Romancing a Feminist or Romancing your Ego, part 1

by V


I’m sure everyone here has at least seen The Thinking Housewife’s website once or twice. F brought this particular post on that site to my attention the other day and apparently Ms. Wood is still receiving comments. I’ll just begin discussing the post itself.

Ms. Wood put up an email on her site, sent from a man who is trying to “convert” a liberal, feminist woman.

He goes on to mention that he is interested in this young woman, but he wants to change her. This just means he likes the way she looks. He wants to change her personality and values and ideals. If only the gist of what REALLY makes her a person were also as attractive as her body. What a recipe for disaster!

If you have to change a person in order to see yourself having any sort of future or long-term relationship with them, it’s not going to work out. Not right now. There’s nothing to say that they might not change later on their own, but if you have to actively attempt to change someone before you can see yourself with them, forget it. It isn’t fair to you or to them to waste such time trying to change a person into what you feel that your ideal life partner should be like.

I’m also curious to know what he means when he talks about non-rational reasoning. How does he know if someone has a rational or irrational reason for being a feminist before they even tell him? In this portion, it sounds like he’s not really talking about her, but about female feminists in general. He’s the one with the chip on his shoulder. He already has decided that feminism and feminists, by extension, are irrational.

He goes on to imply that if said feminist resists purely dispassionate discussions about feminism and the nature of a good marriage (read: she disagrees with him and knows already that they are not going to agree; she wishes not to argue) this must mean that she has a chip on her shoulder. Why? Just because he cannot get her to see things his way? Or because she doesn’t want to debate with him because she knows it won’t go anywhere except, perhaps, to an argument? Or both? Neither of these prove that she has a chip on her shoulder, although it makes HIM sound as if he does. He’s already decided she’s a simple and irrational woman who is a product of the societal times against her actual nature.

The very first sentence of his second paragraph says what he thinks about liberal women. They’re corrupt. He makes no exception, but concedes they may not be to blame for their personal delusions. But why does he hanker after this woman, anyway?

(Hint: She’s good looking. That’s it!)

This process usually occurs on a mostly unconscious level, and it’s a rare woman who has attempted to rigorously place her liberalism on a theoretical framework.

I really don’t understand the relevance of this statement. Maybe the stupidity thusfar has lowered my IQ and rotted my brain.

The only thing I have to say about the rest of this paragraph is that I don’t know when or where he went to high school, but last time I was in high school this was not the type of reading material we had assigned to us. The Feminine Mystique and The Second Sex are not easily understood by high school students. Blaming public indoctrination for this is a poor argument. (Not that this entire post of his isn’t asinine.)

As a college student at a public university, it seems nearly impossible to meet traditional-minded girls. Even the campus churches are corrupted by liberalism. (I should note here that I am not a Christian, but have great respect for “pure” Christianity.) So it’s inevitable that a red-blooded male will face the possibility of meeting a beautiful, kind, feminine woman – with a catch – she is liberal.

I understand. Most of the women in college have brains and use them, so they aren’t easily manipulated into changing their entire values and principles systems just because they meet someone. I suggest this man troll Wal-Mart. I’m sure there are a lot of girls working there that are at or around his age who either have not passed high school or did not go any further. (I wouldn’t count on that working, either. I only have a high school diploma, and even I know bullshit when I smell it).

I almost feel bad for him. He doesn’t want to compromise HIS world view, so he has decided that in order to settle down with a woman or just simply have a long-term relationship with one he is going to have to force them to change THEIR world view instead. Wow, what perfect sense (note: that was sarcasm).

I have dated liberal girls several times, and it has very often become an issue at some point. I often tried to reason (usually in the vein of Jim Kalb) and attempt to explain to them my position on sexual roles, racial differences, organic local change vs. violent top-down liberal change, etc.

Does he even know what he’s talking about? I cannot comment on this because the idiocy of it forces any logical answer to this to be impossible. Racial differences?

But a curious thing has happened. First of all, it is often the case that the girl doesn’t seem to understand why it matters that we are ideologically incompatible, and wishes I would drop it.

I can explain this.

These women would rather he shut up because they believe he sounds like an idiot when he speaks. She knows that there’s no use arguing with idiotic rhetoric. And furthermore, this also means that you are NOT life partner material for this girl. She either ONLY considers you a friend or she considers you a short-term boyfriend. Either you’re a rebound or she considers you good for casual sex and general conversation. In other words: SHE’S NOT THAT INTO YOU.

Or when she does agree that it matters, dispassionate arguments often reinforce her liberalism in some ways and make her more defensive, even if she acknowledges the force of your argument.

Some women  — people — just don’t like to argue!  Perhaps she feels put on the spot and isn’t ready to have an in-depth debate (read: most people don’t carry around an index of links and books to refer you to when debating away from a computer screen or library).

