Traditionally… the man treats the lady LIKE a lady. But some women arent even happy with that! They actually feel offended of chivalry and find it sexist and want to be treated like a man!
Now tell me… how does man on man romance work? Is the feminist definition of "ROMANCE"… ummm…"BROTHERHOOD"?
Feminists… is this your idea of romance? To be treated like a brother?
Deirder O: You obviously dont know how men think.
"Mutual admiration" means "LJBF = Lets just be friends."
Hello!
Your inquiry is on romance..you forgot friendship takes the title role.
Related posts:
- BADD ROMANCE – ROMY
- Lady GaGa – Bad Romance (Manchester M.E.N. Arena)
- What is a movie that is action but has romance?
- If pornography is for men, would romance novels/flicks be the equivalence for women?
- Why do you women complain a lot about romance and blame US MEN?!?
Author:
April 13th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Your inquiry is on romance..you forgot friendship takes the title role.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
How can there be romance with inequality is a better question. I would not feel valued being treated as a possession or worse as a subordinate. Mutual admiration is a huge turn on.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 9:12 am
I don’t know anyone who gets offended if a door is held for them or if someone offers to pay the check every so often. It just gets a little ridiculous if it has to happen EVERY time and a man thinks it’s an insult to his penis size if the woman gets the check or does something nice for HIM. It’s all about give and take.
Romance is simply being there, doing kind things, listening, and showing that you care (this should be done by BOTH people). It has nothing to do with any sort of equality or lack of it.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 9:24 am
romance is for loserss…..women want to be treated like a best friend and a partner and better than your male freinds
they want to be included in everything you do
as long as were loved you can treat us like a lady and a man
all women are diffrent
References :
from th book of love by matin salvage
April 13th, 2010 at 9:57 am
You’ve totally missed the point. Feminists don’t want to be treated like a man, they want to be considered equal with a man.
For example, I treat a dog and cat as equal, they both get the same amount of my time, they both get taken to the vets when they are ill. But do I take my cat for walks on a lead? Of course not, he wants to run about and play outside on his own. Do I tease my dog with feathers and expect it to jump up and down? No, because he wants to fetch a ball or a frisbee.
Feminists are proud of being women, and would never want to be a man, but they want to be given equal opportunity in the world with no discrimination.
In short, buy her flowers, open doors, romance her, but don’t expect that gives you the right to reject her for a job, or treat her like a lesser human in any way.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 10:38 am
For your version of romance to work there has to be some form of female inferiority , just for you to feel superior. For me the romance comes when the other person finds my thinking prowess to be romantic.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Surprise, surprise – just for YOU, bemused poster:
‘Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand’
Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.
It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan’s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.
Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.’
References :
* Reference: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9)
Adapted from materials provided by Springer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm
EDIT to those for whom Ignorance is Bliss:
"Sex Roles" is a refereed, scholarly, scientific journal that has been around for very many decades. I remember it from university. It’s NOT a pop-culture magazine. In fact, it’s not a magazine at all.
Perhaps that’s what has you confused.
April 13th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I can’t believe how many people have taken that Rudman and Phelan’s survey as serious, they should be ashamed on publishing something based on so little evidence. I asked 10 people if they agreed with feminism they said "no" should I publish my work?
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Meh,,,
I’ve always find romance kinda corny anyway..
And the feminist nowadays want to be treated like Men, so romance is pretty much pointless.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Yesterday I was queueing with many women. But more women kept jumping in fornt of me and shoving and elbowing me aside. This went on for 1 hour and it seemed I would never have my turn…. At last I lost my patience and began to push those women before me aside. One of them shouted at me: "Can’t you behave like a gentleman?"…. I shouted back: " I have been behaving like a gentleman for 1 hour. Now I want to behave like a lady."
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Women who dislike chivalry don’t want to be treated like men. We want to be treated like people, regardless of sex. If the guy can’t handle it, we don’t want to bother with him. What is truly romantic is a guy who treats the women the way SHE wants to be treated, not the way his mom told him she’d want to be treated.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Oh groan! Romance with equality is the mutual admiration both sexes require!
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
i can see how some women find it offensive. i just change chivalry to common courtesy. and i open doors for every one women and men.
References :
April 13th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You can have equality in romance, just not at the same time, all the time. When you dance, only one person leads. This doesn’t mean he’s going to lead every time–that would be too boring and predictable. You switch roles and plays and keep it exciting. The next time when the woman is leading the dance, she’s still the woman with her feminine moves, she is just the one leading the moves. If the woman tries to change her clothes or adapt the male moves to lead, or the man tries to take her role by putting on a dress and try to move like her, then the whole structure will be messed up—same with relationships. People should fall into whatever roles they’re comfortable with and just go with it–everybody will be happy. If you agree to the terms and feel comfortable with them, then how can it be bad? I don’t like automatic, socially conditioned roles, but I’m all for two people making up their own rules and going with them.
Now, this is when you have actually selected someone to be with. When I casually go on dates or interact with people I’m not intimate with, I keep it neutral with nobody leading–we’re still getting a feel, no need to put anybody in charge and do the whole dance.
References :