On Being a "Typical" Girl

I always cringe when I hear girls talk about a situation with a guy they like (or are dating), and they end with something like “…of course I am over-analyzing the situation, like a typical girl.” On the most recent occasion, which prompted me to write this post, a girl that I know was causally sleeping with a guy who would sometimes be affectionate and boyfriend-like, but at other times would seem completely disinterested. She explained this to me, and ended her narrative with the line I quoted above.

There are three things that bother me about this comment whenever I hear it. The first is that it is an expression of voluntary ignorance. It can be roughly translated to mean:

"Something feels wrong about my relationship, but the right thing for me to do is sit back and ignore my feeling of discontent. Silence and time will make me realize that there really is no problem – aside my own anxious and emotionally-driven behavior."

However, the glaringly obvious reality in these situations is that there is a very legitimate problem that needs to be addressed – or at least admitted. In most instances, the problem is that the guy is less interested in the girl than she wants him to be. The guy's behavior betrays this in subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) ways, the perception of which the girl is trying to sweep under the carpet. The action of categorically blaming "typical" female tendencies is actually just a psychological reflex or excuse, designed to postpone the inevitable pain that will come with rejection.

The second problem is a more serious one: by calling herself a "typical girl," with negative connotations, a woman is categorically insulting her own sex. The obvious implication is “women are all idiots because we stress out about men too much, are overly-emotional, and can't think reasonably about our relationships.” Not only is this not true (see below), but it is self-deprecating. Talking badly about yourself – let alone your whole sex – is always a bad policy. It is never necessary, and it demonstrates a lack of confidence that is hugely unattractive. Even if being a “typical girl” were obviously a bad thing, voluntarily drawing attention to it (or any associated behavior) would be a bad move.

The third problem, which is the most serious, is that a women who dismisses her feelings by calling herself a "typical girl" has no confidence in her emotions. Of course, it doesn't help that when a woman voices her feelings about a problem in a relationship, men will often tell her that she needs to “chill out,” or “stop being so emotional,” or even that she should “stop being such a girl.” But listening to and agreeing with a man who says this kind of thing – especially one with a vested interest in winning the argument or discussion – is nothing short of spineless. You have feelings, and your feelings tell you that something is wrong. They are legitimate feelings; you have them for a reason. Yet the second someone tells you that you need to stop being so emotional (and sometimes even without being prompted), you immediately doubt everything you feel, apparently convinced that there is something wrong with you for feeling the way you do. And then you actually verbalize that conviction, going as far as to insult your whole sex by blaming it on your womanhood. It is the ultimate expression of self-doubt.

Imagine if men did the equivalent. Imagine if your boyfriend came to you with a logical and well-expressed concern about the way things were going in the relationship. Then imagine if you, in response, flared up with emotion and screamed at him, telling him that he was being too logical and needed to feel more – that he needed to stop thinking so much. Maybe you would throw something at him while screaming this, just to add emphasis. He would stop and think for a moment, then agree, and then say something like “Yeah… yeah, I mean… I guess you’re right. I guess I am just being a typical guy... I really need to stop rationalizing everything.” Then he’d walk away - a bit puzzled, but ultimately convinced, and wondering how he could go about becoming more emotional.

Yeah, exactly – it would be absurd.

But this is precisely what goes on when a woman calls into question her primary tool for navigating relationships - that is, her intuition and emotions. A man is more rationally-focused, more logical in his approach to relationships; but this doesn't make him more right. We live in a world where Reason and Logic are increasingly championed as the only legitimate sources of knowledge. A few hundred years ago, this was chiefly a western error, one that we now refer to as “The Enlightenment.” But the influence of that movement is slowly propagating across the world, and destroying in its wake all confidence in emotional and intuitive knowledge – women’s strengths. In fact, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that The Enlightenment induced Feminism, which could only thrive in a society that managed to convince itself that there was something inherently better about the masculine ways of operating in the world and understanding it - in other words, doing so via logic and reason rather via intuition and feeling.

I guess what I am getting at here is that the modern philosophical trends aren't on a woman’s side when her feelings about a relationship are called into question – but that doesn't mean that those feelings are wrong. Likewise, a man who only wants to continue having sex with you isn't exactly going to affirm the emotions telling you that something is off; but that in no way undermines their legitimacy. Just because outside sources are telling you that your feelings are whimsical doesn't mean that you should second-guess yourself.

The next time you feel something inside of you sink at the attitude of a guy's text-message, don’t doubt that feeling just because he asks you “what’s wrong?” and you struggle to pinpoint it. Believe your feelings. Have confidence in your intuition. Similarly, the next time you feel undesired because your boyfriend is spending more time with his friends than he's spending with you, don’t call that feeling into question just because he coldly and “logically” argues that he would be a bad friend if he spent less time with them. Trust your emotions. You wouldn't feel bad about the situation if there was nothing wrong about it. (For example, in this situation the problem is probably that you want a man who loves you enough that he is at least tempted to ignore his friends for you, which he clearly is not.)

So to conclude: be vulnerable in acknowledging the reality of your relationships. Even if you struggle with this, stop talking down on your own sex by stereotyping your reluctance to face the truth as “typical.” Most importantly, stop undermining the legitimacy of your feelings by backing down every time they are questioned, or even mistrusting them yourself. Don't be shy about using your emotions and intuition to navigate your relationships; they are legitimate sources of knowledge, and they are your unique strengths as a woman: be proud of them.


Related Posts
1. Never Tell a Man Why He Shouldn't Want to Date You
2. Get Used to Rejection
3. The "Three Mistake Minimum" Rule on Dates
4. Femininity, Authenticity and Compatibility

Less Masculine = More Feminine

I pulled the following statement from the comments of the post The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty:

So I had a revelation about a few weeks ago...and it pertains almost exactly to this post. I'm a confident 7, well-spoken girl but have always wondered why I'm having such issues with attracting the right type of guys when I have such a well-rounded personality. So I started to experiment with how I acted around guys. I became more feminine, I would act more sweet, talk less, be less witty or sarcastic and it was crazy how many more guys came flocking to me. It was kind of disheartening though that I had to become this demure thing to attract more guys. I felt like I was compromising myself, and at times not even being myself because I had to bite my tongue so much and watch what I said. I don't want to be a bobblehead airhead girl, but it seems as though that's what guys want. How do I attract the men I want without compromising myself?

I want to share my response, because I have had similar questions from other readers, and it is an important point for any woman trying to understand her feminine self in the modern world:

You only think of behaving in a more feminine manner as "compromising yourself" because you've been conditioned to think of your personal value in purely masculine terms. But why is it "compromising" to be MORE feminine? You are too fixated on the fact that you are being LESS masculine. Yes, you are LESS ambitious, LESS witty, LESS assertive; but why think of these changes in negative terms? What about the fact that you've become MORE receptive, or MORE radiant, sweetER, or MORE beautiful?

Men and women are two halves of a whole: one typically active (male) and one typically passive (female). But neither one is more important or better than the other, any more than an electrical plug and socket - which are typically referred to as "male" and "female" - are more or less important when it comes to conveying electricity.

It is only because "success" in our society is defined in masculine terms that you feel like you have reduced or compromised yourself as a person by this change. So instead of considering what you've subtracted or "repressed" by being LESS male, focus on what you've added or improved by being MORE female.

There is one more important point here: even though the "bobblehead airhead girl" gets good responses from men, this doesn't mean that she therefore represents the ideal of femininity that men seek. Men prefer her because there are elements of the "bobblehead" that they like: her carefree spirit, her flirtiness, her willingness to be led, her cheerfulness, etc. Her characteristic stupidity and lack of substance are things that men merely tolerate in order to experience the feminine qualities that they desire so deeply - that is, the qualities that men do not typically have in themselves and cannot get from masculine women.

If this seems unfair or counter-intuitive, consider that women behave similarly in their selection of men: they often tolerate insensitivity, excessive pride or stubbornness (i.e. they date "assholes") only because these qualities are unfortunately common in most of the men who have the masculine qualities that they want: strength, aggression, unshakable confidence, ambition, etc. - in other words, the qualities that women do not typically have in themselves and cannot get from feminine men.


Related Posts
1. Femininity, Authenticity and Compatibility
2. Are You Repressing Your Femininity?
3. Misconceptions

Where Is Feminism Taking Us?

There is a lot of talk on some of the blogs that I read about the horrors of feminism - from men and women alike. While it might be obvious to some readers, I think others might be surprised to know that I am very much undecided about whether or not I support feminism. The way I see it, there are two possible models for understanding the role of feminism in society, and I have yet to decide which one I subscribe to. Both agree about what feminism is trying to do - namely, homogenize or depolarize the sexes. They disagree strongly, however, about whether or not this is desirable.

Here is how I characterize the two models for understanding feminism's role in society:

Model 1 - Pro Traditional Sex Roles (Conservative in nature)

"The differences between the sexes exist for good reasons. Men by nature assume masculine roles as protector and provider, while women by nature assume feminine roles as child-bearer and nurturer. The two compliment each other well, and harmony is achieved when the two work together. The characteristics of the two are innate and can be denied but not changed."

I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as traditionalists.

Model 2 - Pro Feminism (Progressive in nature)

"The differences between the sexes do not exist for good reasons. While difference does not always equate to inequality, in many cases - especially historically - this has been the case, and women have typically been on the losing end of the disparity. The characteristics of the two sexes are largely socially constructed, or engendered (hence the term "gender," from the Latin "generare" - to bring forth). Because they are engendered, they are also changeable; and we should do what we can to strive for equality."

I will refer to the proponents of this scenario as feminists.

Here is my Pyrrhonistic rationale, which is more a case for the plausibility of the feminist world-view than the traditionalist one, which needs less defense since it has historical precedence:

• While the traits of both sexes are certainly deeply rooted in the male and female psyche, or perhaps in the fabric of society, it isn't obvious to me that they are necessarily innate or eternal. The obvious difficulties that feminism has introduced could be symptoms of a species trying to bend against its nature, but they could just as well be growing pains on the path towards a better state of affairs.
• Traditionalists can make a strong argument that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women, and that these differences have far-reaching consequences, making men and women very different. But it is at least thinkable that we could shed these differences through evolution over the coming thousands of years, especially if we begin to conceive children outside of the womb - which technology will almost certainly allow us to do within the next 100 years.
• There is no question that men are less masculine than they were tens or hundreds of years ago, and women less feminine. But can this trend continue without a backlash or reaction? We are arguably seeing the inklings of this reaction the blogs that I referred to at the start of this post. This reaction could swing things back in the direction of extreme sexual polarity, which could persist, or else cause another reaction reinstating androgyny (at which point the cycle would likely continue ad infinitum).
• It certainly is difficult to imagine an androgynous society, but it isn't impossible. There is no doubt in my mind that the human race has evolved as quickly as it has due to the intense pleasure of sexual intercourse. But who says sexual intercourse is a permanent fixture in society? As we learn more about the brain and continue to discover mind altering substances (which are being legalized by the places that lead social and political trends worldwide), is it so difficult to envision a scenario in which sexual pleasure is usurped by some other experience? Even if the sexual organs never evolve off of the body, they could simply become insignificant - relics of a previous stage of human development (like the appendix).

To summarize: is isn't clear to me that the feminist "utopia" is impossible or undesirable. Even if it would be arguably a worse situation than the one that the we are in now (or were in traditionally), I don't see why that would mean we couldn't end up there as a species. As far as I can tell, feminism could conceivably achieve its goals.

Now, all that being said, I think there is one important point left to make. It is a point that underlies every word written on this blog: regardless of where feminism may be taking us, there are certain ways that a woman can behave to take advantage of the current social-sexual climate. Changes in social norms occur very gradually, so that you don't need to be concerned about the opposite sex suddenly being unattracted to the things it finds attractive now. Given this, women have two options

1. Support feminism (and ultimately androgyny) by aligning yourself with its goals: suppress your feminine qualities and emphasize your masculine ones, in an effort to further your career and the feminist cause.
2. Take advantage of the male-female polarity that (still) exists by allowing your feminine qualities to shine through, since this (still) attracts men.

Ultimately, the point is this: Option 2 attracts men, Option 1 does not. So you can either support feminism in the hope of bettering the state of affairs in the future, or better your life now by finding love. Call me selfish, but it seems like an obvious choice to me...


Related Posts
1. "The Difference Between" and "The Difference Among"
2. Katy Perry Is Brainwashing Women
3. The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty

Are You Repressing Your Femininity?

In the same vein as the recent post I made about femininity, authenticity and compatibility, the following are excerpts from David Deida’s book Dear Lover (Chapter 9):

As a young woman, you may have dreamt of masculine saviors: horses, pop stars, white nights - any animal  or human, real or imaginary, that could take you somewhere new, somewhere magic. Deep in your heart you felt that someday a man would see your true beauty, your true light, your boundless ocean of love, and take you to the place you always wanted to be...

But at some point, you probably stopped trusting the yearning of your own feminine heart. You may have absorbed the anti-feminine attitude of your culture. Or possibly your family strongly emphasized masculine values.

For one reason or another, you probably became convinced that it is better - stronger - to navigate for yourself, to take yourself somewhere rather than trust to be taken by love.

Maybe your parents found your little sister more pretty than you, so you protected your crushed heart with a shell of masculine ambition. "My little sister may be pretty, but I'm going to be a scientist!" Perhaps you felt how your mother was restricted and belittled by your father, so you protected your vulnerable heart with a shell of masculine control: "Nobody is going to tell me what to do. I'm the sailor of my own ship!"

If you chose to be a scientist because you loved science, or chose to navigate your own life because that was your greatest bliss, then such decisions would be healthy and fulfilling. But if you chose to be a scientist because your parents ignored your radiance and your heart was crushed, or if you chose to guide your own life because you didn't want to be hurt like your mother was, then you have created shells built of fear rather than moved by the openness of love.

Beneath all your shells, your deep heart is always full of love's light. So, at heart, showing open as light and flowing open as love's offering is the most ecstatic and true way to live. But your acquired shells have their own voice: "Beauty is only skin deep." "My mind is more important than my body." "I can't trust men." "If I want a man's love I've got to make him want me." "My professional goals are more crucial to my life's happiness than who I go with or how much love I offer through my life and every breath."

These are all lies, and your deep feminine heart knows it. Yet, you are confused, because your shells can be so strong. You can come to believe the lies of your shells, and therefore, you can live an entire life betraying your deepest desire: to be recognized as light, adored and worshiped as love's radiance, offering yourself as a gift of love to be claimed by true divine masculine integrity...

Perhaps you try to trust a man and he eventually leaves you. Again you feel betrayed, so now, again from fear, you build yet another shell - "independent career woman" - that will protect you from being hurt or left in the cold by a man's untrustable commitment.

If you are like most women, you were born with a more feminine sexual essence...

If any of this caught your attention, you can get the book on Amazon.com.

I know a couple girls that have also gotten a lot from reading The Way of The Superior Man, which is also by David Deida. It is written for men, but touches on most of the same principles, just from a male rather than female perspective. Some people, myself included, prefer the more direct writing style in The Way of The Superior Man.

In any case, if this post is interesting to you, or if you are curious about the implications of sexual difference, I highly recommend both books.

Femininity, Authenticity and Compatibility

I was on a second date last week, and towards the end of the evening the girl told me "You know what I like about you? You don't ask me what I want." I laughed because although I knew what she was trying to say, it sounded like "I like you because you ignore me." So she clarified: "No, I mean, like when it comes to where we are going or how we are getting there, you are decisive and know what you want. You always check to make sure your decision is OK with me, but you don't need my opinion to have your own. Other guys will constantly ask me what I want to do, even though I really don't care; and then it is just awkward because we go back and forth trying to 'let' each other decide - but I don't want to have to make the decisions."

