Long musings on men, women, and hard work

This is going to be long.

No one in the blogosphere "fisks" (takes apart expertly) weak and embarrassing posts about gender and sexuality better than Amanda.  This morning, she goes after the fellows who wrote in to Salon to attack Rebecca Traister, author of an online article entitled Attack of the Listless Lads.

Traister began:

I'm bearing witness to a bona fide crisis in American masculinity, one that seems especially, but not exclusively, to afflict the young, urban and privileged. And with it, I have observed the birth of a new breed of man: a man of few interests and no passions; a man whose libido is reduced and whose sense of responsibility nonexistent. These men are commitment-phobic not just about love, but about life. They drink and take drugs, but even their hedonism lacks focus or joy. They exhibit no energy for anyone, any activity, profession or ideology. While they may have mildly defined areas of interest -- in, say, "Star Wars," or the work of Ron Jeremy -- they have trouble figuring out what kind of food they might want to eat on a given night. And, in an effort to cure what ails them, they have been medicated to the gills with potions designed to dull their feelings even further.

While a bit of a whopping generalization, Traister isn't far from the mark here.

The best of the letters to Traister  (in terms of encapsulating what I hear from many Men's Rights Advocates) is from a Paul Fenn.    He writes:

Don't forget, too, that from the standpoint of even smart, well-rounded bachelors, modern women are harder work than ever. Women always were an unfathomable puzzle. But now they're like men -- narcissistic, selfish, demanding, neurotic, image-obsessed, ego-driven, attention-needing, impatient -- AND an unfathomable puzzle, one with money, power, expectations and strong feelings of entitlement. That's a hell of a lot for a man to factor into everything he says and does and feels.

To me, a well-traveled North American recent ex-bachelor of 46, our culture's been over-designed, and weakened for it. In the older cultures, young men and women would paddle through the rapids of change and only get splashed, while over here the canoes have been overturned and the current has all the paddlers in its grasp. The irony or paradox is, most of the single, attractive, intelligent women I know -- and being in the beauty business, I know plenty -- would prefer the male of the pre-feminist, pre-p.c. era to the lifeless twits and insipid metrosexuals they have to make do with nowadays. Interesting too, how so many of the single, attractive, intelligent men I know avoid local women and instead pursue immigrant girls from more established cultures who are comfortable in their own less-complex skins and bring their own flourishes of exotica and mystery with them.

Well, Fenn is a far more articulate misogynist than most I run into.

Do read the Salon piece, the letters, and Amanda's response.

What I wanted to touch on briefly was on Fenn's notion (one that I've heard from many MRAs) that modern American women are simply "too much" for contemporary men:

Don't forget, too, that from the standpoint of even smart, well-rounded bachelors, modern women are harder work than ever. Women always were an unfathomable puzzle. But now they're like men -- narcissistic, selfish, demanding, neurotic, image-obsessed, ego-driven, attention-needing, impatient -- AND an unfathomable puzzle, one with money, power, expectations and strong feelings of entitlement.

Well, he doesn't argue for male superiority here, which I suppose is a plus.  Still, I'm deeply troubled by the complaint that women are "harder work than ever."  The underlying assumption -- and it isn't always unique to men -- behind a line like that is that hard work isn't part and parcel of any enduring romantic and sexual relationship.  It's true that in our pornographic age, men can find sexual release without doing much more than switching on the computer.  Our sense of what is "difficult" has become so distorted that a great many men seem to regard even basic pleasantries like actually going out on a date to be too much of an effort.   Our fantasy -- Fenn's fantasy -- is of simple, uncomplicated girls (not women) who will not ask us to do the hard work of really building a modern, loving, egalitarian relationship.

Committed monogamous relationships ought to be a hell of a lot of work.    As one of my old friends used to say to me, "Hugo, you're either transforming or you're stagnating.  Those are your only two options."  Stagnation is easy; growth is hard.  When men masturbate to porn rather than pursue relationships with real women, they're stagnating.  When they seek out the "less complex" and the "exotic", they are stagnating.   Though both men and women can grow professionally and intellectually in solitude, damned few of us of either sex really do our best emotional work alone.  And if we engage in what Traister calls "institutionalized promiscuity", then we absolutely guarantee ourselves stagnation.  Having what is essentially the same experience over and over again with different women gives the illusion of everlasting novelty, but in fact, there's no growth there.  Having a series of different and challenging experiences with the same woman is far more likely to produce beneficial results for one's soul.

If there's one unifying battle cry among most men's rights advocates, it's this:

"Men are okay as they are.  We don't need to change!  It's women who need to change, and they need to stop making unreasonable demands of us!"

I don't think any of us ever get to say "I don't need to change."   All of us, without exception, carry around our selfish desire to stagnate, to be comfortable, to focus more on ourselves than on others.  That's true in my case and in the case of everyone I've ever met.  Some folks are wise enough to recognize that dark side of their nature, and they spend their lives actively seeking to transform it by reaching out to others and by challenging themselves to grow.   Most simply shrug, say defensively "I can't help the way I am" and demand that others change to accommodate their own needs.

I became an active pro-feminist for both ideological and personal reasons.  Ideologically, I saw that the triumphs of earlier generations in securing things like the right to vote and the right to education had not really given women full and equal opportunity in society.  I saw the women I loved struggling with everything from the glass ceiling to eating disorders to sexual assault to the mom/career dilemma, and I became convinced that theirs was a struggle worth joining.  On a personal level, I liked that the pro-feminist men I knew were not willing to sit around and cheerfully affirm reckless and irresponsible male behavior.  They didn't believe that "boys will be boys"; they didn't believe that our hormones or our DNA excused infidelity, abuse, porn addiction, or self-centeredness. 

Where the men's rights movement says to men:  "You're okay, it's those feminists who are at fault for your pain", the pro-feminist movement says to men: "Look, women have their part.  But we don't grow -- not at all -- by pointing out the faults of others until we've first addressed our own failings.  As men, we need to hold each other accountable.  We need to see where we've been wrong -- personally and institutionally.  And we need to empower each other to break out of these painfully confining roles and actually start to live!"

On a "macro" level, pro-feminist men's work is hard work.  It's not easy challenging apathy; it's not easy challenging boorishness, it's not easy challenging the pervasive sense that women have become too demanding.  On a "micro" level, for those of us who fall in love with and build lives with women, relationships are a hell of a lot of work.    Monogamy magnifies our failings, and what a blessing that is!   There are some truths about us only a lover who has known us a long time can see.  The best partner will, with love and patience and caring, challenge and push his or her partner to transform himself or herself into becoming more loving, more giving, and more of a beacon of light to the world.

It's funny:  we live in a society that romanticizes one kind of male transformation.  The journey from scrawny recruit to buff Marine, from chubby sloth to sculpted athlete -- these cliches are on our television sets and movie screens every day.    But while men expect to be challenged and changed by a military boot camp, we don't have the same expectation about romantic relationships.  No, I don't think our girlfriends and wives are drill instructors!  But I do think we need to see that becoming "all we can be" (to borrow the old Army slogan) takes a colossal amount of work.  Just as no soldier or Marine can become his best without the support and encouragement to grow that his comrades give him, no man or woman can, I believe become his or her "best" without being supported, encouraged, and ultimately confronted and challenged by  a romantic partner.

When women are economically, politically, and sexually dis-empowered, they are dependent on men.  When they are dependent on men, they are less able to challenge them. Women's financial, educational, and corporeal autonomy allows them to speak truths more fearlessly; truths that we men are often stunned to hear.   Little wonder the MRAs rage against the feminism that has empowered women to finally, after eons, give voice to their frustrations and their wants!  But seen from a pro-feminist perspective, the movement has liberated men as well.  It has given us mothers and wives and sisters and girlfriends and daughters and coworkers who are increasingly unafraid to push us to transform ourselves and break out of old and stagnant patterns.

