Advice Goddess Amy Alkon–Guess What! Men Won’t Like You If You’re An Insufferable Bitch
“Some girl named Tanya Gold wrote a nasty essay in The Guardian about her experience with speed-dating. In between loving on herself for her clever little bits of man-hating prose, she complains, ‘Men want us lobotomized.’
“I disagree…What Tanya is missing entirely is what men don’t want more than anything: a woman who’s a stuck-up, uptight, humorless, workaholic, pretentious, no-fun fight-picker, as Tanya must’ve come off during her speed-dating sessions.”
Syndicated columnist Amy Alkon (aka “The Advice Goddess”) often emails me amazing stories, and this one is no exception:
Guess What! Men Won’t Like You If You’re An Insufferable Bitch
Advice Goddess Blog/Amy Alkon
Some girl named Tanya Gold wrote a nasty essay in The Guardian about her experience with speed-dating. In between loving on herself for her clever little bits of man-hating prose, she complains, “Men want us lobotomized.”
I disagree.
Okay, some men, even many men, don’t want ultra-brainy girls, or women with big jobs. Okay, so if you’re an ultra-brainy girl or a woman with a big job…don’t date those guys!
I’m reminded of my lone visit to a shrink when I was in my 30’s and having little luck finding a guy I wanted to go on more than one date with. The shrink said, best as I can recall, “You have high standards, you understand and accept the consequences of those high standards, this is healthy, I have nothing else I can say to you, don’t come back.”
What Tanya is missing entirely is what men don’t want more than anything: a woman who’s a stuck-up, uptight, humorless, workaholic, pretentious, no-fun fight-picker, as Tanya must’ve come off during her speed-dating sessions.
Here’s her account of what went down:
I decided to attend a speed-dating night as a fabulously successful, dazzlingly literate human rights lawyer, and then another as a gibbering idiot who works as a florist. Who would the men fall for?
As a lawyer, I walked into a Soho bar. My first date appeared. I smiled at him, and said: “I am a human rights lawyer (grin).”
“I work 60 hours a week (grin).”
And watched him shrivel up.
“I’m an engineer,” he said (no grin). And then he was silent, so I told him I was reading Heidegger. He stared at me as if I had told him that I boil men’s heads.
Then came Eric, and I invented a PhD in economics from Cambridge. “It was incredibly rewarding. Are you interested in economics, Eric?”
He wasn’t; he slunk off, and was replaced by Tony. I told him I have two cats and he looked hopeful.
“What are they called?” “Roe and Wade, after the United States supreme court case that resulted in the legalisation of abortion.” No smile after that, just a chair where a man had been.
I fought about the Arab-Israeli conflict with No 11, and about shoes with No 13. “My shoes are leather,” he said, “but they have holes in them.”
“Don’t buy leather shoes,” I replied, refusing to pout, while he looked at me as if I’d shot him.
And this, from No 18: “You really scare me.”
Word had spread about the monster on Table 17 – my final date didn’t show.
The florist, who I modelled on Melinda Messenger (image via Amy) spliced with a teasmaid, went to a “lock and key” party. Alan approached. “Hello,” he smiled.
“I’m confused by the game,” I told him. “Please explain it.”
And he did. Happily.
“What do you do,” I asked (giggle). “I am a geneticist,” he said.
“What is that,” I asked (giggle).
He told me, and I looked impressed and uncomprehending. I raised my voice an octave, until it was a squeak. I stared at the floor, twisted my hands, and gibbered at him. “I cut the thorns off roses,” I said. “I tie bows. I sweep floors.” He replied: “I’ll email you.” I bagged one with my florist net! Then came Robert. “I’m a florist,” I smiled. The reaction was instantaneous, passionate and almost molecular: “Can I buy you a drink?”
Then came Harry. “Let’s not talk about me,” I said. Bang – he asked me out. Just like that. On the spot.
I never knew it could be like this. Tom suggested we sit down. “Where do you want to sit,” I asked. “In a chair? Is that a chair (giggle)?” By the end of our conversation I was opening my own florist’s. And he was in love. I went on and on, loving the strange, new attention, saying the sort of things a fish would say if it could talk: “Why is water wet?”
I could have been engaged by 11.17pm. But instead I went home and sifted through the evidence. Only one in 20 of the men I met on the Soho love coalface wanted to date a woman who had heard of Proust (19 of out 20 cats don’t prefer it). Yet eight out of the florist’s 12 men wanted to be gibbered at again and again and again.
My secret? I’m smart and I giggle. And I truly like, appreciate, and understand men.