One girl informed me that even though she couldn’t explain what a feminist was (she couldn’t disagree with my logic as to why mainstream feminism was a corrupt ideology), she was a feminist nonetheless and maybe she would one day be able to explain it to me. Her identity as a feminist was largely symbolic, in other words.

Honestly? I think she was probably telling him to go away. She didn’t want to argue about it. She could tell it would be futile. I’d do the same thing. I wouldn’t bother to try. He expects her own ideals to be fluid, but his own should not have to budge a bit. Unfortunately for him, that makes him a perfect example of what he was just complaining about with this girl.

Or, if I wanted to be extremely nice about it, maybe she IS a bit of a flake and she has no idea why she’s a feminist other than she just doesn’t like the implications of taking the rights from women that we’ve already secured away.

However, I’ve noticed that conservatives get very, very upset with you if you refuse to stoop to their level of arguing or if you just simply seek to end the argument. So, I’m more inclined to think that she knew where this was going and just decided to drop it before it got that far.

Liberalism is the water in which we swim, and women especially are keen defenders of the status quo and its symbolism.

That’s quite right. Women don’t like to have freedoms taken away from them, especially after it took for-fucking-ever to secure those rights. I don’t understand why this is so hard for conservative men to understand. You often see them whining and moaning that feminism is just a way to subjugate men, but their solution is to subjugate women instead. No one likes to be subjugated. The thought of it scares even those who have never had to worry about it.

My solution: do not subjugate.

Feminism is NOT about subjugating men. The only arguments that “prove” that it is seem to be from female supremacists who remain comfortably outside the realm of mainstream feminism.

Ideology comforts and provides an impassioned vision for how to live life, even if it’s ultimately much more radical then they realize

What he’s actually doing in this sentence is equating women to children. They don’t have any real idea of what they’re doing/saying/believing. These women just do it because it’s comforting. A man should teach them the right way.

Ladies, this man considers us children. Run, do not walk, away from him, and others like him.

Except for the most exceptional, philosophically honest and capable women the path to traditionalism will not come from mere reason, but from some emotional impetus, like love for a traditionalist man.

This one is my absolute favorite! Love for a traditionalist man will move a woman to change! The man’s read one too many Harlequin romances! (Note that he says nothing about love for a feminist woman prompting a man to change. Nope! Change is a woman’s job! And, also, any woman who does not agree with him about “traditionalism” is a childish idiot who is incapable of being honest, even with herself.)

He takes as much care with his women as most people do selecting the color of their car. You have to make her curious about your lifestyle to get her to change, because obviously once a woman expresses her curiosity she automatically likes what’s put in front of her?


The vision must be positive and emotionally captivating, and must be shown to her only by way of invitation, at her own inclination.

What nonsense is this?  Behold the pretty colors, ladies, and be mesmerized into not realizing he’s a jackass!

It is better to obtain short term agreement from your woman and focus on loving her within the emotional landscape of traditionalism.

YOUR woman? You are now property, ladies. Like cattle. I wouldn’t mind the possessive in most cases, but he sounds like the type of man who would take that thinking to an extreme. And, might I reiterate, that if he’s insisting upon changing everything about this woman except her outward appearance, it just means he thinks she’s hot.

And this man wonders why he can’t have a serious conversation with a woman? Sad.

To be continued…

2 Comments to “Romancing a Feminist or Romancing your Ego, part 1”

  1. Wow, what a piece of work this guy is. He DOES sound like a romance novel /heroine/. “When I find the woman I want, I shall change her with the force of my lourve! Then we shall run off together into the fields of daisies!”

    I’m amazed he’s gotten so many liberal women to date him long enough to have these discussions. I’m sure you’re right, V, a lot of these convos must have signaled the death knell for these relationships, and the women were looking for ways to bow out gracefully.

    Now, there is an element of refusal to change on the part of the women. I know that if I were seeing a man and it turned out he was sexist, racist, and a believer in conspiracy theories, I would be turned right off and start watching the clock for a reasonable time to leave. My reaction would be modified depending on how he behaves–perhaps we really could have an intense intellectual debate. But for the most part, men like that, men like this man, are cocksure and unwilling to budge. Worse, they insist that anything but their beliefs are morally wrong. I don’t like what he thinks, and I think that some of it is morally wrong, but I’m not going to come out and tell him so, nor will I even imply it.

    Really, why is he bothering with dating liberal women? He knows their views are incompatible, and he knows both sides don’t want to budge. He’s wasting everyone’s time and spreading the aggravation. If he wants to meet women who think like him, there are many ways to go about it. He can look for local groups that share his views or start one of his own. Most public universities will allow religiously-themed student groups. There may be churches nearby that would welcome him.

    He’s frustrated, I can see that. But this is not productive for anyone.

    • I agree, D. Although, I doubt that he should go looking for people through religious means. He has said that he is not religious, so then they’d probably clash on religion.

      I love your first paragraph in your reply, though! 🙂 The visuals had me giggling out loud!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: