Decoding Mixed Signals: Understanding Men's Actions and Words
Description
The 5 Warning Signs Of A Bad Relationship
Stop Comparing Us To Aidan From Sex And The City!
The Truth About Women’s Dating Blogs
Is Bradley Cooper The Male Carrie Bradshaw?
My Low-Maintenance Dream Girl Wishlist
The Little Things Women Do That Turn Men On
Being A Bitch Can Save Your Love Life
Why Your Dating Standards Start with You
The Backlash of Fornication for Single Christians
Learn to Trust God’s Warnings in Relationships
10 Qualities Saved Sisters Seek in a Man
Overcoming Dating Angst as a Christian
I think that a man who enjoys you enough intellectually to chat with you for the length of three movies AND finds you attractive would not be restrained from hollering because you are a feminist. Now, if we are discussing brothers who would rather enter long term relationships with women who aren’t their intellectual peers, I can see that. But I just feel like in this case, there was either a lack of attraction or some ineptitude in macking game on one or both parties parts. Was there flirting? Or just debating?
Simon
July 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Well stated Ms. Grundy. I agree. I’m attracted to women with intellectual heft, lessons from my mother. Patriarchal privilege doesn’t apply here. Bell Hooks criticized Cornell West for the same thing. Feminist entitlement on display. My feminist friends have no problem initiating sex with men they intellectually engage.
Dumi
July 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I gotta disagree with you “Brandon St. Randy” the piece really gets at a deeper questions in terms of what role one’s ideology plays in shaping desire.
The way to “answer it’ (if we believe it could be answered) would be to look at the marginal effect. What’s the intersection of ideology and outward aesthetic. If a sister is a “feminist” and say “aight” in the looks department, does she get passed over more quickly than a woman who is a “patriarchy advocate” and aight? I venture to think the patriarchy advocate would get more play or is less likely to get placed in the “friend slot.” But I don’t think we can easily measure that stuff and i’m not sure how much we get from debating that hypothetical.
For me, the tension really comes at the end when she talking about what is “real exploitation.” It dances a dangerous line in terms of classifying oppressions as authentic or inauthentic. I lean towards Lorde when she said, “there is no hierarchy of oppressions.” but at the same time can see where Sai is coming from.
In the end, it’s all about working on multiple fronts to right wrongs, wrongs that are all relatively defined. Glad her commentary was added to the dialogue.
Stop Comparing Us To Aidan From Sex And The City!
The Truth About Women’s Dating Blogs
Is Bradley Cooper The Male Carrie Bradshaw?
My Low-Maintenance Dream Girl Wishlist
The Little Things Women Do That Turn Men On
Being A Bitch Can Save Your Love Life
Why Your Dating Standards Start with You
The Backlash of Fornication for Single Christians
Learn to Trust God’s Warnings in Relationships
10 Qualities Saved Sisters Seek in a Man
Overcoming Dating Angst as a Christian
I think that a man who enjoys you enough intellectually to chat with you for the length of three movies AND finds you attractive would not be restrained from hollering because you are a feminist. Now, if we are discussing brothers who would rather enter long term relationships with women who aren’t their intellectual peers, I can see that. But I just feel like in this case, there was either a lack of attraction or some ineptitude in macking game on one or both parties parts. Was there flirting? Or just debating?
Simon
July 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Well stated Ms. Grundy. I agree. I’m attracted to women with intellectual heft, lessons from my mother. Patriarchal privilege doesn’t apply here. Bell Hooks criticized Cornell West for the same thing. Feminist entitlement on display. My feminist friends have no problem initiating sex with men they intellectually engage.
Dumi
July 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I gotta disagree with you “Brandon St. Randy” the piece really gets at a deeper questions in terms of what role one’s ideology plays in shaping desire.
The way to “answer it’ (if we believe it could be answered) would be to look at the marginal effect. What’s the intersection of ideology and outward aesthetic. If a sister is a “feminist” and say “aight” in the looks department, does she get passed over more quickly than a woman who is a “patriarchy advocate” and aight? I venture to think the patriarchy advocate would get more play or is less likely to get placed in the “friend slot.” But I don’t think we can easily measure that stuff and i’m not sure how much we get from debating that hypothetical.
For me, the tension really comes at the end when she talking about what is “real exploitation.” It dances a dangerous line in terms of classifying oppressions as authentic or inauthentic. I lean towards Lorde when she said, “there is no hierarchy of oppressions.” but at the same time can see where Sai is coming from.
In the end, it’s all about working on multiple fronts to right wrongs, wrongs that are all relatively defined. Glad her commentary was added to the dialogue.
Début de l'événement
17.12.2022
Fin de l'événement
17.12.2022