And, again, I’ve always known and accepted that there aren’t a whole lot of guys in the world for me (namely because I’m smart [meaning I read stuff like this book I just ordered], weird, don’t want kids, don’t believe in marriage, don’t believe in living together, don’t celebrate holidays, and don’t believe in The Great Pumpkin). I certainly don’t blame men for not being comfortable with all that — nor would I even conceive of saying something like this, one of Tanya’s statements at the end of her piece:
After 40 years of feminism we shouldn’t really burn our bras. We should burn our men.
First of all, women didn’t burn their bras, Miss Genius Pants. And, I’m somebody who makes light of a hell of a lot, starting with herself, but I don’t understand how a statement like “We should burn our men” trips blithely through your thoughts, number one, and number two (hello, editors?), makes it into the paper? Sick.
Tanya, when you read of men in the Middle East burning — or stoning or knifing — their women in “honor killings,” do you shrug it off as no biggie? If a man printed in The Guardian, “Let’s burn our women,” or, better yet, “Let’s burn Tanya for saying ‘Let’s burn our men,’” would you laugh it off? (more…)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
January 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Amy Alkon for President?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Men that go “speed dating” are idiots. Men have absolutely no reason to be in any hurry to try and meet “Miss Right”. Our biological clocks are not ticking. Western women are low quality women anyways. There are plenty of good non-western women. Men don’t need advice from an “advice goddess” either. Calling oneself a goddess is a bad sign anyways. Men just need to look outside the western world and they will find it much easier to meet good women. I certainly hope western women do try and “burn men”. That will result in a firestorm that will exterminate feminism forever. So have at it girls.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
hmm
She seems to go to opposite extremes with no moderation. Either she is picking fights as a successful businesswoman (overly competitive in personal relationships?) or the pleasant and fun to be around woman with a minimum wage job (likes men and wants to be around one). It sure seems like she ignored the thought that the guys were trying to avoid the bitch in order to be around the pleasant personality. She zeroed in on only her employment with each false persona as the deciding factor instead of the personality and mannerisms as the culprit. If that is how some women view heterosexual relationships then it is no wonder they fail at them.
Why would a woman want to be involved in a relationship with someone she feels she must compete against or fight with primarily? Talk about dysfunctional.
Guys don’t want to be in a constant fighting mode with their woman. The relationship is supposed to be the one respite from the bend-over-attitude so much of our life has today. She just doesn’t get it.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Psychologist Toby Green wrote that all women are testers, but this one has to be the biggest tester of them all.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
A smart, aggressive woman is wonderful as long as she is a reliable ally. Unfortunately, there aren’t many woman who are reliable allies now and even fewer who will be in the future. And when the woman turns vicious, it’s better to have a stupid, passive enemy than a smart, aggressive one.
A lot of men, including me, feel the probability of success is so low that we simply aren’t willing to expend the energy or take the risk. Which is probably why I’ve never been speed-dating. It seems like a complete waste of time and effort.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I do believe that she is wasting her time and should move onto her own sex for the attention she craves. A feminatrix would be ideal, I will send her the steriods just so she can increase the depth of those lashings..
January 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The men she’s stumbled into at this sausage and bun fest are more than likely the same men that vote for types like vagina-Joe Biden. Let her burn them.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:09 am
So I’m interested in just exactly what the men at the first speed dating meeting have to answer for:
Man 1. She hasn’t made any attempt to engage this guy, simply whacking him with her politics and working hours. He accepts her rules of engagement and states his profession. Apparently he doesn’t grin back at her, probably finding her approach contrived and having doubts about the wisdom of dating a woman who works 60 hours a week.
Man 2. Not being interested in Economics, he probably figures he’s failed a test. He has, just not the one he thinks. She’s at this function under false pretenses and it shows in how she approaches these men.
Man 3. This guy either decides that a woman who starts out with a political statement about a highly contentious political issue is probably a raving feminist ballbuster or that she’s trying to chase him off. Either way, his response is perfectly appropriate. You wouldn’t see me for dust either.
Man 11 she picks a fight with and man 13 she delivers what she considers a clever put down.
We don’t know what she said to Man 18 to prompt him to declare his fear of her, but if this is how she tries to build a new relationship with complete strangers, his fear is perfectly reasonable.
This woman is the quintessential bully. She finds people who are placing themselves in a vulnerable position and deliberately sets out to hurt them. Small wonder her final date failed to show.
She proceeds to visit another speed dating function and is surprised when being nice and yabbering about nothing is successful. This from a woman who claims to like and understand men. From a woman who claims to be smart. At cocktail parties, family gatherings and all manner of social occasions, being nice and yabbering on about nothing is how people form relationships. It lets them feel their way into a new and unfamiliar relationship without the pressure of dealing with contentious issues that will often lead to unpleasantness.
