| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 178.1 | Just two things to say... | PATSPK::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Mon Nov 09 1987 04:40 | 2 |
| 1. Don your flack jacket.....
2. Ask sheer hype.....
|
| 178.2 | Who are you blaming? | ANGORA::WOLOCH | Nancy W | Mon Nov 09 1987 15:09 | 1 |
| Maybe you are a difficult person to approach?????
|
| 178.4 | Funny, I understand the authors point | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Nov 09 1987 17:48 | 34 |
|
Well if women *ARE* aware that the "old, archaic" dating patterns
are NOW passea, then why aren't more of them setting up ways to
get together with a man that their interested in ???
Since the standard method is now so bogus, it would be
interesting to see examples, actual or purposed of just
how a woman would set up a get together (date, coffee
ect, what ever you wish to call it) with a man that shes
interested in getting to know.
The mans got a legitimate question though, and his thoughts
are in line with todays new society. For, you see that the
old headset of the man *MUST* ask the woman is still the
standard. This is the way it is, whether you believe it or not.
But now were told, irregardless, that the old tried and true
method of being straightforward and asking a person out is
no good now, and this applys to either asking the other out.
Still, in this day and age of enlightenment though, it still
appears that a man MUST be the one to ask out the woman as the
only way for it to happen. Why ? because the opposite of a woman
asking a man out just isn't happening. This could lead one to believe,
that there might be a big confidence problem out there( and before you
get all bent, and blast me, face it we as men have been there a
LOT more and longer than you.
But then of course some women would say this is because some of us men
have an attitude problem. Yup , Ill admit I have one alright, its called
being a man and not some roll over wussy that will yes you to death
and jumps when you snap your fingers. No, I am what I am and there
are those that do appreciate that.
Bob B
|
| 178.5 | | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Mon Nov 09 1987 18:01 | 9 |
| It is the inherent sexism of the feminist movement! Women want
equality where it suits them, period. When it comes to asking men
out, serving in the armed forces, and men having a truly equal
chance to have custody of their children in a divorce, no thanks,
they say, the system works just fine as is.
Yet another example of the double standard at work.
|
| 178.6 | Done plenty of asking (and some refusals) | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Mon Nov 09 1987 18:24 | 7 |
| I don't believe I am *that* much of an exception, but during my
dating days, I did at least as much asking as I did accepting.
Perhaps you are unapproachable, or don't appear as "the type" to
the women who would/do ask men out.
Elizabeth
|
| 178.7 | Green-Light-Signals | FDCV03::ROSS | | Mon Nov 09 1987 19:03 | 23 |
| I'm not sure that *some* women aren't already asking out *some* men
(without the double negatives, I mean that some women are already
asking some men to go out on "dates").
Perhaps the reluctance of some women to ask some men for dates,
indeed, has something to do with a woman's fear of being rejected.
We, as males, are familiar with that fear. One way that we tried
to avoid it when we were boys, was to try to get "green-light signals"
from the girl we wanted to date, before we actually asked her out.
(Maybe I shouldn't use the word "we". "I" tried to get some signals
from the girl before I asked her out. If there were signals, her
response was far more predictable.)
Possibly, we, as men, need to put out our own "green-light-signals"
to those women whom we would like to ask us out. I'd like to think
that if a woman were attracted to me, and she knew that I'd be inclined
to say "yes" if she asked me for a date, then she'd not hesitate
to ask in this day and age.
Of course, there are many different traits we have (or don't have)
that make us attractive to women.
Alan
|
| 178.8 | don your blast armor... | GUNSTK::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Tue Nov 10 1987 02:52 | 3 |
| RE: 4,5
How true, how true....
love it!
|
| 178.11 | HUH? | GUNSTK::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Tue Nov 10 1987 06:08 | 6 |
| RE:10
Who's to say that "his" issues are unimportant?
(quote) "your 'pet' issues."
ALL issues that involve some sort of discrimination ARE IMPORTANT!
Furthermore, the draft and child custody HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH
IT.
|
| 178.14 | read my monitor.... | GUNSTK::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Tue Nov 10 1987 07:46 | 2 |
| RE: .13
The ol' double standards.... thats what!
|
| 178.15 | | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Tue Nov 10 1987 13:04 | 39 |
| Re: .10 and others....
I enjoyed your entry, but I do wonder just what it is you were
rebutting.
>"You bitch endlessly about women blaming men.."<
Oh? When I express a point of view I'm bitching endlessly.
I guess I'll bitch some more then. The feminist movement is sexist!
If feminists were truly concerned with equality, their efforts would
be targeted at all inequalities, not just those concerned with women.
They do not have anything to say about present methods being used
in child custody cases. I don't see them pushing for equality as
far as the draft is concerned. I see very little change taking place
in the dating game. The Lalonde case is a good example of misguided
efforts by so-called women support groups. At this writing, the
case has NOT been decided by our courts. Guilt or innocence has
not been decided yet. But that does not stop womens' groups from
throwing their support behind Virgina Lalonde. Why??? Because
she's a woman.
I read a lot about the patrairchal society we have, or the male
dominated supreme court. I've read these phrases in womannotes.
I don't deny their validity either. But those that are using these phrases
are making distinctions and drawing conclusions based on sex. Isn't
that a little hypocritical?
And finally,
>After we [women] have achieved equitable treatment in our culture, many
of *YOUR* pet issues will be resolved at the same time.<
I think that this statement accurately reflects the inherent flaws
of the present feminist movement.
Those are my views. I look forward to hearing yours and others.
Hank
|
| 178.17 | Why Is It Surprising? | FDCV03::ROSS | | Tue Nov 10 1987 14:09 | 31 |
| RE: .15
I don't think there's anything inherently evil about the fact that
feminist organizations are primarily concerned with issues relating
to women. After all, the American Cancer Society raises funds for
cancer research, the Heart Fund for heart disease research, the
Muscular Dystrophy Foundation for muscular dystrophy research, etc.
Why should men be surprised that "women's groups" are fighting first
for "women's causes".
As for divorce and child custody issues, men have been losing custody
of their children in divorce cases long before women's groups came
into existence. Our current divorce and custody laws were formulated
long ago by virtually all-male legislators, judges, and attorneys.
If we men do not like the way these laws work, then we should try
to get the laws changed.
I think sometimes men get so peeved about women's groups, because men
see that women have effectively organized themselves to fight for
their rights. To be sure, there are some male-issue groups which
have been established, but because of lack of support and membership
by most men in American society, they are politically and socially
impotent. NOTES may be a good place to vent frustrations, but if
men want to effect changes in the laws, they're going to have to
do more than piss and moan in these Conferences.
And regarding women and the draft, what draft? There hasn't been
one in America for years, nor is it likely there will be one again.
Men, when they bring this non-issue up, are wasting their energies.
Alan
|
| 178.18 | Saturday Night's All Right | FDCV03::ROSS | | Tue Nov 10 1987 14:19 | 7 |
| RE: .12
Suzanne, you're very welcome, and thank *you*.
BTW, did you ask about Saturday night?? :-) :-)
Alan
|
| 178.19 | | STOKES::WHARTON | | Tue Nov 10 1987 16:53 | 11 |
| There are still many many men who are still not comfortable with women
asking them out. They still think that initiating a date is aggressive
behaviour and they do not quite know how to deal with "aggressiveness."
The fault does not lie with *all* men. Just some men. There were times
when I figured that I'd be bold and assertive. Ha! The men reacted as
though my biological clock was ticking faster than normal and that it
was their duty to slow it down just a bit...
I usually don't come right out and say, "John Jones, would you like to
go to the movies with me Saturday night?" Like someone said mentioned
earlier, I'd test the waters first. I'd look for a green-light.
|
| 178.20 | Not to me | CURIE::RESKER | | Tue Nov 10 1987 17:36 | 24 |
| I've never been asked out by a female. I don't consider myself
unapproachable either, at least no less approachable than most
females. I think that woman are comfortable with the "tradition"
that it's the men who who make the first move. Hey, I don't blame
them.
I would be flattered to have a woman ask me out. I wouldn't consider
it "aggressiveness" per se. I have had women (strangers) ask me
to dance, but that's easy. Let's face it, when women/men realize
that a sexual tradition favors them, then they're not going to fight.
About the green light signals. This usually doesn't work unless
you can read minds. I find it tough to differentiate between
a woman who is just plain old friendly and one who is "interested"
in me. Some are just interested in finding out if you're interested
enough to ask them out, then they say no. Most signals which you
think (hope) are green turn out to be yellow. Yellow signals mean
you should proceed with caution (ie. stop) or if you're immune to
rejection jump on the loud pedal and cross the intersection (but
be prepared to get sideswiped).Now there are some signals
which are definately green..........
tim
|
| 178.21 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Tue Nov 10 1987 18:49 | 80 |
| re 178.15 MOSAIC::MODICA
>If feminists were truly concerned with equality, their efforts would
>be targeted at all inequalities, not just those concerned with women.
I believe the efforts of feminists ARE targeted at all inequalities.
Child abuse as an issue was not brought to light by men or by children.
Current drunk driving laws have a woman's group as a STRONG driving (no
pun intended), force, MADD.
And women's groups are SUPREMELY sensitive to racist issues - issues
that apply equally to men and women. Many, many true feminists eschew
the word in favor of "humanist". I've seen the differentiation discussed
even here in notes.
>I don't see them pushing for equality as far as the draft is concerned.
I don't see many MEN fighting FOR the draft in any form whatsoever
either! There ARE women fighting for the right to the more "macho" jobs
in the military however, the combat ones. And to be honest, I believe
that one of the prime arguments AGAINST the ERA was by male legislators
who believe that ERA means women will be drafted as well. THEY, the legis-
lators, decided that was no go. Women didn't.
>The Lalonde case is a good example of misguided efforts by so-called women
>support groups. At this writing, the case has NOT been decided by our courts.
>Guilt or innocence has not been decided yet. But that does not stop womens'
>groups from throwing their support behind Virgina Lalonde. Why??? Because
>she's a woman.
You are sadly misguided in this issue. The women's group threw their
support behind a child they were convinced was abused and in danger of
further abuse. Were Nicole Lalonde a little boy instead, the women would
have been there just as strong, I guarantee it.
And the REASON they threw their support behind the child is because the
child does not deserve to be subjected to continual abuse while waiting
for the courts to decide guilt or innocence. The courts are NOT like the
Hanes Inspector 22 - "This child isn't abused until I say she's abused"
I don't believe these women care one iota for laying blame or deciding guilt
or innocence. They operate to protect the children the law is either unable
or unwilling to protect and I don't think they even care which it is. God
bless them. Think on this again, please and don't assume this is an under-
ground "kaffe klatch" of bored housewives just waiting to band together
against a man - any man. Virginia Lalonde asked that her child be protected
against abuse while they decided guilt or innocence. When the court said no,
she did what any human would do when they perceived their child was in danger -
protect him or her at all costs.
Now as to why women don't ask men out more -
I asked out a man in my Chemistry class once. He looked like Cat Stevens
and I simply wanted to get to know him, no strings attached. He said yes,
but he was SO nervous when we were out I couldn't stand it. I think he ex-
pected to be raped or roped into marriage or something. Lots of guys SAY
they'd be flattered but in actuality many of them are squeamish about the
woman's intentions, (such as one other reply who said men thought her bio
clock must be working overtime!). It's true. Men often assume you are
desperate for love, sex, marriage and/or kids and at some point in the date
they invariably ask a form of the question, "Why would someone like you have
to ask a MAN out?" Pretty interesting question coming from a guy who DIDN'T
ask you out!
And I've found men are much more interested in you if they've pursued you.
I think it's a feeling of control of the situation, of conquest, and the
old "meat that's fleet on the hoof", (the woman just out of reach), being
more desirable.
I believe men want to be asked out to broaden their social lives, expand
their sexual possibilities, enjoy a few free nights out and turn the tables
for once on women. But when they think very seriously about their ideal
woman, the one they want to fall in love with, she won't be the one
walking up to them saying, "So, would you like to have dinner with me
on Saturday?"
And we women know it.
|
| 178.22 | | VIKING::MODICA | | Tue Nov 10 1987 19:29 | 6 |
| RE: .0 Sorry if I steered the topic off course.
REL .21 Thanks for the reply. You offer some very good points
for consideration. I'm not sure if I agree with you
about the Lalonde case, but it should probably be
continued elswhere. Still, thanks for the info.
|
| 178.23 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Let's remove the heart | Tue Nov 10 1987 19:34 | 7 |
|
re .21
So, the lesson for men is, if you want social interaction
with women, you have to follow the traditional mores.
