Romancing a Feminist or Romancing Your Ego (part 3)

by V

[MCCALL'S MAGAZINE, WOMAN IN FLOWERED HAT HOLDING COMPACT]

via Flickr

I’m back for the third installment of Romancing a Feminist or Romancing Your Ego. I hope you’ve had fun  thusfar! As always, I’ll put the link to the appropriate TTH page below before starting my commentary on some more of the feedback this post received.

The reader adds:
I know that women do not put too much thought into their politics, and being liberal in this age is a reflection of practically nothing. I’d be much more concerned if, say, she were an avid user of Twitter, or ever wears sweatpants. An artful courtier eludes discussion of politics with women.

One girl would affectionately put her hand over my mouth when I’d muse about politics, and tell how she liked me less when I would say, criticize homosexuals. I would smirk, and go on to something else. It’s a little needy to want a woman to agree with you on every point, and frankly unnecessary.

I recommend the book Way of the Superior Man by David Deida. Aside from some coverage of Tantric sex methods, it has a very good discussion of the sexes, and of how a man is to behave in a relationship and in life.

This reader’s ignorance shines through from the first sentence. Women don’t put much thought into their politics? You mean to tell me that he has met every single woman in the world, or even just a majority of them, and come to this conclusion? He has simply decided that women are intellectually inferior and flighty beings by nature. Therefore, it would stand to reason that they don’t put much thought into anything, including their politics.

Is he alleging that liberalism is a reflection of  nothing due to its prevalence in society? (He has obviously decided that liberalism itself is ridiculous, it isn’t made up of real political stances, and nobody who identifies as liberal is doing anything more than going along with the rest of the sheep because it’s popular.)

There can be no redemption for the closed mind.

What is this nonsense about Twitter and sweatpants?  I am more than happy to invest in a pair of sweat pants and to shout from the rooftops that I’m an “avid Twitterer”

As for eluding discussion of politics with women; that won’t get you very far with me. If I’m interested in a man, I’m interested in knowing all about him. This includes his outlook on life, his current plans for the future, his career goals, his politics, his religious leanings or lack thereof. I want to know all of the things that make up who he is — not just that he has an XY chromosome, a working penis, or looks good.

I want to know everything about a man that I am looking at as a potential life partner or long-term boyfriend. I would expect him to want to know the same things about me. If he can’t discuss any of these things with me, that’s a black mark on him. To refuse to discuss politics makes one look uninterested, or at least unlikely to consider me anywhere close to an equal.

I do agree that it is needy to want a woman (or anyone else) to agree with you on every point. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing. But if disagreeing turns into arguing and neither party can drop it and leave it alone without having to dwell on it unhealthily, then perhaps you should consider seeing other people.

Obviously, he and this “one girl” he’s talking about didn’t work out. Perhaps that was a factor in it. They were just too different. Opposites certainly attract, but in the case of people if they’re too different then it rarely works. Perhaps he should focus on finding a woman that shares the more important ideals that he already has, instead of working to change or to ignore the too-big differences.

I have not read this book that he has recommended, but I’d be wary of any book that is a how-to for dating and getting along with anyone you’re dating. Every person is different, that is why we’re individuals. Women do not share a collective mind, nor do men share a collective mind. Any book you find that tells you how to behave in a relationship should be taken as suspect. What these books tell you isn’t always all that accurate, especially for the long term.

Laura writes:

Still, it is depressing to consider spending one’s life with someone who rejects one’s basic opinions on some of the most important matters. Also, many women are very passionate about their poltiics even if they haven’t thought them through, so discussion is unavoidable.

“It’s a little needy to want a woman to agree with you on every point…”

Jack was not seeking agreement on every point, but was encountering women opposed to most everything he believes in.

I agree with Ms. Wood’s first sentence. It is depressing.

Women are not the only ones passionate about their politics, men are as well. Of course, there are people of both sexes that just aren’t that passionate about them, but generally people like to share such things and have meaningful discussions about important things with their life partners or long-term significant others. So, I do not get her point other than the fact that she’s right; you can’t always avoid discussions about important things like politics.

I don’t know any women personally who have not thought through their politics. And what about Laura? I guess she’s saying that since she is a woman, she hasn’t thought through her politics? I guess that explains a lot, then.