In the second context, she falsely comes across as someone looking to create a relationship, prompting the men there to respond well. Whereas in the previous context she came across as someone looking to pick a fight or to brag about her workaholic lifestyle.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
What’s amazing, gentlemen, is that she actually found one man (out of 20) who wanted a callback even when she was her prissy, nasty self!
I went to such dating events and came across “smart” women like this and they used their intelligence like a weapon. They didn’t seem especially interested in a relationship but just wanted an opportunity to degrade or reject men. She sounds angry that not enough men took the bait.
The woman was proud to refer to her two cats named “Roe and Wade.” I would have been happy to respond I have two pit bulls: Clarence and Scalia. In such cases where I have stood my ground against such women, they got very hostile and argumentative. They like to pick a fight and then freak out when a man “hits” them back. “But… I’M A GIRL!!!” they cry.
I’m amused that she found it so degrading when a man happily offered to help and explain the rules to her. It’s an old joke that men don’t like to ask for directions, but usually a man who expresses such vulnerability or intellectual openness in an encounter with a woman winds up with her patronizing him and treating him like a “brother.” “Smart” women emasculate men and “sensitive” men are respected by few of them. Even when independent women don’t become hostile or openly degrading towards men, they’re still don’t “offer” a lot towards men. This invites the a discussion of the “challenge”.
The myth a lot of independent women have (often from films with Catherine Hepburn in them) is that men love “independent” women who “challenge” them. They might enjoy a romp in the sack with them or as friends, but in terms of a relationship such women are usually more work than they’re worth. Look at it this way: Do women enjoy the ‘challenge’ of a man who’se sloppy and makes a lot of messes for her to clean up? Most men want a woman whose going to appreciate him and be emotionally supportive.
In closing, while Amy is likable and someone I’d love to have over for tea in the DC area (Amy, that’s an invitation, btw), she admittantly is someone that would be difficult to have a long term, intimate relationship with. Hell, most women fall into that category. Men _MAKE_ relationships work. How do dinner checks get paid? MEN! Who does most of the asking out and risking rejection? MEN! Who is willing to work longer hours to support their spouse to spend time with the kids? MEN! You get it. Even 1 out of 20 men were willing to date this harpie! If she thinks men are tough now, she ain’t seen NOTHING yet!
January 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The Cashmere Mafia”
There was a premier for a “Sex and the City” ripoff called “The Cashmere Mafia” last night on ABC with Lucy Liu. My wife didn’t like it as much as the original, but in a way I found it intriguing.
The “Carrie” character, Lucy Liu, rather than having a very unlikely job as a part-time writer of a newspaper column able to live in a nice Manhattan apartment and dating millionaires, is instead a high end corporate sales executive who, on the premier episode, happens to be proposed to by her boyfriend and given a HUGE diamond ring. On the same day, the boss announces a competition between the two of them for a promotion.
She ruthlessly goes for his throat. Every time he complains that she’s being too vicious, she responds with “You’d do the same in my position” projections or “You boys made the rules” victim-feminism ploy. In the end, she winds up with the promotion and he leaves her. She cries about it to her friends, but she doesn’t give back the expensive ring. In the last SATC series, the character Charlotte doesn’t give back her expensive ring to her ex-husband either.
Also in the same episode, her friend is being dumped by her boyfriend who doesn’t feel she’s paying attention to him (she barely notices that he’s leaving.) She gets enraged about being rejected: “You’re dumping me over BREAKFAST!?!?” she shrieks! She walks off in a huff proclaiming: “You can pick up the check. FOR ONCE!” Yeah, real class act there. It turns out that after years of being the spinster, she decides to become a lesbian. Good luck getting your girlfriends to pick up the check, honey.
The redhead character at first comes off as a victim. Her husband cheats on her. Later, she confronts him during a dinner in a public place and tells him she’s going to have a revenge affair. She also cries in her martini at the end of the show. She is neither vulnerable OR strong willed.
Finally, there’s the “Charlotte” character whose married and dealing with the stress of a “have it all mother”. She hires a young, pretty blonde nanny who demands $47K a year, plus room and board, to basically do work a 7-11 clerk around the street could perform. “Charlotte” gripes: “Young women today have a ‘ID’ attitude.” Her husband asks what this means and she responds: “‘ID: I Deserve.’ When I was young I was happy to have a job. Women like her are holding us hostage.” Gee, and she was any less nice about grabbing what she could get?
The level of hypocrisy, viciousness, moral bankruptcy, and shallowness are simply amazing just as in the original SATC. It’s compounded by many if not most of their viewers (and maybe even writers) not knowing that these women are so worthless. They think they’re “cool” and hip but instead are miserable and worthless just as a soap opera is supposed to be. The only way the SATC had a happy ending was through sheer cowardly writing an implausable happy end.
Anyways, this woman reminded me of this show.