confidence might.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 8:25 am Libby wrote:
I think I just figured out my type; any man who fails their idea of masculinity. The worse they fail the hotter they are. Bonus points if he manages to fail by falling into multiple categories; macho man who owns a cat and wears pink, blue collar worker who plays WoW on weekends, mega nerd who wears jewelry and camouflage jackets, “effeminate” man who knows what to do with a whip…
Also, what’s wrong with being lactose intolerant? You’d think they’d at least have the courtesy to stick to things men have a choice about. So what’s a guy who is lactose intolerant supposed to do, lie about it? Sneak his pills for the duration of the relationship? What about other conditions? Is it unmanly to be nearsighted? Color blind? Allergic to seafood? Dyslexic? What if you lost a couple fingers rescuing a kitten from a railroad track? Is that combination of mildly disabled, macho and cat-loving fundamentally unattractive?
Crazy women.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 10:23 am Connie wrote:
Generic men for generic women. More power too them if that’s what they want but for me? No thanks. My mom used to say that there’s a lid for all kettles. Well I’m an irregularly shaped kettle and a generic lid might be adequate but an irregular lid would fit a lot better. I’m not settling (have done that, it was miserable, do not want to repeat), I’ll hold out for the quirky, nerdy, just-my-type guy. I may not always have someone in my life but I’d rather be alone than settle for an artificially flavored vanilla any-man.
Let your freak flag fly, I say.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 11:11 am Valhar2000 wrote:
Do they actually believe this crap, or is this like the “Stuff white people like” blog? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be at all serious about a book like this. “Stuff white people like” is equally crappy, but the authors know its crap*, and they have fun with it, and the result is good.
* I don’t mean that they are making humor in a “Rush Limbaugh saying he is not responsible for the violence people commit on those he declares enemies because he is just an entertainer” sense, but rather humor in a “Steven Colbert” sense.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 11:50 am Greta Christina wrote:
arensb: That’s a very charitable way of interpreting the book… and being a charitable person, I tried interpreting it that way at first. And the authors do, in fact, rank their Don’ts from the relatively mild Red Flag to the flatly unacceptable Kiss of Death — so you could argue that they’re not trying to set up gender-normative absolutes, just rough guidelines. You could argue that they’re simply trying to provide the phrasebook to the language of fashion and manners, so men can be familiar with that language and make their own choices about what they want to say and how.
But it’s not as if the kiss of Death is entirely taken up with serious character flaws (like road rage or being rude to waitstaff) and the personal aesthetic stuff all falls under the milder Red Flags. There are plenty of morally neutral personal aesthetic choices in their Kiss of Death. And given that they put “cat ownership” in the second to worst category — Not Getting Any, right below Kiss of Death — any claims they might have to “we’re just trying to maximize your chances” reasonableness is totally out the window.
Valhar2000: Yes, they seem to be serious. Serious in a snarky, funny way, true — but no, this book does not seem to me to be an ironic commentary on gender norms. The authors seem to be sincerely trying to help men out. By shoving them into a smaller and smaller window of acceptable gender-normative behavior, and making them feel anxious and self-conscious while they’re at it. So very helpful. Thanks, ladies.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 12:16 pm Steve Bowen wrote:
My advice to either sex: Be your fuckin’ self. Sooner or later someone will have you…
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 1:15 pm twistedpyxie wrote:
Steve- hear hear!
I mean, unless you’re an asshole. But then again, there are assholes in the world of all genders and orientations, so I’m sure that even if a person is an unmitigated asshole, they can find themselves another unmitigated asshole for some unmitigated asshole love..
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 5:21 pm Garbledina wrote:
There is a lot wrong with this. The most important being that pretending to be something you aren’t in order to shove yourself into the thin crevice of “dateable” manhood is a terrible way to begin a relationship. You should always be who you are if you expect to find someone to love you for you you are (Caveat: if you are a basement-dwelling, WOW-playing, comic-reading nerd, there is still someone out there for you, but you WILL have to leave the basement to find him/her… go to a con). I love geeks (just ask my cat-owning, video-game-playing boyfriend who has never even owned a pair of jeans). Some women find the guys from Jersey Shore hot. I find them rather repulsive. It would be pretty absurd for me to write a book telling men they have to own a complete set if Garbage Pail Kids trading cards, have every achievement in Halo and own a Monty Python t shirt if they ever expect to date. This book is just absurd.
And to me, feminism isn’t about turning the tables on men, or seizing control for the sake of having control. For me I am a feminist because I am a skeptic. Skepticism teaches you to think through things critically, question things and call bullshit when necessary. In the same way that atheism is skepticism applied to religion, I see feminism as skepticism applied to gender roles. And from that perspective, “Undateable” is fucking bullshit.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 6:01 pm The Nerd wrote:
No nerdiness? NO NERDINESS? I’d be forced into lesbianism if all men refused to nerd it up around me! Unless women aren’t allowed to be nerds either.