This girl and I are compatible (in this sense, at least) because I am decisive and comfortable with being in control, while she is laid-back and likes to be taken care of. In this respect, I am very masculine and she is very feminine. We work together. If I didn't take charge and wasn't as decisive, or if she wanted more input than I offered her, we would have problems.

Years ago I used to think that women would like me if I bowed to their every wish. I would constantly fight my natural inclination to take charge in an effort to accommodate the girl's desires - which is probably exactly what my date's previous boyfriends and dates were doing. Like them, I would try to let her choose the time of the date or the restaurant, because I assumed that she cared. And this usually led to the kind of awkward back-and-forth she described. The reality was always that I knew exactly what I wanted to do for the date, but I was so wrapped up in wanting to please her, and so wrong about what she really wanted from me, that I repressed my urge to follow my masculine instinct to take charge.

I say all this in order to draw an analogy for women: in the same way that I didn't realize that women wanted me to let my masculine tendencies govern my interactions with them, many woman don't understand that men want women to let their feminine instincts guide their behavior. By feminine instincts I mean - among other things - a woman's desire to be taken care of, to be protected, to feel small, and to be desired or wanted (rather than self-sufficient). Men love these things about women because it gives us an opportunity to be in control, to protect, or to feel strong and self-sufficient - in other words, to exercise our masculine selves. By suppressing those instincts, you fight your nature and thereby inhibit your ability to attract, love and be loved by a man.

Many women either project their own desires onto men and assume that men want women to be (for example) decisive, powerful and goal-oriented, or else they believe these things because we are all told them by the undercurrents of feminism in modern American culture. However the seeds of the these ideas are planted, the result is the same: these women mask their authentic, feminine selves due to misinformation about what men want.

A simplistic understanding of the advice I offer on this blog would be "be more feminine and you will attract more men." Although this isn't a misunderstanding, it falls short of capturing the whole picture. Women are all feminine in varying degrees (just as men are masculine in varying degrees). Not every woman is the archetype of femininity, and it would be inauthentic for those who are less feminine to force themselves into the strictest "female" mold. However, it is just as inauthentic for a woman to suppress the natural feminine instincts that she does have.

So a better understanding of the advice I give on this blog would be "Allow your natural level of femininity to pervade your personality." If your experience is at all similar to mine, allowing your true sexuality to "drive you" will make you feel much more comfortable with yourself in your interactions with the opposite sex. The interactions will feel more easy and fluid, because you will be acting more in line with your natural instincts. Furthermore, you will start to attract men who are more naturally compatible with you. If you are less feminine, you will attract men that are naturally less masculine, and you will compliment each other better than if you tried dating an extremely masculine guy. Or if you are very feminine, you will stop attracting men who aren't masculine enough for you. You might find that you date fewer men (though I doubt this), but your dates will be more successful and "chemistry" will occur more frequently.

One word of caution: don't confuse "authenticity" with laziness or fear. Not wearing heels because you don't want sore feet shouldn't be excused by telling yourself you "aren't feminine enough" to wear them. Likewise, you shouldn't hide behind unflattering clothes by telling yourself you are a "tom-boy" or that they just attract "the wrong kind of attention," if the truth is that you are afraid to step outside of your comfort zone by wearing sexier, more feminine clothes.

Katy Perry is Brainwashing Women

I recently watched the music video for Katy Perry's song Part of Me (I was just hoping she would look hot in it).

I was sorely disappointed by her looks in the video, but more importantly, the story line also bothered me. It didn't take me long to realize why...

After apparently being cheated on, Katy Perry dumps her boyfriend (which is smart), and then decides to overcome the emotional pain by cutting her hair, joining the military and being "tough" and independent. I am hoping the not-so-subtle message of the video is less catchy than the song (which is still stuck in my goddamn head...), because it essentially says "if you are hurt by a man, an appropriate and liberating response is to de-feminize yourself."