Males have the rejection burden, females the waiting-for
-the-phone-to-ring one. Even if you are an exception...
|
| 178.24 | Unfortunately, today, yes. It's still that way. | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Tue Nov 10 1987 19:52 | 19 |
| Getting asked out takes work sometimes, too! You can't make
women ask you out even if you wear a T-shirt that says, "I'm
an exception".
The woman who asks you out will be the exception. Why wait?
You guys need to learn a few of the "green light" signals women
use to GET asked out by a specific person. Talking music almost
always works if you have a genuine interest and happen to know of
a place where so-and-so is playing on a certain night.
Depending on how enthusiastic I sound about this particular event,
this kind of bait is nearly always taken by a guy. Even a shy guy
would say, "Are you going to go? Well, maybe I'll see you there!".
More often though, it's, "Sounds like fun. If you're free would
you like to go?"
Bingo.
|
| 178.25 | Probably cheaper too. | HYDRA::LYMAN | Village Idiot | Tue Nov 10 1987 20:28 | 7 |
| Re: .-1
Yeh your approach sounds like it may work ok. At least its
gotta be better than my usual stapling dollar bills to my trousers.
Jake
|
| 178.26 | I think guys are pretty brave to try ;-) | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Nov 10 1987 23:15 | 4 |
| It has been a long time....but women do give out *lots* of signals
if they want a guy to ask them out....and my honest opinion is that
it is pretty scarey to try....I did ask a guy out once in high school
and the getting shot down hurt pretty awful.
|
| 178.27 | Dates by negociation ? | RDGE00::BOOTH | Ah, but I was older then ... | Wed Nov 11 1987 08:13 | 13 |
|
I'm a shy sort of bloke - I find it *very* hard to ask for a date at
all and I've almost never done it. I've also never been asked out.
Most dates seem to arise out of a convoluted form of negociated
arrangements bound by lots of 'ifs' and 'maybes', but in the end
the arrangements have been made. I haven't had a lot of dates but,
maybe because of the awkward way they get made, there always seems
to be a second, third, etc. to follow because it takes a certain amount
of attraction to get through the 'game'.
Does this sound familiar to anyone else ? I mean how do other 'shy'
blokes get over the 'asking for a date' hurdle ? What exactly is a
'date' anyway ?
|
| 178.28 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Nov 11 1987 12:49 | 20 |
| Fascinating! The double standard many women rightly argue against
in our U.S. society appears to be acceptable to some of the same
women when it comes to the dating ritual.
I have never been directly asked out by a woman. I have been
asked out indirectly (the 'signals' discussed in other responses
to this topic). I don't mind at all that women do not directly
ask me out (should I have written 'did not ask ...'?). But I am
amazed how few women (it seems like a few) do ask men out. What
has happened? I honestly believed the women of the '80s were more
libereated in this area. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Taking the lead in this area opens you up to the pain of rejection
but it also opens you up to the pleasure of success. The rejection
aspect of being the one to do the asking is difficult for many men
to accept. In fact, based on my friends and associates, most find
it very difficult. But I always look on it as one of life's learning
experiences - one I suggest women and men should experience.
Douglas
|
| 178.30 | you sound sarcastic, not "fascinated" | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Nov 11 1987 14:19 | 39 |
|
RE: Note 178.28 AKOV04::WILLIAMS
>Fascinating! The double standard many women rightly argue against
>in our U.S. society appears to be acceptable to some of the same
>women when it comes to the dating ritual.
>I honestly believed the women of the '80s were more libereated in this
>area. Apparently, I was mistaken.
I think the discussion was centering on men's reactions as our reasons
for not asking them out more. Not that we'd rather NOT be liberated in
this area and would prefer to just wait, painting our nails by the phone
for some guy to DARE call us. Puleeze. Put your stereotypes away.
Go back and read the 2 replies from women who DID ask men out. Both men,
(mine was one), were jumpy and nervous and both expected we had only sex,
marriage and/or children on our minds, needed a man, any man, to help
us out in that area, and obviously couldn't get one to ask US out.
Would you willingly initiate dates if you thought they would be thinking
this way about you? Also, when a man feels he's with a "desperate"
woman, he tends to be less respectful of her if you catch my drift.
To a woman who just wants to "BE liberated", who just wants to give a
guy a break and get to know him, the atmosphere of the date can come
as a bit of a shock. It did to me. The guy thought he had it made in
the shade with this "desperate" lady. My asking HIM out ruined any
chance at friendship.
No thanx. No matter how liberated we women are, men STILL prefer to
be the pursuer when they think of their ideal woman. Any other woman
outside of that mold is in another category in their minds - a category
most women don't want to willingly place themselves in. THAT'S the
reason. It's not because we aren't liberated. it's because men aren't.
Many still tend to see women as either good for marrying or good for everything
else but.
|
| 178.31 | small but important point... | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Nov 11 1987 14:26 | 12 |
| We should probably differentiate between asking out a relative
stranger as opposed to asking out a "known quantity" so to speak.
When friendship is already established the problem no longer exists
because the guy already knows you. If you're just some girl in
a class or in a bar or on a plane, etc, if the guy accepts he's
usually bursting inside like John Laroquette on Night Court, down
on his knees thanking his deity for his great, good fortune and
searching for his Binaca. Gag.
PS: Laroquette plays the character FABULOUSLY well. I LOVE to watch
him.
|
| 178.32 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Nov 11 1987 15:21 | 22 |
| Ms Civvolini:
You appear to be quite quick to attack. The experiences
you refer to have been experienced by men as well.
You may read into my response whatever you wish. You may also
spend as much time as you wish painting your toenails. You stated
your position and experience in an earlier response. I responded
to the words of you and others - as they were understood by me.
I would suggest you might find life a great deal more entertaining
if you devoted a bit more time to attempts to understand both sides
of the male female experience. Your dating experience is not unique
to women. Also, given how infrequently women ask men out, is the
male response you experienced so surprising?
I don't particulary care if women ask men out. I am simply
surprised that fewer of the U.S. women in these more liberated times
take this initiative.
Douglas
|
| 178.33 | Horsepucky!! | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Wed Nov 11 1987 15:32 | 13 |
|
RE: .30
Come on now Sandy, you argue men are using stereotypes and then
you turn right around and do the same thing by saying all men
see women this way... Give me a break!!!!!!
If a woman was to ask me out I'd think no different than if
I had been the one asking.
BTW, I've heard plenty of women say they didn't want this role
to change, seems they don't like the idea of dealing with the
rejection.
|
| 178.34 | | CURIE::RESKER | | Wed Nov 11 1987 15:35 | 22 |
| re.31 How do you know that a man who's been asked out by woman
always thinks that the woman is desperate? Have you asked every
single man who's been asked out by a woman or are you making a
GENERALIZATION (which by the way is okay to make so long as you're
not a white male). Why do go to all extremes to correct female
stereotypes then in the same breath make one about males?
It sounds like your gross generalization is just an
excuse. Whenever someone (male OR female) asks someone of the
opposite sex out for a date, there is always the thought that goes
through that persons mind "Oh God, I wonder what he/she will think when
I ask him/her out for date. Will he/she blow me off or think I'm
desperate".
It ain't to ask someone out on a date, REGARDLESS of
sex. I'm not going to say that females should take a more aggressive
stance in asking men out. I will say that if you want to sit around
and wait for someone to ask you out, then fine. I you want to get
more aggressive, then that's fine also. Just don't tell me what
all men think when they get asked out by women.
tim
|
| 178.35 | Repeat until fade | HPSCAD::WALL | I see the middle kingdom... | Wed Nov 11 1987 15:49 | 11 |
|
Well, now all we need is Suzanne Conlon to come in and tell us that
Sandy didn't mean *all* men, only *some* men, and this'll all be
old hat, won't it.
*Sigh*
Boy, if there was ever a paradigm of the male-female experience,
the genderNOTES conferences are it.
DFW
|
| 178.36 | I agree, put your stereotypes away! | SIMUL8::COFFLER | Jeff Coffler | Wed Nov 11 1987 15:52 | 40 |
| re: .30
My, my. Did you really mean what you said here?
>No thanx. No matter how liberated we women are, men STILL prefer to
>be the pursuer when they think of their ideal woman.
Perhaps this is true for *SOME* men. It certainly isn't true for me.
To coin a phrase you used, "put your stereotypes away". I don't think
men like to "pursue" at all, but I can only speak for myself. I don't
think I'm "pursuing" a women because I ask her out, just as I don't
think a woman is "pursuing" me just because she asks me out (yes, I
have been asked out, and no, I did not think she wanted to get me into
bed). I do think we're trying to get to know one another better,
mostly likely to be friends.
>It's not because we aren't liberated. it's because men aren't.
You seem to put me (along with many of my friends) in a category when
you haven't even met us. Perhaps the men you know aren't liberated.
Many, if not all, of the men that I know are.
>Many still tend to see women as either good for marrying or good for
>everything else but. [...] Also, when a man feels he's with a
>"desperate" woman, he tends to be less respectful of her if you catch
>my drift.
Perhaps if you come across someone that thinks of women as "conquests",
this may be true. I think of women as individuals, each with their own
identity. As is everybody I've ever met. I always respect a person
for who they are. I've never, in my entire life, "tended to be less
respectful" of a woman's wishes. A person is an individual. Not an
object to get into bed. Give me a break ... do you really believe that
all men feel this way?
I don't know if it's intentional, Sandy, but your words frequently make
me feel like I'm the "enemy", on the "opposite side", simply because I
am a man. Just as all women are individuals, so are men. Please
give us credit for this.
|
| 178.37 | pretend this is an earlier reply | LEZAH::BOBBITT | sprinkled with syntactic sugar | Wed Nov 11 1987 16:16 | 23 |
| getting back to an earlier part of this note, I have shown interest
in a man before, although I've never come right out to a stranger
and asked them out. Then again, no man who was a stranger came
up to me and asked me out. Based on a short discussion or two,
and being introduced (or introducing ourselves), there were several
ways to get "close" and "allow the opportunity" for either one of
us to speak up. Very few people turn down the offer of a backrub.
Many men I have met enjoy reading poetry - take out my portfolio
and instant discussion. Pinball arcade. Movie. And (at college)
laundry. Also, giving a man a red rose or carnation is a great
icebreaker.
Although rejection has occurred to further offers, these are a few
"non-threatening" opportunities to get to know if you want to get
to know someone better.
As for standards and non-standards and sexism and
reverse-discrimination, there will always be people who follow the
rule, and people who are exceptions to the rule. Generalizations
often lead to ratholes.
-Jody
|
| 178.38 | yeah, well, maybe you're right | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Wed Nov 11 1987 16:49 | 1 |
|
|
| 178.39 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Let's remove the heart | Wed Nov 11 1987 17:19 | 4 |
|
To get a rose from a woman..?
I'd be speechless, and very impressed...
|
| 178.40 | It does happen | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Wed Nov 11 1987 17:37 | 13 |
| I have been asked out by a woman (and have gotten flowers from
a woman). I was thrilled, and in no way assumed "ulterior motives".
It's nice to see women enjoying this traditionally male side of
a relationship. It does happen, though VERY rarely, I admit. In
most cases, the woman gives some clear (or maybe not so clear -
I can be pretty dense at times) signal that she's interested, which
lowers my fear of rejection enough so I can ask. And we've had
a wonderful time.
As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "If you don't ask for the
world, you won't get it."
Steve
|
| 178.41 | | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Wed Nov 11 1987 17:59 | 116 |
|
RE: .9
> Bob, your remarks surprise me somewhat.
why do they surprise you ? Could this be an indicator that I
may not be totally what you think me to be ? :-)
> You like to talk about "real men" and "real women" (and you
Sorry, I never made any statement on what I perceived to be
the qualities of a "real man". I only posed the question and
Alferd Thompson expanded it to the real woman question.
> seem to feel that you have some God-given role as a man), and
" some God-given role as a man" ? You've kinda lost me on this
one, would you mind elaborating what you are thinking.
> yet you want women to take over some of the old traditional
> male roles in initiating relationships.
Sure, why not ??
> Hey, I'm all for it.
Good, great as a matter of fact.
> The problem is that women who exhibit confidence (and who stand
> up and fight for their beliefs) are often branded as militant,
> strident, angry_at_all_men, man-haters -- so women who want
> to show how much they LIKE men are probably encouraged to be
> less assertive.