This book must be mocked into the darkest pages of human history.
on Thursday, 8 July 2010 at 7:23 pm Alice in Wonderland wrote:
@DapperAnarchist: My now-husband proudly showed me his collection of Warhammer 40K miniatures on our first date, ten years ago. I was immensely reassured when he did so, because up until then I’d been under the misapprehension that he was a jock (since we’d met in a kendo club), and although I liked him I couldn’t really imagine dating someone non-geeky!
on Friday, 9 July 2010 at 8:09 am jemand wrote:
Moar kitties!
http://www.uniquescoop.com/2010/06/kitties-rescued-by-us-marine-soldiers.html
And now I am going to try to stop spamming the thread with hot pictures of men and cats!
I think this book should be used as kitty litter by the *real* ‘datable’ guys out there ;)
on Friday, 9 July 2010 at 2:25 pm Hieronymous wrote:
This reminds me of the “Real Men don’t eat Quiche” meme from when I was young.
As I was young, I was puzzled and slightly alarmed, because I liked quiche.
But as I grew older (and wiser :), I quickly adopted the mantra of
“Real Men eat whatever the fuck they want to eat!”
Chicks dig confidence (and men willing and able to give good head)
on Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 11:20 am brian wrote:
well if everone didn’t have such a picky F…g list of “my partner must be like..my partner can’t be..” and so on, it would be helpful to hthose women who just can’t understand why mr perfect hasn’t bought them a new SUV for their second date.
on Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 3:36 pm BeccaTheCyborg wrote:
I just glanced down, and noticed that my long-term male partner’s cat is sleeping on his “man-purse”. Next to one of the shelves of roleplaying books. And the video game system. Said partner is also lactose intolerant. Someone should tell him he’s clearly doing it wrong.
on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 12:46 pm Vida wrote:
Hahahah, steampunk fishmonger.
I’m so glad you ranted this rant, so right, so right.
The kind of women who believe this stuff have non-threatening degrees in art history so they can decorate their rich husband’s houses and buy their clothes. Sigh.
on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 9:08 pm Simone Lovelace wrote:
Seriously? SERIOUSLY!? “Undateable” is the most ridiculous thing ever!
Any version of straight manhood that involves respect for women and basic personal hygiene is “dateable” to some woman.
on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 11:40 am absent sway wrote:
Way to stick up for the guys, too, Greta. As a woman who has always preferred her men to be a little eccentric, not into football, and cat-loving (it’s called compatibility), I salute men everywhere who reject that narrow window.
on Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 2:35 pm Kick-Ass And Character Identification « Libby Rewritten wrote:
[…] Just because I can culturally perceive something as “normal” doesn’t mean I can identify with it. Dave was different from me. We were from the same racial and economic groups, but our gender identity, interests, passions and struggles were all very different. Even our orientations were different. We both might be called “straight” but there is a world of difference between the a man who is attracted to women and a woman who is attracted to men. That is especially true when one is attracted to exactly the women our culture tells him to like, and the other is attracted to the men who are mocked in the pages of Undateable. If I was to identify with him, I would have had to find some deeper human characteristic we have in common. […]
on Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 8:27 pm Snarkyxanf wrote:
“Don’t be lactose intolerant”?
So, basically, don’t be Asian, African, or American Indian. Apparently the racism is a free bonus.
on Friday, 16 July 2010 at 3:39 am freies lieben » Blog Archive » Feminists fuck better wrote:
[…] Hervorragende Mini-Serie (Teil 1, Teil 2) von Greta Christina (bei Blowfish) über Sexismus gegen Männer, warum das bekloppt ist, und warum das auch für Feministinnen spannend ist. Ich bin ja ohnehin der Meinung, dass Sexismus immer alle Beteiligten trifft, aber Gretas Artikel macht das nochmal etwas präziser. […]
on Friday, 16 July 2010 at 7:14 am 1minion wrote:
I just got myself a fellow for the first time in a decade. I don’t even really get how it happened. We just found each other at the same concert. We’d known each other as co-workers once upon a time whose friendship fell by the wayside and now here we are again like no time has passed.
Granted, I look at him and think about all the things I once thought I wanted in a guy (the whole tall dark and handsome riff) and marvel now at how useless that was as a rating scale. He’s a delight to know and talk to and he totally gets me. This turns out to really be the only thing I ever wanted out of someone.
It’s a shame this book had to be published, even as a gag. It does a great disservice to the variety of types of people in the world.
on Friday, 16 July 2010 at 9:57 am Must Be Bunnies wrote:
At least I can like bunnies. Yay!