Do women have their work to do?  Of course.  But as I've said on many an occasion, it's not appropriate -- given the history of sexism in this country -- for a man to preach to women about what they ought to be doing differently.   Men need to focus on confronting one another in love, and encouraging our brothers to be willing to do the difficult and ultimately rewarding work our sisters are calling us to do.

Comments

[Rachel]

"You're either transforming or you're stagnating" -- I like that.

I agree that longterm relationships are hard work, and that the hard work is valuable...and that, as you say, no one gets to say "I don't need to change," because it's pretty much never true.

At this moment in my life, I'm working on treading a wise and sane line between pushing myself to grow and transform in the ways that need to happen -- and allowing myself the comfort of knowing that this is a lifelong process and it's okay if some of these changes take a long time. I've been guilty of wanting to rush my changes, wishing I were through with the hard part so I could enjoy the fruits of my labors, and these days it seems important for me to slow down, acknowledge that the journey is as important as the destination, and allow my changes to happen in organic ways.

That doesn't alter the basic fact that I'm a work-in-progress, though. I'm just trying to do the work in progress at a rate that is sustainable, since I know it's a lifelong endeavor. :-)

[Hugo]

Rachel, that's important. In my enthusiasm for the next challenge, the next growth opportunity, my Gemini/ENFP impulsiveness leads me to be a bit disdainful of rest and process. Remembering to cycle down every once in a while is good. Running taught me that. If you run hard every day, you break down. You alternate rest with gradually increased training, things go much better.

[Mr. Bad]

Once again Amanda dishes up a steaming pile of cow manure, seasoned with her special sauce of vulgar references to male and female anatomy and topped with a dash of her special secret misandrist bile. Her point? 'Men are selfish, shallow assholes who are afraid of Strong Powerful Women(TM) and thus prefer wanking-off to porn or other computer-generated fantasy in lieu of worshiping our superior femaleness.' Yeah, right, heard that one before. It didn't fly then and it still doesn't.

Your point about men changing is interesting but similarly shallow. We non-feminist men do change - we grow, and just as much as you pro-femmies do - but many times in ways that you feminists don't necessarily approve of, and that's what really bothers you isn't it? Oh well, c'est la vie.

We MRAs don't think that we shouldn't change via growth, so you're completely off-base on that one. What we think is that contrary to feminist opinion, men aren't broken and we don't need fixing. Especially according to the specs in the feminist repair manual for men.

[Hugo]

Mr. Bad, I've deleted the most offensive part of your previous comment. Personal attacks on other bloggers don't fly here, you know that by now.

I do think we're broken, you're darned right. God doesn't want sacrifices, the Psalmist says, but He wants a "broken heart and a contrite spirit." We are all at our best when we recognize both our personal spiritual brokenness, but also -- as men -- our individual complicity in a culture that mistreats and objectifies women.

[Antigone]

Mr. bad, it seems to me like it wasn't Amanda who was saying that men are shallow individuals afraid of strong women, but rather, the man who wrote the letter.

And I don't think Hugo was saying that "men" are broke and need fixing. I think he said that "individuals" need to grow and "society" needs to stop mistreating and objectifying women. Where do you get "men" from that?

[Fred]

Hugo, you said: "Still, I'm deeply troubled by the complaint that women are "harder work than ever." The underlying assumption -- and it isn't always unique to men -- behind a line like that is that hard work isn't part and parcel of any enduring romantic and sexual relationship."

My interpretation of that complaint about hard work (from my male perspective) is that it is harder than before. Yes, relationships are hard work, and that is a lesson I learned all too well with my parent's divorce. My dad foolishly thought he wouldn't have to work on his marriage or family life. It cost him both. The problem is, so many women are so selfish or so demanding (or just plain ol' playing the game of Bigger,Better,Deal) that the dating game just isn't worth it anymore for many men, let alone the marriage game. I watched my arsehole father get the better of my mother in divorce court, yet I still see many many more men have their lives ruined simply because their wife/gf "fell out of love" or "fell in love and into the bed of another" with no real consequences for their actions. My mom may have lost out on her fair share of the assets but she won out in that she still has a son who is in her life. My father and I had a very weak relationship the years before he died.

Also, '"Men are okay as they are. We don't need to change! It's women who need to change, and they need to stop making unreasonable demands of us!"'

No, we're not perfect. Yes, men can/should change in many ways. I think what we get tired of, is the unreasonable demands women make to change to meet their needs while forgoing our own needs. Yet, unlike days of yore, we don't really benefit from that with a lifelong partner anymore. A lot of women seem to have forgotten or never learned about the idea of reciprocity.

[NYMOM]

Fred: You can say all that you saw during your childhood and yet the ONLY thing you took away from that is: "women make unreasonable demands"...

Do you think every woman should wind up like your own mother????

Is that the goal???

[jaketk]

“It's true that in our pornographic age, men can find sexual release without doing much more than switching on the computer.”

This is perhaps the most articulate example of misandry I have ever come across. Why is it that feminists immediately assume that if a man is unwilling to commit to a long-term relationship with a woman that he is simply sitting in a corner masturbating to porn? Could he not have an on-going, open-ended relationship with a woman? Could he not simply have little interest in marriage or a long-term relationship? Why is it necessary to degrade a man’s choice to the most basic, virtually animalistic level?

“If there's one unifying battle cry among most men's rights advocates, it's this:
"Men are okay as they are. We don't need to change! It's women who need to change, and they need to stop making unreasonable demands of us!"”

I have yet to hear this unifying battle cry though I have followed the men’s movement for quite some time. I have heard that women need to stop making unreasonable demands of men, and I completely agree. It is unreasonable to expect a man to want to remain in a relationship with a woman who sees him as her inferior, treats him as if any of his needs, desires, or wants—be they sexual or otherwise—are somehow violations of her rights, or to expect him to define the relationship based on what best suits her. Most of the men who are avoiding relationships with “empowered” women are avoiding them because of they have no desire to be the scapegoat for her misdirected anger and sense of entitlement. No one wants to be beaten into submission, or to be relegated to the status of “the idiot that I married.”

“the pro-feminist movement says to men: "Look, women have their part. But we don't grow -- not at all -- by pointing out the faults of others until we've first addressed our own failings. As men, we need to hold each other accountable. We need to see where we've been wrong -- personally and institutionally. And we need to empower each other to break out of these painfully confining roles and actually start to live!"”

Actually, you are merely creating another confining gender role, one which requires men to essentially humble themselves before women, taking full responsibility for any and all problems, and absolving the role that women themselves have played in the creation of these issues. You state that we do not grow at all by pointing out the faults of other until we have first addressed our own failings. In that case, no female feminist can grow as she sees no personal faults in her actions. All responsibility falls to men, therein allowing her to brazenly challenge men in the fashion that Amanda used while barring any such criticism of women.

And I would suggest that men are holding themselves accountable by choosing not to involve themselves with women whom they feel will not respect them not as men but as persons. They accept their faults and flaws, but have no desire to have them used as ammunition against them. Being such, they have empowered themselves to break the confining roles of our society that state that men should work to please women in their relationships but never expect anything in return, something you appear to support.

“But as I've said on many an occasion, it's not appropriate -- given the history of sexism in this country -- for a man to preach to women about what they ought to be doing differently. Men need to focus on confronting one another in love, and encouraging our brothers to be willing to do the difficult and ultimately rewarding work our sisters are calling us to do.”

That does not strike me as liberation so much as it is a subtle form of coercion and manipulation. Are you suggesting that men should transform themselves on the basis of the desires and wants of women? That too would be an extremely confining role, one in which men have no autonomy, and there is no room for their desires or wants, and certainly no place for them to voice their frustrations.