NO, here I will disagree with you. I know of a number of intelligent
strong, confident women that aren't anything close to being
militant, man hating feminists. The difference is that they
don't go around making anti men statements and then defending
them as being perfectly alright. They are assertive, and do
make their own decisions and have a very strong belief and
confidence in them selves.
That confidence may immitimidate some men the same as the
reverse is true. In a discussion with a few of them, they
have a tendency to like the traditional role of a man doing
the asking. Why ? well its already been brought out, fear
of rejection. The other party may say NO. Its human nature
not to want to be rejected, and there fore that fear of rejection
is an extremely strong determent to one asking another out.
You can be the most strongest, confident man or woman in the
world and its week nee time when you want to ask a person out.
> What that translates to in plain English is that many men
> give off the "signals" that (like you said) they don't want
> to "yes" women to death. So many women probably feel that
> men such as yourself would not want women to decide when to
> make the first moves in a relationship (because some men might
> feel that the women were trying to tell them what to do.)
What your telling me, is that, your perception is, that most women
find a man who exhibits strength and confidence is immitatidating
to them. And this is why they would not consider asking him
out for a date. Hummmm, this is interesting, from the standpoint
that most of the women I have been involved with have made
statements to the effect that they liked my strength of confidence
and belief in myself. I would therefore have a tendency to believe
that this would be an attraction rather than a deterrent.
> If you want women to ask you out, then maybe you should reconsider
> being so utterly damning of women who have the confidence to
> openly disagree with you (not because you are a male but because
> they happen to feel that your arguments don't hold up.)
Ill say it again, in many cases I find myself drawn to a woman
with traits of strength and confidence. And I can more than handle
her getting angry at me or someone else if shes been wronged.
I can and am willing to accept that there are women who have a
difference of opinions with me. In many of these cases, even
though there is a difference of opinions I still have respect
for that woman as a person, and she me as a man. But I can't
and never will except one thats angry at all men and goes on
and on, on how their all cretins. That person has no respect
for any man and never will. That is the difference.
> If you want examples of the other ways that women **DO** initiate
> relationships, check the basenote. The author of .0 openly
> stated that women *DO* find other ways to do it (but that he
> wondered why women don't just ask guys out.)
> Suzanne...
From note 178.0
> My beef is that women apparently
> still avoid making the INITIAL REQUEST, to get the ball rolling
> so to speak. I tend to think that women dodge the issue to ASK
> by having friends set up the 2 parties, joining a dating service,
> giving signs, etc. While I can't fault such actions, that is not
> the question here. Is a woman's inability to ask men out a problem
> or not? Is it HEALTHY?
OK, so were all aware that the infamous back door methods exist.
The bottom line to all this is I still have to agree with the author
of .0, there should be just as many women asking men out as us asking
women and it isn't happening. In .30 or to that effect, MS Ciccolini
has related about an experience or two of what happened when she
asked a guy out. It is my contention that the men would have had
their "attitude" wither she asked them or they asked her out.
Could it be that she set her sights on a person that was of a lesser
caliber than she expected, to avoid the person from saying no,
when she asked them out ? Is that something we all do to some
degree to avoid rejection ?
Bob B
|
| 178.42 | There *are* some liberated men out there | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Wed Nov 11 1987 18:01 | 12 |
| When I have asked men out, if not blown off, I usually have a good
time, with someone who isn't suspecting "ulteriour motives". Of
course what I had going on my side was my relative youth (none of
this "biological clock running out stuff"), and that I always asked
men that I already knew. I can't imagining myself asking someone
who is currently a stranger. In fact, I can't imagine accepting
an offer from a stranger either.
BTW, I've also given flowers to an SO...
Elizabeth
|
| 178.45 | You wana run that one by me again | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Wed Nov 11 1987 20:37 | 22 |
| RE .44 -< Trying to read my mind again.... >-
Nope, keep telling you I don't do that, but you won't
beleave me on that. But now I've learned that you going to
accuse me of it each time I express how your being understood.
> Bob, you took a paragraph mine and assigned an entire new
> meaning to it (that was very different from what I said.)
HUH ?? Oh really ????? Gracious lady :-) , would you
mind enlighting the rest of us on what your talking about .
> No wonder you were surprised at me for saying such a thing
> (because I didn't.) :-)
Again, Iam glad that you know what your refering to, but
for the sake of the rest of us, would you like to let us
all in on whats going on ...:-) .... Thanks
Bob B
Suzanne...
|
| 178.48 | Ask, and ye shall receive. | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Nov 12 1987 01:37 | 18 |
|
That sounds like a reasonable request. You wanna know why?
Because someone who shows a desire for me has a greater value than
someone for whom I have a desire. That gives me a chance to
pre-determine whether or not I like them. If I decide that I do,
the relationship has a better than normal chance of survival. I
go ahead with it.
Sounds selfish, I see, but it has been this way (at female
advantage) for a LONG time. Members of both sexes would probably
prefer to be asked. It is only fair that each gets its turn.
If a gentleman did 'freak out' at being asked, or considered
you desperate because you asked, would you REALLY want to go out
with him, anyway?
Grog
|
| 178.50 | Hmmmm... | DONNER::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Nov 12 1987 04:14 | 28 |
|
You are correct in that it is no one's right to be asked out,
but the asking and accepting/rejecting will go on as a necessary
part of the mating game. It seems a little strange to require men
to let women know that they can be asked out. That is, if you mean
beyond the little 'green light' that was mentioned before. Anything
further than that would be no better than continuing the
'male-responsible' posture already in effect.
In my current relationship, SHE (pronounus anonymous) asked
me out, and I was enamored of her from the start. My initial fondness
was in no small part due to her finding me worth the risk. I will
admit that had other things not gone as well as they have, the
relationship would have ended like any other.
Sure it's not easy to say no when asked out, but I think a
lot of sensitive guys would be willing to deal with the same burden
that women have handled over the eons.
What I am surprised about it that women are arguing to keep
the status quo. As it stands, from my point of view, the dating
game is mainly in the hands of the male. He takes the risks, but
is also in control of the decision. The female can only make a
decision once the male has made his. Is this really a desirable
thing for women?
Grog
|
| 178.52 | Hold de phone! | DONNER::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Nov 12 1987 05:23 | 10 |
|
I never said that women are morally deficient, unfair, sexist
or any of those other things. Neither did I say that I didn't like
the current situation. What I was doing was exactly what you asked:
I was trying to PERSUADE any listening women that asking a guy out
could be a very rewarding thing to do. It would also seem to be
the kind of thing that a feminist could logically justify.
Grog
|
| 178.54 | Or is that 'today'? | DONNER::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Nov 12 1987 05:56 | 7 |
|
Well, that's what I get for dropping into a topic that's already
in its eleventh-hour. I must have missed the juicy stuff. I'll
take a peek, tomorrow.
Grog
|
| 178.58 | SWM seeks green light ;-) | SPMFG1::CHARBONND | and I'll keep on walking. | Thu Nov 12 1987 10:12 | 13 |
| If you night owls are done hogging this topic.... ;-)
Excellent points made in the last 10-15 replies. Now, a question
for all those still awake : What sort of 'green light' signals
do you look for ? In men ? In women ? What would you *like* to
see ? I am especially interested in replies from the women in
this conference, it would help us men communicate.
An aside covered elsewhere - the one 'red light' I look for is
a ring, ANY ring, on the left hand ring finger. Call me chicken.
And I speak only for myself.
Dana
|
| 178.59 | Just cut in, they'll make room | RANCHO::HOLT | Let's remove the heart | Thu Nov 12 1987 14:57 | 10 |
|
Let me clue you... some rings are intended to repel only
the non persistent...
As for "green lights"... Arranging dates is sort of like driving in
Massachusetts; if you wait for a green light and follow the
rules, you are dead meat... The only rules you need follow are
the ones that apply after said man and said woman get together.
|
| 178.60 | my .02 on rings and stuff | LEZAH::BOBBITT | sprinkled with syntactic sugar | Thu Nov 12 1987 15:22 | 20 |
| re: rings and such.
from -.1 :
>let me clue you...some rings are intended to repel only the non
persistent...
Well, I think such rings can be misleading. I wear a ring (amethyst
in gold) and am engaged. If I were not engaged, and I met a man
with a gold ring on his wedding-finger, I wouldn't even ask. However,
if I were asked (i.e. if the ring was misinterpreted or ignored)
I'd simply say "no thank you". Some people might reply with a brusque
remark that would be equivalent to a verbal slap in the face. I
suppose if some people wear rings to avoid contact, then whether
they're married or not they want to be left alone. Those who use
rings to "screen" the persistant from the non-persistent could be
accused of false advertising, and may miss out on some really neat
people in the process.
-Jody
|
| 178.61 | Don't read this | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Thu Nov 12 1987 17:28 | 111 |
| You guys aren't going to like this note either so hit next unseen
if you have a hypertension problem. I'm going to pretend I'm a
guy and the base note was written by a woman.
XCELR8::POLLITZ writes in the base note -
>SO they CAN ASK, right? But they don't.
Gross generalization and completely false because women DO ask men out.
>To FUEL the fire, what might be involved here is the perception
>of man as a kind of ravenous lustful, threatening beast...
>while the fact is, such is not the case at all.
How do you claim to know this fact? Have you asked every man on earth
and found that men are NOT ravenous lustful, threatening beasts? I
don't see how you get away with making such sweeping, blanket state-
ments that "man" either is or is not one way or the other. Some are,
some aren't. Why haven't any of you men in this file pointed this out
and taken flaming exception to these statements?
>Throwing that out (and logically so), it seems the problem is one of an
>attitude problem. Or worse - a character flaw.
This is insulting and offensive to women. Where do you get the knowledge
that the answer to your question lies in women's attitudes and characters?
I am deeply offended by your statements and perhaps you would have better
luck with women if you didn't have such a chip on your shoulder.
>ANYHOW, it seems women aren't as INTERESTED in men as we'd like to think.
This too is a blanket statement that has absolutely NO basis in fact.
>Otherwise it makes sense that such interest would be clearly SHOWN.
Again, your assumption. If women feel X then they will do Y. This is
patently offensive to all of us and I wish you would think more clearly
before you make such statements.
See the point? It seems that men can make sweeping generalizations both
pro and con about women, and women can make pro generalizations about men.
Any other kind of generalization however will be immediately lifted out
of the remaining text, held up as a glaring example of what's wrong with
the author and the world, and the perpetrator will be burned alive by
the flames.
You generalize, I generalize - that's what we're doing. I don't want
to talk personally here. That's really nobody's business. So to say
"Your argument doesn't hold up because you are generalizing" is to display
a lack of insight into the kind of forum this is and also suggests those
who balk at someone's generalizations were looking for a reason to balk at
that person because MANY generalizations here get nodding acceptance.
I don't think anyone said, "Sandy, do you ask men out? Why or why not?"
And if not, then what WAS the question? Sort of a more GENERAL one? A
more RHETORICAL one? How should one answer a "general" "rhetorical"
question? Personally? Sigh - such hysteria.
A woman, faced with a "dense" male, (you guys use the word willingly and
often), whom she would like to get to know has two choices. We've already
determined that most often her choice is to "act available" and wait. Am
I generalizing too much to say that since men are complaining that women
don't ask them out MORE that we can infer that women usually wait?
Then the real question is WHY do women prefer to wait.
One male noter speculates it's because we just don't want to be "liberated"
in this area. Another assumes it's because we can't handle the rejection.
The base note author has decided it's because women have an attitude problem
or an inherent character flaw. Not one of these generalizations has
been challenged. No man has been asked to explain himself. We
just nod and wait for a woman to DARE do the same thing.
I'm offering a possible reason from the source - a female - and you guys are
saying, "No, that's not it", and continuing with your speculations and
assumptions which seem to make you far more comfortable.
Well if you guys KNOW the answer, or would prefer just to speculate among
yourselves, why are you asking? If you want to know why women don't do X or
Y, why do your react with such ferocity when a woman attempts to tell you?
Whom then are you really asking? Do you really want to know?
How about a note in womannotes asking women why they don't ask men out
more often than they do? Could you, would you be willing to be READ ONLY
and could you, would you, believe the replies or would you find yourselves
having to say, "Horsepucky" to the answers because you have other explanations
you'd rather believe?
Some men here in this note have said they try to read "green light" signals
and often get them wrong. Why? Could it be it's because you are interpreting
them based on your known generalizations which is the only thing you can do?
"Casual conversation at the coffee station" does not mean "She wants to go out
with me" but one noter here says he sometimes will "assume" it does. Why?
On what do you base this assumption? On a generalization? One male noter
said he assumed a woman was displaying interest when in reality she was
just being friendly. He assumed that friendliness GENERALLY means interest
and acted upon that generalization, much to his dismay.
Who flamed at HIM for such a gross generalization and why didn't he
recognize this "inherent character flaw" within himself?
When I answer that women don't ask men out more because they may generalize
based on experience and our cultural Tarzan/Jane model of relationships how
can you even say with a straight face that the words are meaningless because
they result from a generalization or stereotype when it's what we ALL use to
determine the chance of success before putting ourselves on the line?
So since you guys already seem to know why women don't ask men out more often,
then there's no real need for any more replies to this topic and we can assume
it was created just so you can complain about it. I can live with that.
|
| 178.62 | GENERALIZATIONS ! You want GENERALIZATIONS ! | FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM | | Thu Nov 12 1987 21:14 | 233 |
| < Note 178.61 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >
> I don't see how you get away with making such sweeping, blanket state-
> ments that "man" either is or is not one way or the other. Some are,
> some aren't. Why haven't any of you men in this file pointed this out
> and taken flaming exception to these statements?
Okay, I'll flame at some of the generalizations:
********************************************************************************
Generalization #1
< Note 178.0 by XCELRB::POLLITZ >
> SO they CAN ASK, right? But they don't... it seems the problem is one
> of an attitude problem. Or worse - a character flaw.
I don't believe that the problem is a character flaw in women. I think
it has to do with the culture in which we were raised. I think this is
a CHEAP SHOT.
However, we might ask the following question, which isn't as generalized,
and which many of the men in this conference seem to be expressing:
how come **SOME** women who profess to desire equality in their
relationships, maintain a double standard regarding this issue; i.e.,
they take the traditional "wait until the man asks" position ? If someone
openly expresses a desire for equality, why do they refuse make the
INITIAL approach to a man ?
I am not claiming all women do this. However, some women do have this
double standard, and it appears that many of the male contributors to this
note have experienced it, and wonder why.
********************************************************************************
Generalization #2
< Note 178.5 by MOSAIC::MODICA >
> It is the inherent sexism of the feminist movement! Women want
> equality where it suits them, period. When it comes to asking men
> out, serving in the armed forces, and men having a truly equal
> chance to have custody of their children in a divorce, no thanks,
> they say, the system works just fine as is.
The women's movements work for women's issues, just as union lobbyists
work for pro-union legislation, the NRA works for pro-gun legislation,
etc. No one group can do everything, so each group is organized to work
on legislation to protect what they feel their rights are, which are not
being preserved. I think most women who participate want equality for
all people, and the above line really isn't true at all. I agree
absolutely with the following statement in .17
> I don't think there's anything inherently evil about the fact that
> feminist organizations are primarily concerned with issues relating
> to women. After all, the American Cancer Society raises funds for
> cancer research, the Heart Fund for heart disease research, the
> Muscular Dystrophy Foundation for muscular dystrophy research, etc.
> Why should men be surprised that "women's groups" are fighting first
> for "women's causes".
That doesn't mean I agree in entirety with the feminist agenda, but I
support most of it. [And no, I can't give a list of what the feminist
agenda is, just what I think it includes.]
********************************************************************************
Generalization #3
< Note 178.21 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >
> Men often assume you are desperate for love, sex, marriage and/or kids
> and at some point in the date they invariably ask a form of the question,
> "Why would someone like you have to ask a MAN out?" Pretty interesting
> question coming from a guy who DIDN'T ask you out!
> And I've found men are much more interested in you if they've pursued you.
> I think it's a feeling of control of the situation, of conquest, and the
> old "meat that's fleet on the hoof", (the woman just out of reach), being
> more desirable.
> I believe men want to be asked out to broaden their social lives, expand
> their sexual possibilities, enjoy a few free nights out and turn the tables
> for once on women. But when they think very seriously about their ideal
> woman, the one they want to fall in love with, she won't be the one
> walking up to them saying, "So, would you like to have dinner with me
> on Saturday?"
> And we women know it.
< Note 178.30 by CSSE::CICCOLINI >
> No thanx. No matter how liberated we women are, men STILL prefer to
> be the pursuer when they think of their ideal woman. Any other woman
> outside of that mold is in another category in their minds - a category
> most women don't want to willingly place themselves in. THAT'S the
> reason. It's not because we aren't liberated. it's because men aren't.
This is at least as big a generalization as in .0 in my opinion. I don't
know of anyone who considers a woman "meat that's fleet on the hoof," and
I feel this is a CHEAP SHOT. While I agree with the other things stated in
.21, this just is an excuse not to respond to the double standard issue.
"We women know that this is what men want, so we give them what they want."
Well, some men may want that, but those expressing their opinions in this
note have said otherwise. Why not respond to those who don't feel this
way ?
There may be **SOME** men who act this way. You found one. I repeat, ONE.
I would agree with .36 in this matter :
> Perhaps this is true for *SOME* men. It certainly isn't true for me.
> To coin a phrase you used, "put your stereotypes away". I don't think
> men like to "pursue" at all, but I can only speak for myself. I don't
> think I'm "pursuing" a women because I ask her out, just as I don't
> think a woman is "pursuing" me just because she asks me out (yes, I
> have been asked out, and no, I did not think she wanted to get me into
> bed).
> You seem to put me (along with many of my friends) in a category when
> you haven't even met us. Perhaps the men you know aren't liberated.
> Many, if not all, of the men that I know are.
> I don't know if it's intentional, Sandy, but your words frequently make
> me feel like I'm the "enemy", on the "opposite side", simply because I
> am a man. Just as all women are individuals, so are men. Please
> give us credit for this.
********************************************************************************
Generalization #4
< Note 178.47 by NEXUS::CONLON >
> The "fear of rejection" for men is -- "Does this woman want
> to go out with me? Will she say yes or no?"
> For women, it is different. It is more like -- "This man
> may definitely want to go out with me. But will he change
> his *MIND* about that if I ask *HIM* first? Would things
> work out better if I either waited for *HIM* to ask me out,
> or if I found some other way to get close to him other than
> asking him out directly?"
> Would you deliberately do something that might ruin a possibly
> excellent relationship?
> The first date only happens once with any particular person.
> If you felt certain that asking the person for the date was
> the one single worst thing you could do to initiate that
> relationship, would you do it anyway?
I don't understand why anyone would assume that, because a woman is asking
a man for a date, that the woman would assume that a man's level of interest
would change because the woman made the initial approach.
I could understand why that might occur in a particular situation; i.e.,
you can see that a PARTICULAR man might feel this way. But I believe it is
very shaky ground upon which to defend ALWAYS or USUALLY waiting for the
man to ask first, regardless of the man.
While that wasn't explicitly stated here, that's the impression I received.
My apologies if that is not what is being expressed.
> Being asked out on a date is *NOT* anyone's *RIGHT* in this
> country (including WOMEN'S!!!) There are many, many women
> who don't get asked out either (for whatever reason.)
Up until this note, no man claimed they had any *RIGHT* to be asked out on
a date. I absolutely agrre with a later statement you make, "None of us
owes it to any of the rest of us to ask us out. Period."
However, I still wonder why with *SOME* women there is a double standard.
> But I don't think *anyone* here has the right to tell us that
> there is something wrong with women because we don't do it.
I would absolutely agree, with any individual woman, there is nothing
wrong with a particular reason for waiting. Moreover, I think our society
has "trained" us in these skills. There is nothing wrong with women
individually or as a group because of the way relationships begin.
However, I personally find those looking for true equality in a relationship
would have a double standard if they maintained that they are right in
waiting for the man to initiate the relationship.
< Note 178.51 by NEXUS::CONLON >
> The problem (as I see it) is that some of the men in this note
> are treating this social phenomenon as if women are deliberately
> trying to be unfair to men by not asking them out (and are also
> suggesting that women are sexist for not asking men out, or
> lack confidence or .... etc.)
> Hopefully, things *WILL* change. But I highly resent the sort
> of attitudes I've seen in this note (including the original
> basenote that suggested that women's lack of initiative in
> dating involves a CHARACTER FLAW.)
I also hope these type of perceptions that some men have change.
They are made from frustration, in my opinion.
********************************************************************************
Generalization #5
< Note 178.55 by XCELRB::POLLITZ >
> Most of the CHARACTER FLAWS in the Vilar work no longer are inside a Woman's
> Core. With respect to THE GAP, if female INDIFFERENCE, COLDNESS,
> and Lack of RECOGNITION aren't CHARACTER FLAWS, then I don't
> SEE. IF the Vilar work isn't a DEVASTATING INDICTMENT agains't
> dangerous nonsense, then the book is rubbish.
I suspect, without having read it, that the book is rubbish.
********************************************************************************
As I see it, there have been plenty of generalizations on each side. As
each side defends its generalizations, the flames get higher.
One comment I did like :
< Note 178.35 by HPSCAD::WALL >
> Boy, if there was ever a paradigm of the male-female experience,
> the genderNOTES conferences are it.
I agree exactly.
Rick Rollins
|
| 178.63 | from an old married lady :-) | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Fri Nov 13 1987 00:39 | 36 |
| Hmmm, this is from a married observer whose dating days are long
behind her. I would like to say that to make a connection between
the issues of woman's lib as I have understood it, such as the
ability to attend any college or school that a woman wants to, or
to hold any job that she is capable of, or not to be discrimintated
against as to salary because of sex, or the ability to be accepted
as a valid candidate to run for higher office....and the more personal
man-woman issues isn't necessarily valid.
Issues of jobs, and pay, and credit rights etc etc are intellectual
issues. Issues of who asks who out for dates are emotional issues.
People tend to be far more irrational about emotional issues...and
they are much harder to divest of older steriotypes.
Courtship roles are so old, and so assumed in our world that they
are not often examined. I strongly suspect that even the most
intellectually and other wise liberated of women mahy still have
deep inside her a whole different set of emotions when it comes
to romance and dating.
Personally were I to imagine a time when I were a widow and dealing
again with the social world, for all my feminism, I would be very
reluctant to ask a man out for the first time....but then maybe
I have gotten to be old fashioned since I passed 40.... :-)
The simplest solution is often the best one....my bet is most
women don't ask men out because they would rather not take a chance
on jeaprodizing the relationship....
no other or more obscure reasons really need apply....and for those
of you men who have asked a friend out and gotten turned down, why
not ask her for advice as a friend as to how to improve your chances
with another woman....one thing a friend can do is help you spiff
up your act a bit.
Bonnie
|
| 178.64 | All feelings are valid - please listen | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Fri Nov 13 1987 01:21 | 35 |
| Do we really need to fight this out?
What the women are *really* saying is that they *feel* they will be
rejected if they ask an interesting male out. Feelings are ALWAYS
VALID. Where they come from is probably as diverse as the women in
this file. Perhaps they ran into one, few, or many jerks who act this
way. Perhaps they are older and were dating in a time when women
asking men out was "just not done". Perhaps they were told by their
mother, older relatives, friends, that men wouldn't like them if they
asked them. There are many possible explanations. Regardless, this is
what these women feel, and all feelings are valid.
What the men are saying is I AM NOT LIKE THAT, and would like a
woman/women to ask them out. Unfortunately, many women aren't sure
about this, because of their past experiences and/or their previous
training. They believe (again, beliefs in ANYTHING are valid) that men
will still reject them if they do the asking - based on their previous
experiences. They believe that men would like to take the assertive
role. Assuming that the women with these beliefs believe what these
men are saying, it still doesn't help - even if John Noter would love
to be asked out, that doesn't say anything about the next man a woman
meets. No one will deny the existance of men who believe that women
who "have to" ask a man out are desparate or out to get something.
This is an unfortunate situation, caused by centuries of sexism and
semi-formalized courting procedure. It will not change overnight.
Couldn't we be tollerant of each other's past experiences. In a
perfect world, no one would have to unduely fear another persons
reaction to being asked out. But this is not a perfect world...
Elizabeth
|
| 178.65 | | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Fri Nov 13 1987 01:28 | 8 |
|
Definitely not a perfect world, but we can try. Rejection
is a part of life. Everyone must be able to handle it. If gender
equality is EVER to be approached, we must each take a trot in the
other's Adidas.
Grog
|
| 178.69 | Profiles in Courage | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Nov 13 1987 05:05 | 7 |
| A Man and a Woman were sitting on a park bench near the
Eiffel Tower. Strangers. Slowly, they faced each other. They
Embraced. It is then that I realized that Love is an act of
Heroism.
-- David Bowie,
on a site he saw that
inspired the song ' Heroes'
|
| 178.70 | Feelings can be UNDERSTANDABLE but not VALID | FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM | | Fri Nov 13 1987 12:18 | 70 |
| < Note 178.64 by SSDEVO::YOUNGER "There are no misteakes" >
re: .64
> Feelings are ALWAYS VALID.
I had a close relative with whom I have spent a great deal of time in
the past. She grew up with very unsupportive parents, and felt rejected
by them (and rightfully so). Now, in her adult years, she has rejected
any and all attempts by others to befriend her. I have spoken with some
of these people, and they have great admiration for her. Yet, because of
the things that happened to her in the past, she sees every action others
take as being a form of judgment of her, and she terminates every
relationship with both men and women very early in the development of that
relationship.
I have a great deal of concern, respect, and love for this woman, and
have spent a lot of time and effort to help her. I empathize with her,
and find her feelings to be very UNDERSTANDABLE; most people who had been
placed in her situation would probably act similarly. I don't see how
anyone who knows her situation can criticize her actions. But her feelings
are not VALID, that is, they do not represent reality. Most of the people
I have spoken with do not have the feelings she suggests. These in-valid
feelings just lead to situations where she is worse off (she is very
lonely).
> Perhaps they ran into one, few, or many jerks who act this
> way. Perhaps they are older and were dating in a time when women
> asking men out was "just not done". Perhaps they were told by their
> mother, older relatives, friends, that men wouldn't like them if they
> asked them.
Yes, that is true. Probably in those days, society was "traditional" in
other ways; i.e., women were more likely to stay at home and raise a
family - many men treated women with less regard of their abilities,
talents, and especially opportunities - men and women had more distinct
"roles" set for them.
I wonder why women who reject these "roles" and "training" that they
received in other aspects of society, have not rejected this one. If
they believe the other aspects of their "training" was wrong, why cling
to this one. Why do women who have "liberated" themselves in some areas
not doing so in this one ?
> What the men are saying is I AM NOT LIKE THAT, and would like a
> woman/women to ask them out.
I suspect that most of the men responding to this note (and me in
particular) are saying more than that. I, and perhaps others, are saying
not only that I AM NOT LIKE THAT, but that MANY, MAYBE EVEN MOST, MEN
ARE NOT LIKE THAT. I think that any woman who looks at men and says
"there is a good chance I will be rejected and hurt if I make the initial
approach" is basing her dating life on an in-valid assumption. I don't
believe that assumption is true, and I think that a number of unneeded
problems in personal relationships occur because of this falsehood.
> This is an unfortunate situation, caused by centuries of sexism and
> semi-formalized courting procedure. It will not change overnight.
> Couldn't we be tollerant of each other's past experiences.
I absolutely agree. Men, be patient, society is changing, people's views
are changing, and this too will change. Meanwhile, don't be blaming
any particular woman because she doesn't ask you out; who knows what
she has gone through. Don't blame the women's movements; they want to
change relationships for the better as well. Women, accept the fact
that the vast majority of men in today's society want to improve their
relationships and desire greater equality therein. Don't accept counsel
from an age past that really and truly does not apply in today's society.
There are a few individuals who will hurt and betray you, but they are
in the minority.
|
| 178.71 | | SIMUL8::COFFLER | Jeff Coffler | Fri Nov 13 1987 13:15 | 18 |
| re: .70
I think you're getting into logistics here.
>> Feelings are ALWAYS VALID.
>But her feelings are not VALID, that is, they do not represent reality.
I agreed with what the original author said in .64, or at least as I
interpreted it. Feelings are feelings. They aren't right or wrong.
They just are. It isn't wrong for someone to "feel jealous", "feel
afraid", or feel anything else. Perhaps the reason *WHY* someone feels
that way is based on incorrect perception, or perhaps not.
The woman mentioned in .70 is not wrong for feeling the way she does.
Her feelings are VALID, and are important. Because of her experience,
she may be misinterpreting people's actions, but her feelings, none the
less, are genuine.
|
| 178.72 | Perhaps my choice of WORDING was poor | FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM | | Fri Nov 13 1987 13:44 | 14 |
| re .71
> I think you're getting into logistics here.
Perhaps so. But I had hoped that the rest of my note explained how
I felt.
I don't blame anyone for having feelings one way or the other. I can
understand how a person who has been hurt or rejected for asking and
being turned down. It has happened to me. The feelings of being hurt
are real, and valid. However, the perception that this is going to be
a consistent reaction from others is, in my opinion, based on a premise
about society that is no longer true. I don't accept that premise as
valid, and I am arguing that those who hold false premises such as this
keep themselves from being as happy as they might be.
|
| 178.75 | generally speaking... | COLORS::MODICA | | Fri Nov 13 1987 14:26 | 30 |
| RE. .61 By Sandy Ciccolini...
I've given a lot of thought to your entry. I'll admit that at
first I was very tempted to reply with:
Now you know how men feel when they participate in womennotes
or
I an tired of women tellin gus how to feel
etc
BUT, after giving a LOT of thought to your entry, I agree with
what you say. Specifically when people reply with something
to the effect of "Your argument doesn't hold because you
are generalizing." I reluctantly admit I am guilty of it and
I may have some company too; here and in womannotes.
Personally, one of the few things that hits a nerve with me
is when my opinions (no matter how flawed they may be) , and
the opinions of others are dismissed as pissing and moaning,
or disregarded in some other way. I'd like to think that
everyone's point of view is equally important.
Finally, on a less serious note...the use of the word "dense"
here is interesting. Similiar to the fact that I never heard
a woman described as strident til I read womannotes. I wonder
if we sometimes help to perpetuate our own stereotypes?
I know this also digresses from the original note but I wasn't
sure where else to respond to note 61.
Those are my views, comments?
|
| 178.76 | | CEODEV::FAULKNER | You already read this ! | Fri Nov 13 1987 16:34 | 3 |
| re.0
last tuesday
i have no intention of typing in all those 0's
|
| 178.77 | | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Nov 13 1987 21:31 | 127 |
|
RE: .46
> You didn't just explain to me how I was perceived, you wrote
> a new paragraph to tell me what I said (and I'm telling you
> now that you were *MISTAKEN* about my meaning.)
OK, so I was mistaken on your meaning of what you wrote. Thats
why I asked for you to clarify it, when you stated this. BUT
otherwise, sorry, no I wrote on how *I* was understanding what
you wrote. I have never *TOLD* you anything, either here or other
wise. When are you going to cease and desist to think and feel
that I or anyone else is trying to tell you anything.
For your information, any of us men noters that have any contact
with you, in these files, knows by now that you can't be *TOLD*
anything. So trust me when I say that we don't bother. What we do
do though, is make statements on how were understanding what others
(including you) have said and how we feel. Your the one that *INSISTS*
that we are telling you how you feel and think, when all were doing
is explaining *HOW* your being interpreted.
When are you going to quit with the business of thinking and accusing
that everyone is trying to tell you to do or think something, that
you don't wish. GET THE MESSAGE ***WE AREN'T AND DON'T ****
As a fact of matter, I've been nice to you before all this in this
note, and because I asked you to clarify something, you have got to
go get all defensive. Just what is your problem this time ???
> What I was trying to say is that many women probably don't
> ask men out because they believe that ***MEN DO NOT WANT WOMEN
> TO ASK THEM OUT***.
OK, this is plain enough, I find it a bit hard to believe,
Ill accept it as what you beleave.
> Like some others have said, we have not been getting the signals
> that many men *WANT* us to ask men for first dates.
OK , so what would be the right signals to send if your too
shy to ask the lady out from his end.
> Look, Bob, we can have a pissing contest here for the next week
> or so (and insult each other every which way from Sunday.)
> Why bother?
Just another example of what I was saying from above. I was nice
to you before this, and this was uncalled for. Or is it your mindset
that I'am totally incapable of being nice and civil ?
> Let's try to approach the issues from another direction, shall
> we?
> If you want women to ask you out, now you have a chance to say
> **WHY** you want women to do it (and maybe convince us that
> we *SHOULD* ask men out.) Who knows?
> Suzanne....
OH so now we have to "convince" you that its a good idea huh ??
The question of why *SHOULD* you (IE any woman, not specifically you)
is very simple in that its a good idea, whos time has come.
RE: .73
> The basic message to women seems to be, "If you want equality,
> and if you want us to believe that you are not sexist, cowardly,
> cold or unliberated -- then ask men out." One man even *dared*
> me to ask a man out.
> That is how I perceive what is being said here by some men.
> It appears that some men are trying to talk us *INTO* doing
> what they would like us to do.
No, the mans calling your bluff, in that back in reply .9
you said addressing me, "and yet you want women to take over
some of the traditional roles in initiating relationships ?
Hey I'am all for it ". Now, latter on you make mention that
your currently involved with someone. OK so your off the "market".
But why now are you reversing your original thought of its an
OK thing for a woman to do ?
> I don't think any man has the right to tell us what we ought
> to be doing in dating relationships as if it is somehow
> relavent to our search for equality.
Does this look familiar ? We're trying to *TELL* all you
women something again huh ?
> If you want to dislike not being asked out, then fine. If
> you want to say that you would like to be asked out (and that
> we are mistaken if we assume you do *NOT* like to be asked
> out) -- then fine.
OK, if theres any doubt in your or anyones else's mind at this
point lets clarify it now. YES, WE MEN, *DO* WISH THAT MORE WOMEN
ASKED WE MEN OUT, and to believe different is to be mistaken.
> Just don't try to tell us that it is UNFAIR if we don't ask
> men out (or that there is a problem with our LOGIC if we don't
> do it.) That is being manipulative because "dating" situations
> have nothing to do with rights. In other words, no one has
> the *RIGHT* to be asked out (so we are not infringing on anyone's
> rights if we don't do it.)
> Suzanne...
Rights, smights, its got nothing to do with rights. What its
got to do with is pain. Oh, Ill grant you there is no problem
with the logic of not doing it. But lets get it right, it is
unfair. Why ? simple, by staying with the traditional roles of only
men can ask, relieves women of the fear, anxiety, doubts, and
nervousness of just mustering the courage to do the asking.
This is all up front, now if the person says NO, then we have
all those lousy feeling that go along with the rejection.
No, by keeping things the way they are, women avoid all the
problems associated with the process. It avoids the having to
be dead on at reading all the signals each person puts out to
you. Do you women think its really all that easy ? Of course
its not and thats why most of you want out of it. On the other
side it was brought up that its tough to say no, well in my book
its a whole lot easier to say no and walk away then it is to go
through the process of getting that no. Thats why its unfair.
Bob B
|
| 178.79 | It's getting old kids. | AXEL::FOLEY | Rebel in the snow | Sat Nov 14 1987 01:02 | 6 |
|
ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZzzz...... Oh!..er..oh, it's just them
two going at it again.. zzZZZz..zZZZz...zzzzzZZZZZZ
mike
|
| 178.80 | ***ASTERISKS*** ABUSE. | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Sat Nov 14 1987 02:49 | 8 |
| It's ok Mike - just tune it out. It's the same old drift all
around the point, disseminating random crap type stuff. Next
unseen works wonders! At least the three consecutive replies
have ceased, hmm?? ;*)
Andy
|
| 178.81 | WE ARE PARTNERS | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Nov 14 1987 06:42 | 36 |
| To all, and .78 Delete attitude probs, flaws, Vilar from .0, .55.
Also the *dare*. That was thoughtless. I apologize.
# 2 The MAIN IDEA is ** BOTH SEXES CAN ASK OUT **. Women
and Men. Both. Also to ** KEEP ASKING **. Men and Women
asking EACH OTHER out IS a * GOOD IDEA *. There are other
Ways to meet also.
# 3 The *NO's* should be less painful with more *asks/action*
on each side. Less anxiety too.
RE .78 author You're correct about *Rights*, (no) expectations,
intimidation,etc. People *ARE* interested in the
*IDEA*. Let's FOCUS on IT.
# 4 If the *IDEA* in #2 needs any modif., then Let US,
as a BODY, do that. Also, let US, as a BODY, STICK TO
the Subject AMAP. That is, the *IDEA*, and the exper-
iences we all get out of it.
#5 If one person gets Inspired to ask Another out because
of these *IDEAS*, then more Power to US ALL.
# 6 NEVER make a case of Women against Men, or Men against
Women. EVER. It is how WE STRUCTURE OURSELVES AND
SOCIETY that MATTERS. ( Social Justice ). Know this.
# 7 THE CHALICE AND THE BLADE is THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK
OF OUR AGE. The Importance of a Partnership Society
and where WE Are Now. Harper and Row, Riane Eisler,
1987. BOOKS note 428 is developing the ideas.
# 8 Let's develop more Creative Ideas and Alternatives
with respect to the many things that we *DO*.
Russ
|
| 178.84 | | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sun Nov 15 1987 05:17 | 1 |
| Apology ACCEPTED suzanne.
|
| 178.85 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Sun Nov 15 1987 11:24 | 12 |
| re .83:
Does this mean thay you're making yet another one of your
dramatic conference farewells?
Or is it a guilt-laden apologia for the vicious and gratuitous
innuendo in .78 ("Shall I tell you what others have said to me
about you? I think I'll skip it.")?
Thanks as always,
--Mr Topaz
|
| 178.86 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Sun Nov 15 1987 11:31 | 20 |
|
Oh, one more thing if you haven't left us, Suzanne. Andy Fraser
brings up an interesting point about asterisks, and I hope you can
clear things up so that we can better understand the notes that
you write. You frequently use different methods to emphasize
words -- capitalizing them ("...we have been DAMN SMART...")
asteriskizing them ("maybe women *ought* to ask ..."), and
capitalizing-asteriskizing them ("...why *YOU* would want...")
Now, I'm reasonably certain that *YOU* is meant to be more
forceful than either DAMN SMART or *ought*, and that the latter
two carry greater weight than the rest of the words, but I'm not
sure of the difference between words that are capitalized (with no
**'s) and words with **'s (but no caps).
I'd have sent mail, but figured that other readers might find
themselves in the same boat; I'd appreciate any light you could
shed on this. Thanks very much,
--Mr Topaz
|
| 178.89 | | OSL07::TERJESC | Home is where the couch is | Sun Nov 15 1987 17:35 | 20 |
| Why is everybody so concerned about the formality about dating someone ?
I might have missed a point somewhere in the last few new notes, but
it seems to me that asking someone out, either to a dinner alone or to
a baseball game with a bunch of friends is something that is very serious.
Or is some kind of commitment.
I've been living in Norway the last 14 years (since I was 10) and I have
never had a date the way most of you describe. And I can't recall that any
of my friends have had any either. If we happen to see/meet someone we are
physicaly attracted to we usually say something like Eagle suggested somewhere:
"I'm doing so and so tomorrow, would you like to come along ?" This is not
just something that the male does, it's just as much done by females.
Is the "dating game" only used by americans to make friends/aquaintances ?
What do they do in other countries ?
Terje.
P.S I'm a male in case anyone is in doubt :-)
|
| 178.91 | Is Dating an Adult Responsibility | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Nov 15 1987 20:37 | 8 |
| Is dating an adult responsibility? Should both sexes go
thru the same ask/date/rewards/risks/etc., stages/experience?
As growth is involved, how might parents, schools, etc., encourage
the process? When possible share insights into healthy ( less
pressured ) ways the two can meet, go out, and have fun.
Also, how we can encourage women to do more of "it".
Russ
|
| 178.93 | Side-door methods work best | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Sun Nov 15 1987 22:32 | 17 |
| I consider it bordering on the ridiculous to be thinking of
"asking for a date" as some unpleasant chore similar to cleaning
out the cat litter box! I don't spend any time worrying about
why more women don't ask me out - if they're interested but shy,
they take the risk of my not noticing their interest enough to
ask them.
I agree with Suzanne that women DO initiate such contacts, but
tend to use "side-door" methods rather than direct propositions.
I feel that these methods are actually BETTER than the traditionally
male kind, and like to use them myself when I have the chance.
Sometimes it even works! But some of the best relationships I have
had were where the woman first made her interest clear to me, never
by asking directly for a date, but managing nevertheless to penetrate
the haze that constantly surrounds my brain where this subject is
concerned.
Steve
|
| 178.94 | A basic trunk first | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Nov 15 1987 23:22 | 59 |
| I would have children educated in basic sex ed age 10 - 14.
From Grades 1 - 12, I'd want schools to have books available
explaining what a date is ( the meeting of 2(+) people, usually
F/M, the adventure of these 2 people going out and doing *fun*
things. I'd like these books to detail the many things 2 people
can do together, like a picnic, movie, nature walk, collecting
beach shells, coins, riding bikes to ballparks, board games,
lite contact games ie 'twister, leather working, pottery, skcating,
hide and seek. discussing ideas like organizing at home, a work
place for homework, going over some homework with a parent, talk-
ing about ideas of God, sharing housework chores, planning and
building a treehouse, sharing the joy of teamwork and getting
more excited as the project(s) near completion. talking about
why sometimes things go wrong, that is failure, and that failures
are a part of life; that we learn from these and life goes on.
I would like young people better taught (by parents,teachers,
and peers) that the things to talk about in order are: ideas,
things, and people. I would want stressed by adults to these
youngsters that people very often talk about people in venal ways
when there are better ways to employ constructive criticism of
others ideas,personalities. I would teach these young people to
think in terms of solid English usage, things to listen for, the
formation of good ideas/plans. I would encourage reasonable risk
- taking ventures such as scuba diving, cave exploration, ball
playing, nature adventures and things these people might take
upon themselves to do.
I would show better ways of doing things by creating a situation
and asking the person how that situation could be better handled.
a xample would be counting to 10 before venting anger, to doing
homework in the afternoon to get it out of the way.
I would teach for ideas of others to be respected, encourage
them to *talk* these things out, stress initiative, persistence,
patience, and following thru, over and over.
H.S. age young adults I would want good study and social habits
established, with growth opportunities. preparation, such as good
notebooks, and briefcases would help make for a budding young
professionaly - minded person better ready - able, to meet the
challenges that the outside World presents. A few date requests
a year would be encouraged, and I would tell the young Woman or
Man that either person is *freely* abe to ask another person out,
and that old dating patterns( Man asks), are best thought as
things of the past.
I would hope that good dating attitudes would enamour each
individual to feel free to date, or not date. I would suggest
that a single looking person might use as a guideline 10 -12
date requests a year, but that there really are no rules regard-
ing such matters, though respecting oneself and the other are
aways important.
Suzanne, I"ve ony looked at a very basic trunk of ideas/actions
personal dev's that a person goes thru on our life journey.
So no there's No obligation to date, but I'd like the idea that
active dating ( when desired), is a Damn good idea, and would
hope that THAT IDEA, that Dating is Healthy be instilled in
their minds as just THAT -- A DAMN GOOD IDEA. Period.
I think People Ought to try it more, lest it becomes Extinct.
And who needs that.
Rip Van Winkle
|
| 178.96 | Kids do need guidance, and so do adults | XCUSME::DIONNE | Life is a game of Trivial Pursuit? | Mon Nov 16 1987 12:14 | 37 |
| re.94
> But the bottom line will continue to be that dating is optional.
> No man or woman is obligated to date in order to be fair to others.
> Sure, it might be fun to date (and you could tell people to date
> for the fun of it.) But it will never wash that it is anyone's
> responsibility to date.
With my children (3) - all teenagers, I've tried to teach them that
the most important aspects of dating is the opportunity to expose
themselves to people with different thoughts, attitudes, cultural
backgrounds, educations..... in short, dating for everyone should
be an educating experience, and help all of us to develop the
ability to respect all others, value differences, and to define our
own needs and wants within a relationship with others, and to help
us to understand what we would like to give of ourselves to others.
And of course, dating can and should be fun.
I have taught them that initiating a date is generally a positive
opportunity to meet new people, and it is of no importance whatsoever,
whether it it the man or woman who does the initiating, but I have
seen that generally, the boys are continuing to be initiating a
"date" more than the girls. I'd like to see that change, a lot
of teenage girls are missing the opportunity to develop confidence
in themselves, as well as missing the companionship of a lot of
very nice young men. Traditions seem to pass themselves along without
a lot of direct "passing down", so to speak. I would not hesitate
to initiate a date with a man that I thought would be interesting
to get to know, regardless of where that might lead, and my children
are well aware of this, but their experience with their peers tends
to make them think that I am the exception rather than the norm.
To me, the bottom line is this:
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Sandie
|
| 178.97 | | XCUSME::DIONNE | Life is a game of Trivial Pursuit? | Mon Nov 16 1987 14:04 | 4 |
| <------ make that re. 95 and touching upon .94.
what can I say, it was early (meaning before noon) Monday morning.
|
| 178.98 | And now, back to the conversation | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Nov 16 1987 18:40 | 119 |
|
|*****
|*****
|*****
|
|
|
A truce has been called and there fore peace terms will be abided by.
I'am using your .88 to answer your questions, but I've also expanded
to include things as part of the general conversation, which are
aimed at everyone.
RE: .88
> What you wrote in your note is that you (and all the other men
> in this conference) are not trying to "tell" us anything.
> I'm wondering how you define "tell."
Tell or told can be defined two ways. first would be it's use as
a word in a sentence, IE "I was told these facts, and am now tell
ing (relaying) them to you". This is the way I use the words and not
the second way , which is when the term(s) are use to "talk down"
to a person. An example of this would be "I'am telling you this,
(as in you had better pay attention or else) or a "I told you so."
The problem here is, that in every case that, there has existed
the slightest possibility that it could have the "talk down" meaning
to it, you have taken it that way. What I'am trying to get across
here is that in a awful lot of times, you have interpreted something
as a "talk down" type of statement, when the author did not mean it as
that. I'am trying to be as polite about this as I can in words on this
system. The reason I say this is that in so many cases you have come
back with something to the effect of " Your telling me (us) that..."
as if we were commanding you to think or do something.
What this all boils down to is that none of we men are attempting to
"tell" you or any other female how to live or run your life. What we
have done is express how we are feeling or what we are thinking. I hope
this clarifies this enough that in the future that people on both sides
ask for a clarification of the, in doubt statement before the tempers
rise and the flames start. OK ?
> You proceed, in your
> note, to write that it is unfair that women do not ask men
> out. So -- are you "suggesting" that women ask men out or
> just "mentioning" your displeasure that women do not do it?
Both, suggesting that it would be a good idea, and I am more
disapointed than displeased that it doesn't happen more often.
> There is no issue involving "fairness" when it comes to asking
> people out. Men are not forced to ask women out (and there
> are many who do not do it.) So if a man chooses to ask a woman
> out on a formal date, he takes his chances and risks pain.
Life isn't fair, the world isn't fair, there's a whole ton of
things that aren't fair, but does that mean we should go on
accecpting them as the status quo ? I don't think so, and
therefore it is my belief that for women to sit back and say
that they don't have to do it is a cop out. I still contend
that its unfair for only men to having to be the one taking
most of the risk in initiating a date.
> There are better ways to initiate relationships (other than
> getting up one's courage to ask for a first date.) Women
> initiate relationships all the time (using these other methods.)
OK, but I haven't heard of it happening very often. When are
the barriers of tradition going to be broken down ? Yes, you
have a point here, but you must remember that men don't have
the friend network working for them the same as women do.
> So, although (from an equality standpoint) women are certainly
> entitled to ask men out, we are not obligated to do so.
Nobodies obligated to do any thing in either case. But the problem
stands like this. Heres two people, that would make a good couple.
He's too shy to ask and shes wont because of tradition or what
ever. So what happens, they both pass on like ships in the night,
unaware of the fact that they could have been sharing the happiness
of each other save for the garbage that keeps them apart. This
is why I feel that keeping "it only men ask" is stupid.
> What that means is that women will ask men out if we want to,
> but are not being "unfair" if we don't. Since we appear to be
> more than willing to initiate relationships in other ways,
> the "full burden" of starting relationships no longer rests
> with men.
> We have merely found better ways to get things started (that
> involve less pain.) If you want to continue to suffer pain
> needlessly, that is your choice. But we don't have to suffer
> along with you.
Suzanne, Yes I hear you and am very aware of how women use
their "networking" system of friends to meet someone. (I had
a sister that was notoriously good at doing it) But what
happens when no one in the net knows the person ? What then ?
If these other methods are so good, why aren't they being employed
more ? I'am not posing these questions solely at you, they are ones
that need to be answered by all the women that follow this file .
I still feel there is a tremendous imbalance in who initiates
a get together, how ever its done.
> Bob, that is as nice as I know how to say it and am talking
> about ideas (and not attacking you.) I suggest that continued
> discussions between us should be written on this level. Personal
> attacks are not necessary at all (from either of us.) Agreed?
> Suzanne...
Concur , 1000 and one percent. Hopefully you will accept this
as a civil, friendly continuance of the discussion at hand.
Bob B
|
| 178.99 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Nov 17 1987 03:10 | 68 |
| My goodness, go away for one week and look at what happens in mennotes!
Seriously though, I am one of the anomalous women who asks men out,
rather regularly in fact. I find that my red and yellow lights are
very, very strong and tend to wash out my greens so they don't get
noticed. So all of my middle- to long-term relationships (read: t > 3
weeks) were initiated by me.
The nice thing about asking a man out is that I am in control: no
man can say I "owe" him sex (or whatever) when I initiated and/or
paid for the date. The bad thing is that I am unlikely ever to
run into the Harlequin Hero and get swept off my feet (like it's
"supposed" to happen). Rather I end up sweeping him off his (picture
a 5'6" woman carrying a 6'6" man across some threshold -- rather
funny looking, but who cares).
If you're hoping for a gorgeous strange woman to ask you out, you'll
have to wait a few centuries, unless you can wangle an introduction
from a mutual friend. When very attractive (physically and
personally, from what I could tell) strangers have asked me out,
I have HAD to say no, much to my regret; instincts are fine, but strange
men are DANGEROUS. If only one out of 3000 is a rapist, that is
STILL too risky. That is sad, if you ask me. There are a couple
people I would really have liked to know better.
If you're hoping for that nice person across the hall to ask you
out (and you know her) I would suggest clear green signals. I can
say that a few more men would have been asked out by me if they
put out better signals. There have been a few times when I thought
I perceived a cold shoulder and later found out the person was actually
very interested.
To those of you who feel it is unfair to require green lights, tough.
I put out those lights and try to make them very clear (though SOME
bad apples tend to ignore them). If women do it, so can men.
I do have one question, though: what are men's green lights? My
green is permitting any touch (yes, if I "casually" brush up against
you, it is a very, very green light), and I have found many men
also send out that one. But simply agreeing to go out to dinner
when I ask is not necessarily a green light -- some guys think I'm
just being platonic/friendly if we go out to dinner, especially
if we have been friends for quite a while.
Which brings up another question: what are men's red lights? Maybe
I'm dense or I've just run into a few ambiguous guys, but SOME men
don't send out any signals, go-away OR come-hither.
Inputs are always appreciated. Gotta hone that technique.
Comic relief:
In San Francisco, I had been visiting with a gay friend of mine.
We were discussing playing around with sex roles and I had described
my latest, er, conquest: took a guy out to a VERY nice restaurant
with candles, etc. [While my wallet won't let me do that again for
awhile, I enjoyed it a lot and it was fun to watch Michael get
accustomed to the role-reversal (he's a traditional sort at times).]
I told this to my friend over dinner. When the check arrived, we
scrambled for it and I managed to get it before he did. He pulled
out his wallet and I told him to put it away. When the credit card
form arrived, he reached for that, wondering (I guess) how much
dinner cost. When I wouldn't let him see it he said, "Oh you always
get to be the man".
<chortle>
Lee
|
| 178.100 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Here, give me that knife! | Tue Nov 17 1987 18:49 | 16 |
|
You certainly have a right to expect a certain amount of social
awareness in a gentleman. I have no particular problem with it.
Usually it is the woman who makes the more crucial descision, that
is, whether you want to be bored by this particular clown, now or
in the future. That can be a very strategic descision, depending
on the persistance of the particular clown in question.
Yes, I have a twitch up my right leg every time a woman goes for
her wallet. Again, gentlemen acknowlege women's ability to accumulate
and control wealth and supress latent chauvinist instincts. The
corporate setting tends to accustom men to seeing female sales reps
charging buisness related meals.
So you went away... so what happened..?
|
| 178.101 | | 25691::STHILAIRE | you may say I'm a dreamer | Wed Nov 18 1987 14:22 | 21 |
| re .99, I would also like to hear some men say what some "red lights
" are. I mean if someone has always been friendly and pleasant to
you but would never be interested in dating you, *is* there any
way you can tell that so that you would know never to make the mistake
of asking that person out?
I suspect that when most men say they wished women would ask them
out what they really are saying is that they want a "gorgeous stranger"
to approach them, not some average looking woman they've seen around.
I've very rarely asked men out, and recently asked a guy to lunch
for the first time in ages. Actually, I had nothing more in mind
than just chatting and getting to know this person as a friend,
but he declined in a way that sounded as though her were declining
a date. Basically, I was just feeling lonely and felt like a needed
a few more friends. How can a woman initiate *friendship* with
a man without having them react like they just got a marriage proposal
out of nowhere?
Lorna
|
| 178.102 | | 57578::WILLIAMS | | Wed Nov 18 1987 15:33 | 15 |
| Re 101:
I really don't know how a woman should go about this but as
a man I always state up front the reason for the request:
"How about a friendly lunch?"
"How about sime time together outside the office?"
The former is an invitation to be a bit more friendly. The
latter is an invitation to investigate a relationship. The wording
leaves a good deal to be desired since both sentences are taken
out of context.
Douglas
|
| 178.103 | | CEODEV::FAULKNER | tickets, going going gone.... | Wed Nov 18 1987 19:32 | 13 |
| re 101
with some of the people in this company simply send them a
triplicate, notarized, tri-witnessed, certificate stating quite
firmly that you a.
Have not chosen the taffeta (sp?) wedding
gown
b. are not out sizing wedding bands
c. have no intention too
JUST LUNCH.
|
| 178.104 | But who says a great lady can't be gorgeous? | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Nov 19 1987 01:31 | 14 |
|
Re: .99
What you said is reasonably valid, but the 'gorgeous stranger'
idea is a baseless presumption. The two women above a 9 on the
wolf scale, that I know, often complain about not getting asked
out. And, several guys have made the comment that the extremely
attractive women that they've dated left a bad taste in their mouths
(figuratively). From this, I get the impression that, like me,
many guys are not even LOOKING for a 'gorgeous stranger', but maybe
a great lady.
Greg
|
| 178.105 | Healthy Initiatives Work Wonders | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Nov 19 1987 02:07 | 20 |
| Is Resistance to (good) Ideas the Prob?
Physics 101: C = V / R
Current = Voltage/Resistance
Date(Chance/Probability)=Date(*ASK*)/Date(no ask)
(or no ask)/(answer no)
Has anyone said "Good idea!, I'll consider asking a
Guy out? If I like it, I may continue to ask men out, and perhaps
encourage other women to try it." So much Resistance, be it Rights
talk, psychology, creative alternatives, or what have you.
If a dozen arguements form against even whether one "should" ask
(or try it), then what Chance does the Actual EVENT of *ASKING*
Got? It seems People get stuck halfway thru these (silly) distractions
and forget(never get to) what the Goal Was in the first place.
IS IT A GOOD IDEA ..... whose Time has Come ?
Russ
|
| 178.106 | If only we could all do it more... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Nov 19 1987 02:29 | 1 |
| re .105 Put (answer yes) as a 3rd item in the Resistance formula.
|
| 178.107 | | FPOVAX::RAINEY | | Fri Nov 20 1987 13:52 | 6 |
| re .106
Yes, I think it is a good idea-I have asked men out before
with favorable response and probably would in the future.
Chris
|
| 178.108 | Yer RIght. Some are aPRIZE (1st or Booby?). | BETA::EARLY | Bob_the_Hiker | Wed Dec 02 1987 15:19 | 30 |
| re: .0
Your point, that some men ARE a prize, is well taken. I've been
asked out several times in the past few years, some of which I declined
because - that although I seemed a "prize" to them, I was also seeking
a 'prize' to be with.
Perhaps some , like yourself, have not yet met up with that person
who thinks you special enough to take that risk with you ?
But, no matter, even for the ones who failed miserabley to excercise
their good sense to ask me; rather than commiserate on their stupidity,
i respected their personal choice, played sexist once again, and
asked them out ... often to the credit of us both ;^) .
Reality is: Dating is still a trauma for many people, and although
we have instituted an acceptable 'Social mechanism' which says that
its 'ok' for women to ask men out; the reality is that many (most
?) still won't ask a man out for the 'First Date'.
Frankly, I can't say I blame them, because long ago I gave up (mostly)
the notion of asking women out on dates that I didn't already know
in some measure; either through group contacts : (Parties, notes,
hiking, clubs, dances, introducions by mutual friends, etc) because
of the stigmatized trauma that comes with 'Rejection'.
So, if someone does ask you out: Great !; but why fault the genration
for adhering to what "mama told 'em " when they were young ?
Bob
|
| 178.109 | my mother/myself | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Dec 08 1987 00:08 | 11 |
| re .108
You're right. Usage of the neocortex occurs in *Some men*,
and those men that show direct interest in life and others *are*
a prize.
Regarding lack of neocortex usage by others, I also concur.
As has been proven here, non-usage of that faculty of mind is a
right, a non-issue, and a 'cultural phenomenon'.
Dating initiatives are small part of the picture. Delve deeper.
Russ
|
| 178.111 | Where Have All The Children Gone..., | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Dec 09 1987 03:15 | 35 |
| ... long time ago...
re .110
Did you interpret 'others' correctly?
To think that I would think that .... :-)
The note 'Beautiful Women who can't get Dates' is perfect
justice for those women who rarely, if ever, ask a man out
in return. Dating initiative is a stage in the courtship
process, and I respect those men and women who show intellectual
and emotional directness in all stages of that Important Process.
Envision a pair of 5 yr olds, a girl and a boy. At the
far ends of a large sandbox, they play with sand and toys.
Each visits the other in all areas of the sandbox, playground,
home, etc. Freely and joyfully, these 2 individuals play together
along with doing their own thing.
Somewhere along the 'growth' line, that freedom changed.
The boys and girls largely form friends with their own sex,
ideas of us/them stereotypes developed, boys get pressured
in adolescence to have to ask the girls out, the girls tend
to start giving signs/signals of interest, the idea of per-
forming sexual moves with a date in Dad's car get's instilled
in the young man's mind, and so forth and so on.
I don't know a better place to start to point the finger
by first zeroing in on the Family. I think the lack of Adult
Thinking, maturity, guidance, direction, etc leads to the
outgrowth of other 'bad' influences, ie peers, TV-Movies,
media, politics, and so forth. Hell what COUNTS is INNER BEAUTY!
Ideas of truth and beauty invariably are the focus (direct
or indirect) of my notes. So I'm a purist.
Russell
|
| 178.113 | Stereotyping is hard to change | ZURA2::OLLODART | | Wed Dec 09 1987 12:07 | 12 |
| re:104 re:99
I tend to agree that extremely good looking women have the
tendency to be categorized as "stuck up B@t@c@h@.. I've
noticed that my friends (male), as well as myself, wouldn't
ask a too good looking lady out, simply because (C=V/R) the
resistance factor was too high based on what I said in the
first sentence.
Even if the good looking lady is very nice. Stereotyping is
hard to change.
Peter
|
| 178.114 | doing the job | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Dec 09 1987 15:40 | 15 |
| re .112 .81 deleted some premature conclusions in .0. Things like
poor dating initiatives and kitch cosmetics do not crack my Top
100 things I look for in a woman. But they're on the list.
I think the topic got people thinking about ways the sexes
express interest in each other. There are all sorts of ways the
2 sexes meet (or don't get to meet). Most Men ask and most Women
don't. So what. As Greg said in 183.11, "..Luckily, men will still
do the job." Unfortunately, it is a Job.
If singles could (say) ask the other out an ave of once a month,
a bad 0 - 6 run would mean little, as the other sex's *ASKS* would
be coming in. But NOOOOOO.....
Shall we discuss personal initiatives, Family influences, etc
here, or might 'more important matters' best be explored in WWIII.
Russ
|
| 178.115 | | RAINBO::MODICA | | Wed Dec 09 1987 15:55 | 9 |
| Russ, you bring up some fascinating points...
I read a study a while ago that stated that women, though they
don't actually do the asking, are the ones who control the dating
game. They give the signals, they make the decisions regarding
yes and no. I discussed this with my wife and it held true for us.
Looking back, it also fit the dating pattterns I had experienced.
Could it be that to do the asking is in effect relinquishing
the "seat of power" in the dating game?
|
| 178.116 | | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Dec 10 1987 06:46 | 10 |
|
Re:.115
Of course, that only applies in the cases in which the male
waits to receive the signals. In some instances, particuarly bar
situations, males have been known to attack without intentional
temptation on the female's part.
Greg
|
| 178.117 | Surrealistic Pillow | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Dec 11 1987 14:32 | 49 |
| { She has Funny Cars* }
Re .116 touching on .115
Why don't Women just plain ask Men (that
they're interested in) out? Did/does an organization like NOW ever
encourage it? What's with all these 'superior ways to meet' 3rd
parties ( dating services, classif ads, etc ) for anyhow? Why pay
$400 - $1000+ for 12 meetings/yr. Are people too buried in their
careers/lifestyle to make the time and explore the world meeting
people? I laughed at a recent Boston Magazine cover with a Yuppie
caught up to her ears in 'work, etc, too busy for much else.
Re Everybody: Exactly What is expressing *Interest* in oneself and
someone else? Do both sexes express 'equal' intellectual and emotion-
al *interest* in each other? How might such *interest* be best shown
by the 2 sexes in this topic, the exploration of*best ideas/decisions,
and important issues? Are such things being best shown by adults
this day and age? If so, what's going right, if not, what's wrong-
and what's a good correction?
When was the last time emotional arguements interferred with
a good discussion of yours? Does lack of emotional capacity by a
party do in a good discussion, ie does that party bring on emotion-
al/personal 'things' largely/entirely unrelated to the topic at
hand? Does the I/E capacity (range, refined feelings, depth,etc)
of the party being 'attacked' start to get tested/stressed out
during a topic shift that was once rational, but became personal?
How well does such party hold up under such a shift? To what degree
does the 'attacked party' to blame for joining in on the 'attack
mentality? (corr-not does,is) When is such 'defense' really justified
and when is it not? Did the party being attacked have the I/E Capacity/
MATURITY, not to join in an emotional arguement except as a (very)
last resort? We're not talking about dating anymore are we? Anyhow,
how often does the original issue return to the original form and
how often is the *best decision* regarding Issues reached by the
2 (or 1!) parties in question? Also following thru to higher levels
of an issue/idea (ie following a budget, investments, long range
college plans-children/self, values, perceptions of 'reality,etc)?
How often does emotion sabotage an idea/plan? Individual/Mutual.
Do people control emotions, or allow emotions to control them?
When where, and with who/what? And most important -- WHY ?
So what is an Adult? When are Healthy Initiatives *allowed*
to *control/dominate a talk/action? Is there a such thing as Self
Intimidation?? Does one sex wrongly idolize the other? Are both
sexes a bit overinflated in Value Perceptions of self/others?
What is behind all these masks/facades we often show/hide behind?
A lot or not much? Not done but gotta go...
*and so do men...
Russ
|
| 178.118 | 2 or 3? | ULTRA::LARU | Let's get metaphysical | Fri Dec 18 1987 20:24 | 4 |
| maybe some of the guys who don't get asked out by women just aren't as
close to '10' as they'd like to think...
|
| 178.119 | worn out 5 stamp | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Dec 19 1987 02:21 | 3 |
| re .118 Of course if Dec/Society had dating initiative performance
quotas (asks), some guys indeed would be getting 'those'
2's and 3's. And the women...
|
| 178.120 | lets hear it for the guys who are different | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Dec 19 1987 02:42 | 5 |
| wer I single I would look for the 2's and 3's because I found
that guys that *society* grades that way...make fantastic wonderful
*10* husbands (well at least one husband but my friends say like
wise.. :-)) and fathers.. and for that matter, make the sort of
men who can be just plane friends..no pressure...
|
| 178.121 | Wrong Crowd? | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Mon Dec 21 1987 19:59 | 8 |
| Perhaps you guys are running in the wrong crowd. I'm neither God
nor dog but I get asked all the time. I get politely propositioned
to.
Check your appearence, be sensitive, let women know that you like sex
and run with the women that are inclined to like sex and are not
afraid of their bodies. It takes some looking and some practice
but it's rewarding.
|
| 178.122 | I'll settle for getting asked out | STARCH::WHALEN | He who laughs lasts | Mon Dec 21 1987 21:25 | 9 |
| re .121
I think that I'm speaking for most of the men when I say that I
would be happy to get asked out occasionally. While it may be
flattering to get propositioned once in a while, sex outside of
a relationship is not very rewarding and not something that I'm
looking for.
Rich
|
| 178.123 | Sure? | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Tue Dec 22 1987 00:45 | 3 |
| Reply to .122; Whalen,
Are you sure you speak for most men?
|
| 178.124 | The gist | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Tue Dec 22 1987 01:31 | 7 |
|
Re: .123
He's got the general idea. As always, though, there are
variations.
Greg
|
| 178.125 | The question is closed then... | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Sun Dec 27 1987 03:45 | 3 |
| Reply to -.2,
Then it's no wonder...
|
| 178.126 | | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Mon Dec 28 1987 22:52 | 5 |
|
Re: -.1
By YOUR order? HAH!
|
| 178.127 | Men settle for less(and less, and less, and... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Dec 31 1987 01:05 | 10 |
| RE last few: I think most Men settle for less. Very poor education,
sense of history, values and (consequently) perspectives
(ie Vision). Of course, what do I know. A prowling
about on a few Premises here, dusting off some there,
testing the waters here, there. A Solution here, there.
Might Nietzsche's "Values are what silently and
secretly run the World" vision ever sink in......?
I rather doubt it.
Russ
|
| 178.128 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Thu Dec 31 1987 22:36 | 3 |
| Reply to .127, Russ,
What are you talking about??
|
| 178.129 | the Real Enemy: Man's Tolerance | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Jan 01 1988 03:23 | 76 |
| re .128 What is an educated Gentleman.
Did Father spoil Mom.
Did they teach us Life.
NOW's Premises + Blaming Men Heavily.VERY HEAVILY.
Were/Are NOW"s *Leaders* the VERY BEST in the WORLD?
(No compromise[for less] on the above urgency)
Did MEN...MEN settle for Less when the Women FLAMED
them HARD day after Day after Day in the '70's?
After a long hard day at work. And caring. And
listening. Providing. Yes, Mr OPPRESSIVE, SEXIST
CHAUVINIST PIG.
WERE NOW'S Ideas professionally or emotionally
presented. Feminist followers. Civil or fanatic.
Did many housewives change the Respect and Admir-
ation they once had toward their husbands. Rightly?
Do you, as a Man feel that most Women view Men in
todays Society in the right 'light'? Better or
worse, compared with 20, 30, 40 years ago?
Were the massive Marches, Protests, ERA, Abortions,
Divorces, Accusations, Case studies, Psychology,
Sociological 'Realities', Oppression, Sexist, Chauvanist
AD NAUSEUM ... REALLY ALL SUPER HEAVILY M E N'S
FAULT ?? I ask you. WHO REALLY MIGHT VERY
POSSIBLY **BE**, the tyrant in those 'Lovely 1968-
80 (being kind) Blame Games eh?
Men? Or (v. slim chance)... NOW & ALL of its'
*FOLLOWERS*........ *ESP* Women, and Loads of 'men'.
So NOW's Premises & Solutions were/are absolutely
correct. Highest Level. For Families, Christianity,
and = blame/responsibility for All of *Society ills*
Their Premises/accusations hold Sexual Inequality
(Sexual Immaturity-surprise!) as an = fault. Both
sexes are equally to blame for *Societies* (Family)
Problems. That impression was firmly made in the 70's.
NOW's Ms magazine has been a shining example of showing
Men and Women how much the organization is 'FOR'both
sexes. Male/female criticisms are balanced, and warmth
is shown to Men in very deep, caring fashion.
NOW's Book Reviews & Book suggestions are balanced
and unbiased towards either sex.
NOW's press releases equally praise/blame the sexes
and both Political Parties in a Mature, balanced way.
NOW selects President's like Collette Dowling.
NOW's messages were heard by 'highly educated housewives'
c. 1967-73, and these women convinced their husbands
how VERY **WRONG** nearly ALL of their **Husbands**
prejudices, attitudes, behaviors, treatments, etc
were. All AGAINST WOMEN. He always behaved against
her & other women in an unhuman, unfeeling, abusive,
sexist, oppressive, demeaning, tyrannical, insensitive,
authoritarian way. Not to mention,..................
Susan Brownmiller said that ALL MEN RAPE & hold ALL
WOMEN HOSTAGE THRU I N T I M I D A T I O N.
RECENTLY NOW SAID...............................
GENTLEMEN: Have You read Ms Today?
Weren't the 70's Loverly............
Anything Ring any Bells ...Yet ?
Nice day for a White Wedding isn't it ?
say your prayers
Russ
|
| 178.130 | | CEODEV::FAULKNER | GOD, drives a camaro. | Sat Jan 02 1988 19:43 | 2 |
| It makes me feel good to realize the more someone talks the less
I understand him; and I ain't alone.
|
| 178.131 | Why not post something appropriate for the topic?? | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Sat Jan 02 1988 20:15 | 5 |
| Reply to .130, Kerry,
For once I fully agree, you are not alone. I don't know that he's
talking about either. It'd probably help if he posted something
appropriate to the topic.
|
| 178.132 | ask & ye shall receive | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Jan 05 1988 02:34 | 10 |
| re .130, 131 I agree. I had mistakingly thought the topic was
*Deliberately* ratholed long ago and was starting to
feel free to use the place as an anything ground.
Again, my regrets for the offenses. The Poor tangents.
ps 131 I apologize for saying anything about the 'sex rev'
'over there'. Any traditional values are obviously
obsolete this Godless, hedonistic, VD, unwanted preg-
nancy, AIDS age. Yes, experience. I see whaT YOU MEAN.
RUSS
|
| 178.133 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | In your heart you KNOW it's flat. | Sat Jan 09 1988 22:27 | 4 |
| Reply to .132; Russ,
You can say anything you want but pleeeeezzzzeee enter something
appropriate to the topic or start another one...
|
| 178.134 | ladies I'm available | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Jan 11 1988 03:33 | 14 |
| re .133 Mike, what more do you think can be said about the fact
that few women ask men out? We can look into the ways
that typical growing boys and girls are raised, drawing
out some info (about each sex's input/expectations), and
make a few educated conclusions.
In a w/nts topic (548?) I was pleased to see some
enthusiastic responses. Women were encouraging other
Women that asking a Man out was a perfectly good thing
to do, if they so chose to.
Maybe I should find out how many Men can really cook
or clean a House? :-) What the h*ll.
regards,
Russ
|
| 178.135 | | QUARK::LIONEL | We all live in a yellow subroutine | Mon Jan 11 1988 19:15 | 14 |
| Re: .134
Russ, if you're "available", it sounds like HIT::SINGLES is the
conference for you. If you sound attractive enough, you'll get
replies from women.
Many men are perfectly capable of cooking and cleaning. I like to
think of myself as one, but my grandmother doesn't seem to believe me -
she keeps asking if I have a maid. (Her increduility isn't based
on seeing my house or sampling my cooking, which she hasn't done,
but rather on my late grandfather's inability to even FIND the kitchen
much make use of it!)
Steve
|
| 178.136 | NOW has arrived | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 13 1988 02:42 | 5 |
| RE .135 I just got asked out by a very caring, perceptive
woman. So as of now, I'm 'unavailable'. Somebody
up there likes me. :-)
Russ
|
| 178.137 | Good Luck with the new lady... | FSLENG::HEFFERN | | Wed Jan 13 1988 09:54 | 7 |
| CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Did it "make your day"?
How do you figure on being "unavailble" already? Quick
judgement isn't it?
cj
|
| 178.138 | how sweet it is | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 13 1988 10:52 | 9 |
| re .137 Well I'm always open to suggestion. :-)
ps yes it made my day.
Alas some judgements
do come quick. :-)
riding high,
Russ
|
| 178.139 | broken heart | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Feb 24 1988 16:07 | 5 |
| re .135 Oh well it didn't work out. You think Singles is the
place for me? Guess I better not put down 'radical
masculinist'. I might have to cook then. :-)
Russ
|
| 178.140 | Don't give up!!!! | FSTVAX::PLAMONDON | | Thu Mar 03 1988 18:29 | 7 |
| re .139
Don't feel bad, it didn't work for me either, but don't give up
the ship. I am a firm believer that there is someone for everyone.
Jules
|