But I do have a cat, too. Oh well.
Seriously, these authors have simply swapped the so-called “male-chauvinism” of the 1950’s for a sort of “female-chauvinism” for the 2010’s. They still want 1/2 the population subjected to the other.
How about true equality and freedom to be who you are?
on Friday, 16 July 2010 at 12:48 pm Kate wrote:
IMO, the best advice is to just be yourself and try to be comfortable and happy with who you are. It seems like the best places to find compatible people would be in clubs/associations of mutual interest. An entire book instructing anyone to try to squeeze themselves into any particular mold seems too silly for words.
on Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 8:06 am Snarkyxanf wrote:
“There’s probably not a big market for books on How To Get Nerdy, Kinky, Non-Monogamously Married Bi-Dyke Sex Freaks To Date You.”
Maybe not, but I bet that market has a lot more fun.
on Sunday, 18 July 2010 at 9:26 am Sunday in Outer Blogness: Hard Facts Edition! | Main Street Plaza wrote:
[…] Oh, well. Here’s the follow-up to the Mormons-and-gay-marriage in Argentina question. Oh, and the long-awaited men’s edition of Fascinating Womanhood is finally available! That should provide some interesting reading for the week… […]
on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 at 8:53 am Phoenix wrote:
Very funny review, and equally funny comments! I don’t think anyone on this site needs this book’s advice, or would dream of spending good money on it. The book’s suggestions reveal an astonishing level of insecurity of its intended audience (who I imagine will consist of just as many unfulfilled straight vanilla women seeking vindication and schadenfreude as it will desperately confused and culturally bullied chaps).
Reading between the lines, though, it’s the combination of prohibition/suspicion of/discomfort with genuinely expressed identity, coupled with the Men Always Pay thing. It tends to suggest that the primary desired object of this ‘dating’ is a transport system for a wallet. I suspect these are ladies who have planned all their mini-breaks down to the last cocktail and sms to their friends back home, and merely lack the suitable mechanism for making them happen. How very frustrating!
My sneaking suspicion - though I may well be wrong - is that what they suggest they want in a ‘date’ may well be what they imagine will be acceptable to their friends and associates, and increase their social standing thereby, hence the class references.
It’s kind of reminiscent of Bridget Jones, the genius of which was the query of how much had really changed since the days of Jane Austen. But of course it has - we have vastly wider (if still flawed) freedoms for both genders now - so it is, actually, rather disappointing to see dating books like this, humorous or not.
Oh - and yes, the cat HAS to GO!!! Come on, it’s direct competition for Girlie’s intended role in the poor unsuspecting guy’s life!
on Sunday, 25 July 2010 at 2:24 pm Azkyroth wrote:
And I suppose that’s not manly either, right? :P
on Monday, 26 July 2010 at 8:38 am Matthew Graybosch wrote:
I’m glad to be undateable by the standards of this book. I never liked dating, and I am not going to try to shoehorn myself into a false but acceptable persona just to get laid. Yes, I have long hair. Yes, I’m a fucking metalhead who reads and writes science fiction. Yes, I’m a fucking geek. Yes, I’m built like a tall hobbit. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem. If you have a problem, go to Hell and take it up with Satan. The devil may care, but I don’t have to. If women are stupid enough and shallow enough to take this book seriously, and hold men to the standards espoused by it, then I am better off with a Fleshlight.
And what in the name of Xiombarg’s heart-shaped ass is wrong with having a cat? Or two? Cats are intelligent, independent, proud, predatory, and cuddly. Cats are what people should be: able to survive on their own, but also able to enjoy company. Hell, I just adopted two kittens myself; their names are Dante and Virgil.
on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 at 1:01 pm polystyrene wrote:
I guess the book might be relevant to a demographic of men and women. One I like to consider of no consequence to me. I really look at people as animals, sometimes proud, graceful ones, but with which I share only a near total indifference.
I’ve never read the book, but the criteria cited suggest the priorities of someone eager to get hitched, and thus conscious of the station of any potential mate. The context is modern, but the implications are remarkably quaint and backward.
Fortunately, the authors aren’t the kind of women I have the remotest interest in. They’re perhaps the type that think their splendid princess fantasies ought to b catered to in some comically tragic, bodice-ripping kind of way. I’m attracted to those that have their own ambitions and interests. Worthy adversaries, that aren’t just passively, coyly waiting for someone to fulfill their bullet points of masculinity.
I’m glad to know a lot more of those than anyone similar to the authors. Mainly because interesting people the only ones with anything worth knowing about.
on Monday, 23 August 2010 at 1:33 pm Coinneach wrote:
I’m on a diet, and I just shared my lunch with my huge, floofy, gorgeous Ragdoll kitty.
I’m never getting laid again. ;_;