The latter portion of your statement is one of the many reasons why I do not support feminism. I see statements like this, and it merely reminds me of my aunt who applied that same logic on a four-year-old in the purest, abusive form of feminism. Much like with her, there is no desire in your statement for men to be on equal ground or for there to be any mutual respect. There exists only the expectation that men should conform to meet the desires and wants of women as some sort of reparation. Perhaps you would call that a committed, monogamous relationship, but I, and many other men and women, would call that subjugation to another’s will.

Because of my experiences with feminism, I am wary of long-term relationships. Though I am only 22, based on the expectations women place of men, I have no real desire to become yet again the plaything, sexual or otherwise, of another person. Many women, particularly feminists, are only concerned about their own needs and wants and assert that men should be pleased that their women are pleased. I fail to see the benefit in this, or how I will grow as person by merely pleasing the whims of another person. And if I am not allowed to voice my own frustrations about the relationship because as you stated, “it's not appropriate …for a man to preach to women about what they ought to be doing differently,” then the relationship is merely a farce. There will be no real growth as I would simply resent always being blamed, and she would never know what her faults are as it would appear that she had none.

And yet this is what you would suggest men should aspire to? And what could I at 22 (and the rest of the young men of my generation) possibly owe women that would not in turn also be owed to us?

[crella]

Why are all these fish suddenly asking for bicycles lately?

[NYMOM]

Because they are in their mid-30s and looking to spawn lil fish obviously...

[Amanda]

I certainly don't think all men are bad. Just certain ones. :P And then there's the middling ones who are bad some of the time. Hugo, like I said earlier, this post resonated with me. I'm trying to get out of this relationship as intact as possible. It's sort of weird, but since we broke up, all I've been seeing is a bunch of posts and essays about how there's not enough good men. I do despair.

[Hugo]

I'm not sure, Amanda, I'd call resistance to change "bad". Weakness, yes; timidity, yes. Then again, in the aftermath of a hurtful breakup, my vocabulary might change.

Part of the problem here is that the most vocal male commenters on this issue are mostly MRAs -- the voices of those who don't share their views tend to get drowned out.

[Fred]

NYMOM: "Do you think every woman should wind up like your own mother????

Is that the goal???"

What do you mean by this? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, while my mother got the short end of the divorce stick in finances, she thinks she ultimately got the better deal. I learned that marriages are hard work and that you can't take them for granted. Yet many women my age (28) seem to take relationships for granted these days. That was my point. She's also happily re-married, been so for 5 years. She wasn't making unreasonable demands, my father was.

[Amanda]

Well, I guess in the word "bad", I meant some more of the cruelties dealt out to me. But no, the resistance to change was never a big deal with me. I've very laid back in a lot of ways and certainly never was one to criticize over stupid stuff. In fact, my one and only serious issue was him picking on me all the time and I asked him to stop it and that was one change too many, apparently.

[jaketk]

Hugo: "Part of the problem here is that the most vocal male commenters on this issue are mostly MRAs -- the voices of those who don't share their views tend to get drowned out."

that is a disingenuous statement. most of the articles about this issue tend to be written from the woman's point of view even when written by men.

[kate]

What I am struck by in some of the responses here, and to Traister's article on Salon, is the sense of putting words in other peoples mouths - of these guys extrapolating certain statements out to ridiculous lengths and making it sound like every sentence was written to say "men are worthless."

I notice a lot of "them's fightin words" being used - accusations of "coercion," "manipulation," using "ammunition," the "subjugation to another's will." I notice A LOT of absolutes - "all," "always," "never," "every." This combination, to me, brings home the fact that the anti-feminists arguing the most vociferously are the most afraid. Needlessly afraid, I believe, but afraid nonetheless. They're afraid of what they've been told feminism is, they're afraid of the few examples they *may* have seen that reinforce this idea - they're afraid of losing respect and autonomy.

It's funny the way it becomes a zero-sum game: women have the power, or men do. To these guys, women gaining a little bit of a say in things is just the first loose rock in some sort of imminent avalanche of girl-domination. When all we really want is some respect and autonomy too.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo wrote: "Mr. Bad, I've deleted the most offensive part of your previous comment. Personal attacks on other bloggers don't fly here, you know that by now."

Ok, I hear you, but when you refer us to a site where the author is so personal and offensive I feel that it's my right to respond in kind. However, you're correct and I'll take my 'in kind' responses there where they belong. And where I'm sure that they'll be similarly deleted. Somehow the 'equality thing' is something that is lost on feminists; they just don't seem to "get it" yet, but we're working on it.

You continue: "I do think we're broken, you're darned right. God doesn't want sacrifices, the Psalmist says, but He wants a "broken heart and a contrite spirit." We are all at our best when we recognize both our personal spiritual brokenness, but also -- as men -- our individual complicity in a culture that mistreats and objectifies women."

Obviously I disagree - maybe it's a Christian thing? Maybe it's a male feminist thing? I don't know, I'm not either. But what I do know is that neither I nor any of my associates are "broken." Sure, we can all grow and improve, but broken? No way. Maybe your culture "mistreats and objectifies women," but mine sure doesn't.

[Mr. Bad]

Antigone wrote: "

Mr. bad, it seems to me like it wasn't Amanda who was saying that men are shallow individuals afraid of strong women, but rather, the man who wrote the letter."

Apparently you didn't follow the links and read the Salon article nor Amanda's vicious, cynical response to the men who disagreed with it. Traister was very clear that she thinks men are shallow, and Amanda agreed with her 100%.

More: "And I don't think Hugo was saying that "men" are broke and need fixing. I think he said that "individuals" need to grow and "society" needs to stop mistreating and objectifying women. Where do you get "men" from that?"

I get the feeling that you don't actually read the posts here. Let me know when you do and then we'll talk.

[Mr. Bad]

jaketk: You are wise beyond your years. Know this to be true.

kate: Oh please. You're still trying to sell that tired, expired, rotten "men are afraid of feminsits/strong women/change/etc." nonsense? That line expired decades ago, and frankly, it was rotten when you fist tried to foist it on us. Weren't not buying it - it's way past it's shelf life.

[jaketk]

i figured someone would say that "men are afraid". it usually follows the "men are intimidated by empowered women" lines. and i see there is a modified version of the "matriarchy" theory in there, too. of course, one can criticize one's treatment by a particular group without harboring any fear of them or being intimidated by them. likewise, one could be doing such a result of being disrespected or having one's autonomy violated.

yet, i am hardly surprised by the willingness to ingore entire statements, or to pick out single words or phrases, taken completely out of context, and use them to demonstrate how unfounded men's frustrations are. it would also be pointless to mention that much of what these men are stating is often said by women, which feminists often agree with. so it would appear that the problem is not the choice of words, even when taken out of context and in all their absoluteness, but rather who uses them. but such a thing is not unique to feminism as political correctness is quite prevalent in our society, and one is never supposed to question it, particularly if you on the receiving end.

but i do enjoy such statements as: "They're afraid of what they've been told feminism is, they're afraid of the few examples they *may* have seen that reinforce this idea - they're afraid of losing respect and autonomy." such statements are fairly common. it is that men have been mistaken in their understanding of their treatment by women and of feminism and its negative attitudes towards males, not that these things actually happened to them or could be easily verified. it would appear that despite the apparent desire to be not only heard but listened to and taken seriously, feminists are quite unwilling to do the same in reverse.

and i enjoy the disregarding of the intent of the comments made against men, as if the intent were not to diminish the issues and frustrations that men are concerned with. again, feminists appear to be unwilling to accept any grievance that men have without first portraying men as whining about lost "priveleges".

and in doing such, feminists, rather ironically, create the very zero-sum game that they (supposedly) wish to avoid. it would appear that to demonstrate even the slightest amount of respect towards men would roll back the last thirty years, and feminists would have to start all over again.

[jaketk]

upon re-reading hugo's comments, i realized what is being described is intimacy, not a sexual relationship. in which case, it begs the question why a man would need to have a monogamous sexual-based relationship with a woman simply to seek the highest level of intimacy? would it not be possible for a man to find such intimacy in another man, both with and without any sexual elements? and along those lines, since there are many, many people who feel that monogamy is a social construct and that humans are not meant to have only one partner, are those relationships less intimate or more intimate considering the number of partners the person has? would this not be a greater challenge than simply having one partner?

[tk]

The article irked me as well, but for different reasons than the usual battle-of-the-sexes stuff. To me it represented more of the same bitching that I hear all over the place: I know way too many single people, men AND women, who are simply selfish, deceitful and plain lousy at relationships. Naturally, instead of taking a good look at themselves they blame the patriarchy or feminism or 'the new woman/man' or whatever other external factor suitably absolves them of personal responsibility.

It's gotten to the point where I'm finally starting to understand why many couples (I'm happily coupled, thank the gods) shun their single friends, and vice versa.

[metamanda]

>When they seek out the "less complex" and the "exotic", they are stagnating.

Hugo, I don't think it makes sense to equate "exotic" with "less complex"... Truly negotiating a relationship with someone from another culture I think tends to me *more* complex (though also I think rewarding). I witnessed it for years in my parents' relationship, which on the surface was the American man / Asian woman relationship that squicks out so many people. Our family life was by no means less complex than most.

Or are you using "exotic" to tag the stereotype of submissive non-American women? I just don't think it really conveys that idea well.

[BritGirlSF]

Bottom line observation from someone who knows LOTS of single people in the age range the article was about? Most people in their early/mid twenties are pretty shallow and selfish. Most of them will hopefully grow out of it. Attempts by members of either gender to blame all problems with the culture of dating on the other gender tend to make the person doing the complaining look like a whiny little brat, and for good reason.
Most young single people I know seem to think that dating is like ordering off a sushi menu, as if they should be able to just specify which characteristics they want and in a short time a made to order person will arrive. Very few people of either gender seem to be willing to make the effort to get to know someone, or to accept the flaws that all human beings have. People in general seem very intolerant of the slightest human frailty in a potential sexual or romantic partner, and not very willing to compromise. The symptoms may be different for each gender, but the underlying attitudes seem to be the same. I think it's about viewing other people in terms of what they can do for you, as if their only purpose in life was to give you what you want or what you think you need. People often seem to approach dating less like they're entering into a relationship and more like they're buying a car, and assume that since they're making a purchase they have a right to demand that everything be exactly as they want it to be. It's a pretty crappy way to relate to other people, but it does seem to be becoming the norm. I see it all the time in people I know, and it makes me incredibly glad that I'm not on the dating scene any more.
The guy who wrote the letter to Salon was an idiot, of course, but his kind of sniping is pretty commonplace. Very few people seem to be able or willing to look at dating as a RELATIONSHIP, in which both parties are going to have to compromise in order for either to end up happy.
What's odd is not so much that young people are selfish (what else is new?) but that there seems to be a trend for the selfishness to extend way beyond the age where most people traditionally grew out of that kind of stuff. It's almost as if people's emotional adolescence now extends into their thirties or even forties. I see the way people my age act in relationships (I'm 32) and can't imagine my parents or any of their friends being so selfish and unreasonable at the same age. To me that's the really interesting thing that's going on here.
Also, just to pre-empt the "it's because of feminism!" comments that I'm sure will be forthcoming from some of our regulars...most of the feminists I know, and in fact most of the very politically involved people of all stripes, are rather less prone to this kind of behavior than most of their peers. It's very much a mainstream phenomenon as far as I can see.

[Christian J]

Fascinating how feminists always try to absolve feminism of any responsibility, the original plan that they hatched many years ago have come to fruition.
The " all men are bastards" and " all womun are victims" has been totally accepted as common truth.

Feminism planned this and feminism is responsible for it.

But as womun/feminists normally do ! refuse to accept the responsibilty for their own action.