Nothing could be further from the truth. No reaction to rejection will damage your chances with other men more (especially if you cut off your hair like she does in the video). A woman who responds to rejection by becoming more masculine is like an athlete who responds to a difficult loss in sports by intentionally injuring himself or skipping trainings and practices - it is absurd. The athlete damages the body or lose the skills that made him a competitive athlete in the first place, just as like Katy Perry throws away the disposition and looks that attract men the most. She gains her personal independence at the expense of attracting men. That is to say, by throwing away her femininity and closing herself to male companionship, she sacrifices the potential for long-term happiness in a good relationship (however difficult it might be to find) for the momentary happiness of personal "liberation."

When a message like this is surrounded by a catchy song and a flashy music video with a famous celebrity, it is inevitably romanticized, and the message can be difficult to divorce from its medium. Be careful about getting sucked in.

Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments

A woman can brag endlessly about how much money she makes, the deals shes has closed, the celebrities she's rubbed elbows with, or the awards she's won: none of it matters to men. This might seem harsh, and it is perhaps slightly hyperbolic; after all, it is fairly interesting to know that a girl is successful at her job, or that she works with someone famous - and an award is always impressive. But none of these things translate into sexual or romantic attraction.

I am sure there are some women who grew up understanding otherwise. Or perhaps, having been dealt mediocre looks and a poor figure, others decided that they would pour their energy into their academic degrees or career rather than their beauty, and then proceeded (not without help) to dupe themselves into believing that men would like them for it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, as many 30-something single career-women are currently realizing - the hard way.

I used to date a girl (older than me) who would always tell me about how she had just balanced some multi-million dollar budget, or how she was in the throes of closing an important project. And it was undeniably impressive that she reported directly to the CFO of the biggest hospital in the city. By all common standards she was successful. But every time she brought up work I got bored.

Women who try to attract men by being successful are like men who try to attract women by being sweet or gentle. While being sweet won't necessarily ruin a man's chances with women (in some cases it will), neither will it draw her in. Likewise, although a woman's business or academic success won't usually turn a man off (in some cases it will), neither will it attract him. Both of these misconceptions are examples of the sexes projecting their own desires onto the other. It is women, not men, who find career success attractive, because it demonstrates drive, focus, strength, initiative - masculine qualities. Likewise it is men, not women, who find gentleness attractive, because it is a symptom of openness, receptiveness, nuturing ability - feminine qualities. I got bored when the girl I was dating talked about work in the same way that women get turned off when a man starts smothering them with flowers and gifts, or constantly apologizes unnesessarily.

This isn't to say that women shouldn't earn PhDs, or become CEOs, or generally strive to achieve traditionally masculine goals. Whether or not women "should" do something is a separate question entirely from what will happen if they do. There are plenty of reasons that a woman might want to win an award or get a promotion; I am merely pointing out that she would be foolish to do so in an attempt to attract men.

Be Careful About Wearing Large-Shouldered Tops

Tops, dresses or jackets that make your shoulders look larger do two things: they diminish your waist and broaden your shoulders. You should always be cautious about wearing them because broad shoulders are unattractive on a woman. It is true that a small waist is attractive; but in the same way that wearing short hair to compliment your face shape is offset by the side-effect of making you look masculine, attempting to make your waist look thin by wearing tops with wider shoulders does more harm than good when it comes to attracting men.

Large-shouldered tops were popular in the United States in the 1980s because by that time the effects of feminism had trickled into professional environments, and women wanted clothes (specifically, suits) that made them look more commanding, more assertive - more traditionally masculine. Towards that end, I am sure they were successful; but I am equally sure that they did and still do make women much less attractive. And now, partially out of nostalgia for the fashions of a former generation, and partially due to social inertia, contemporary style calls tops with "puffy" or accentuated shoulders acceptable, "fun" or even attractive. Don't be sucked into the lie. The truth is that they are always risky, usually ugly and almost never a good idea.

If you think any of the women on the left look attractive, read the post titled "Because Of" vs. "In Spite Of". (All three are in good shape and their clothes fit well in all places but the shoulders.)

Clothes that slightly accentuate the shoulders might be mildly attractive on a girl that does not have a small waist-to-hip ratio; but in general, large shoulders make you look like a man and should be avoided.

Remember: whether consciously or subconsciously, men notice.