And as for her defense of Jack W., I have to say that that is true. He was finding women that were opposed to everything he believes in, more or less. Which is why he should be continuing his search for women who agree with these things (and they do exist; look at Ms. Wood and her female readers/commentators!)

It is true that it may be difficult for him to find them, but that doesn’t mean he needs to try to change women he finds physically attractive. He would dislike it if a woman attempted to change him. It’s human nature to resent such a thing.

George writes:

Jack W. said: “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.”

This goes back to what Thomas Sowell talks about in his book “A Conflict of Visions.” People often hold their beliefs about the world on an intuitive level and can’t articulate them because they don’t consciously know them.

I have not read this book, although it might be an interesting read considering the subject matter. But, again, just because you don’t think you can explain something so someone else can understand it doesn’t mean that you do not know or understand your beliefs about the world. It’s a little too simplistic.

David Lee Mundy writes:

Romance a feminist, but don’t marry one. Being unequally yoked in marriage is something I’d not wish on an enemy much less seek out personally. Certainly one should not expect a spouse to be one’s soulmate and fulfilment of all desires. Neither would I give up my cordial marital relationship for the world. Before marriage, I dated girls that I clicked with on a mental level. They were fun and exciting, and I equated that connectivity with love. My wife isn’t like that. Thank God. She is slow and steady and conservative and traditional. It took great time and effort for us to learn to communicate. But I thank God every time I think of who I might have married, including a great friend who’s now a Presbyterian priestess. Finding a helpmeet for you should be the primary objective of any young man considering marriage.

As for Jack W., the non-religious traditionalist who bemoans the shallowness of liberalism while imagining his traditionalism the construct of his own fervent rational endeavor: that’s the saddest
part to the story. Absent a religious basis, his views are no more defensible than hers. Pot marries kettle.

This man is someone I can’t understand in the first place, because I’m not religious and he seems to be quite so. His first sentence is very irritating. But once in a while, we just want to have a no-strings attached relationship or casual sex. It would be hypocritical of me, or just about anyone, to admonish him for saying this.

Being unequally yoked in a relationship probably isn’t ideal.  A “traditionalist” would probably not be happy for very long married to a liberal. And vice-versa.

You should look for someone that you can see yourself being with as they are right now. Getting into a relationship in which you seek to change someone, or they seek to change you, or hoping that they simply will change in the future, is a recipe for disaster and heartache.

(Incidentally, a person can be a “traditionalist” without being religious, and a person can be liberal while being religious. Many are. So, to me, what he has said there is asinine. It might also be pertinent to remind Mr. Mundy that Jack W. has not married and does not seem to be seeking to marry this woman he’s talking about. He seems to be seeking long-term relationship with this woman, but I don’t remember marriage coming up.)

Laura writes:

I think the story of Julian’s daughter was instructive. Here was a cultured woman who read Jane Austen and Shakespeare. She left her husband when she was bored. I agree with David. It’s a mistake to choose a spouse on the basis of how exciting she or he is. Character matters most. This is a difficult truth when you are young and want everything.

When Ms. Wood speaks of Julian’s daughter, she’s talking about a previous post that can be found here.

I agree with the overall of what Ms. Wood has said in this comment of hers. It’s a mistake to choose a spouse solely on the basis of the shallow. Character does matter most. If you don’t like a person’s character, or it just simply isn’t the type of character that you can see yourself spending your life with…you probably shouldn’t get together. It’s true that people often change over time, but you can’t always count on that and it isn’t fair to you or them to try to force the change.

To be continued

2 Comments to “Romancing a Feminist or Romancing Your Ego (part 3)”

  1. According to experts at the Marriage Project at Rutgers Univ they claim the key to longevity in marriage to be very similar in religious and politcial views and of similar background.

    I find as a conservative that blatant statements that women are not passionate about politics because they can’t enumerate them to be highly sexist. Many men can’t talk about politics intelligently either. Intelligently disscussing politics is a function of intellect as well as interest and aptitude which knows no sexual boundaries.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

    • It’s also important to respect your partner. If you are constantly trying to change everything about your partner, you aren’t respecting them very much. I agree, it probably is important to be close in similar religious and political views to have a successful marriage in most cases. It makes sense.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: