Friday, July 06, 2012
One woman finally gets it figured: What feminists have taught her will never get her a man
Being "demure" must be the word feminists hate most -- but it sums up what works for a woman who is sexually normal
At least it does in Britain and Australia. Not so sure about NYC. Maybe men there judge women by their Mommas
My friend Anna is attractive, confident and has a high-powered job in publishing — yet she has spent most of her adult life desperately trying to find a man.
One evening, when she was in her early 30s, she found herself sitting next to a good-looking, single architect called Chris at a dinner party. Their friends thought them perfectly suited to each other and were trying a bit of match-making.
By the time the main course arrived, Anna had told Chris exactly what he was doing wrong in his career, made jokes about his dress sense and criticised his choice of car. Chris barely got a word in edgeways.
For her part, Anna thought she was being helpful and amusing, and couldn’t understand why Chris never called her.
Ten years later, during which time Chris had got married and divorced, they met by chance at a house party. This time Anna, by now 41, was less bossy and far more relaxed; she let Chris speak, she laughed rather than criticised and was a much nicer person to be with. Within months, they were living together and now they are married with a baby on the way.
Anna’s story is far from unique. In fact, before she changed her ways, she was typical of a growing breed of 30 and 40-something women who are so snippy, critical and exacting that they have no hope of ever snaring a man.
I should know — for I’m one of them. Single at the age of 39, I’ve often wondered why none of my relationships lasted the distance, but had always put it down to luck and timing — assuming I had neither on my side.
But recently, my friend Steven threw some cold, harsh light on the subject. ‘Your problem is that you’re really snippy,’ he said.
‘Snippy?’ I asked, not entirely sure what he meant.
‘Yes, snippy,’ he said. ‘Abrupt. Critical. If someone says or does something wrong, then you’re onto it straight away. Men will ignore a lot of things if they fancy someone — a weird dress sense, or taking hours getting ready to go out — but they hate being put down or made to feel small. You can be funny, but sometimes it’s way too close for comfort.’
This wasn’t a nice thing to be told. But what he was saying did have a ring of truth about it.
I’d thought I was quite witty, to be honest, with my quick quips and smart comments. Now it seemed that what I thought was funny could be completely off-putting to men.
Steven tried to cheer me up. ‘Don’t worry, it’s not just you,’ he said, explaining that in his opinion there were lots of women in their 30s who were so uptight and critical they just weren’t any fun to be around. ‘And you wonder why men go for younger women, who are way more relaxed?’ he asked.
My sister agreed with Steven. She said that what I thought were entertaining and witty comments could come across as criticisms or complaints.
I thought of Anna and how she had missed out on ten years of being with Chris because, as she admits, she was just too sharp.
‘It wasn’t just Chris — I ruined things with other men,’ she says. ‘If I was on a date in a restaurant and I didn’t like the table we were at, I’d insist on moving. I didn’t like it when trains were delayed, or the traffic was bad, and I showed it. It was because I wanted everything to be perfect, but I think it came across as being fussy or critical.’
Perhaps, women my age are putting men off with our demanding, critical natures?
My single female friends back up this theory. One is so curt, I’m almost too scared to call her at work for fear of inviting a tirade. Another will always pick the venue when going on a date because she doesn’t trust the guy to choose a nice place. It is an affliction that affects celebrity women too.
Last year, X Factor judge Kelly Rowland, 31, told reporters: ‘The desire to be in control and decide everything myself as much as possible gets in the way. The fact that I can act a little bossy has ruined quite a few dates.
‘I choose the restaurant, I open the door myself, sometimes I’ll even pay the bill. I need to learn to let a man be a gentleman. That must be one reason why I’m single.’
This phenomenon is linked to age. If you’re single and in your 30s, you are bound to be rather independent, and organising your whole life means that you are not good at letting someone else take charge.
Our generation was told by our mothers that we didn’t have to be reliant on a man, and shouldn’t be afraid of making ourselves heard to get ahead in our careers. But have we gone too far the other way and become harsh?
A quick survey of my family — who seemed more than happy to point out my flaws — revealed that I frown when I think people are saying daft things. I also talk too quickly, too loudly, jump into people’s sentences, so even when I’m agreeing with them, I sound intimidating. And I can’t keep quiet whenever a ‘smart Alec’ comment springs to mind.
With that list, I was no longer surprised that I was single, but baffled that anyone had ever wanted to go out with me in the first place. So I made a resolution — to ditch the snippiness and see if my love life and friendships improved as a result.
It wasn’t going to be easy, especially as biting my tongue and playing nice has never been my strong point.
One former boyfriend drove me crazy by never rinsing off the soapsuds after doing the washing up, so our food always tasted of Fairy Liquid. Should I have let that slide, or always done the washing up myself, rather than trying to get him to do it differently?
I thought he was ignoring my pleas for him to do the washing up more thoroughly; he thought I was nagging, and while it wasn’t the reason the relationship ended, it didn’t help. I tried out my new resolution with some friends at a pub quiz where one of the questions was ‘Which Olympics was Chariots of Fire set in?’
‘I think it was the 1924 one,’ I suggested, having seen it recently.
‘No, it’s 1920,’ insisted one of the guys, a friend of a friend who I hadn’t met before. ‘Definitely.’
Previously, I would have stood my ground, but this time, I let it go. I assumed a Zen-like calm, even when I was right.
‘Don’t worry, it doesn’t matter!’ I said cheerfully, when before I would have made some ‘maybe listen to me next time?’ comment. He even bought me a drink to apologise.
I practised talking more slowly and with a softer voice. I found that it was impossible to finish a sentence this way without being interrupted, as people were used to me talking 19 to the dozen.
But I refrained from interrupting anyone and nearly combusted with biting back all the ‘smart’ comments that constantly bubbled up. It felt like the episode of Friends when Chandler has to stop making jokes and nearly explodes. But forcing myself to ignore everything which irritated me made me feel much more relaxed, I smiled more than I frowned, and I was a much nicer person to be with.
While the new, nice, me worked like a charm on my friends, the ultimate test would be how it panned out on a date.
After a meal in an Italian restaurant with a man I’d met through an online dating site, the bill — which we’d already agreed to split — arrived. My date carefully explained to me how £60 into two makes £30 each.
I bit back the smart ‘Thanks, I think even I could have worked that one out!’ remark which was on the tip of my tongue. Instead, I gave him a warm smile and a polite thank you. And in return? He asked me on a second date. I might be onto something.
Nigel Farage savages the EU again
Good to see him in top form again after his air crash. I personally think Britain should be in NAFTA, not the EU
ESM is doomed before it starts
Legal Challenges in Ireland and Germany
Estonia Justice Says it will not fit their constitution
Finns and Dutch have broken agreement made in the middle of the night
Perhaps the little countries do not have a say at all anymore
Crisis is unsolvable
Das Vierte Reich: German Court Declares Judaism A Crime
Hard to believe, but that’s what the decision handed down by the regional court in Cologne, Germany means: circumcising a child under the age of consent is a crime, notwithstanding the religious beliefs of the parents.
Many judges who loyally served the Third Reich finished their careers in perfect peace and quiet after World War Two; in some cases, they are still collecting pensions for administering Hitler’s laws. However, Germany’s moral sensibilities are so refined and so pure today that the thought of Jewish parents (or Muslims for that matter) performing an immemorial religious rite is unacceptable.
Jews believe that the circumcision of infants is a necessary act; the command to circumcise male children at the age of eight days is the first command that God gives Abraham to mark their covenant; for thousands of years this has been a foundation of Jewish life. To ban infant circumcision is essentially to make the practice of Judaism illegal in Germany; it is now once again a crime to be a Jew in the Reich.
Some may have worried that the memory of past, ahem, problems in German-Jewish relations would inhibit German judges from the single most anti-Semitic state action taken anywhere in the west since 1945. Holm Putzke, a legal expert at the University of Passau, praised the court’s dedication to duty, telling the Financial Times Deutschland that “Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance.”
Well, thank goodness for that! If courts start letting themselves be inhibited because people will denounce them for being intolerant anti-Semites, how can we possibly build a clean and beautiful New Europe?
Perhaps those convicted of wrongful circumcision could be required to wear a yellow star?
Black mobs now beating Jews in New York
If Chaim Amalek had his way, no one would know that mobs of black people are attacking and beating and robbing Jews in the New York area. Or that they shout anti-Semitic epithets. Or that they target Jews because "they don't fight back."
"Such information can only serve to heighten racial tensions between these two groups," said Amalek, an alias for New York video blogger Luke Ford. "Let us all look beyond the issue of race (in any event a mere social construct) and instead celebrate our diversity."
In this case, the New York Post saw a pattern that most other media outlets never see. To some, it was jarring.
"Anti-Jewish crime wave," read the June headline about a series of recent anti-Semitic attacks. "In the most disturbing incident, a mob of six black teenagers shouting, ‘Dirty Jew!' and ‘Dirty kike!' repeatedly bashed Marc Heinberg, 61, as he walked home from temple in Sheepshead Bay (in June.)"
This is one of several black mob attacks on - and robberies of - Jewish people in Brooklyn over the last two years, leaving broken bones and life-threatening injuries in their wake.
The assaults are part of a larger pattern in the New York area and around the country: Black mobs assaulting, robbing, destroying property and creating mayhem - hundreds of times in more than 60 cities.
Orthodox Jews may bear a disproportionate amount of the violence in New York. But the lawlessness that black mobs inflict throughout the area is not limited to Jews. Much of it is on YouTube.
In February, four black people beat and robbed an Orthodox Jew in the New York suburb of Monsey. They were charged with hate crimes after it was determined they targeted the victim based on his religion. News accounts do not mention the race of the attackers, but the picture tells the story.
In a three-week period after Thanksgiving 2010, the same group of black people was charged in three separate episodes of targeting, beating and robbing members of the Orthodox community. One of the victims, Joel Weinberger, spent four days in the hospital with broken bones and required 10 hours of surgery on his broken jaw and eye socket.
Ford and others, such as MSNBC news anchor Melissa Harris-Perry, say the media should not report news if it makes black people look bad. But most racial crimes and violence from black mobs in the New York area are usually not reported - not by the mainstream media anyway.
Witnesses and others who know often find a way to drop a dime, or a video or Internet posting.
Just a few days before the Heinberg beating, a group of students from a predominately black school in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn were "evicted" from the 9/11 Memorial site in Manhattan "after they callously hurled trash into its fountains. The vile vandals from Junior High School 292 in East New York treated the solemn memorial - its reflecting pools honoring the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror attacks - like a garbage dump."
One of the students was found carrying ammunition.
The story did not identify the race of the students. The picture for the article featured a young white person looking over the fountains. But people who posted comments to the story, many of whom said they lived near the school, identified the vandals as black - if only to defend them.
"The NYPD have destroyed enough young black lives," wrote poster Blaque Knyte. "I'd be willing to bet you didn't suggest jail for the little white suburban thugs who harassed that elderly bus matron to tears, which IS a crime by the way."
Many of the commenters said the story should have identified the race of the miscreants - if only to protect the community from future mayhem. That was too much for "brooklynborn," who said, "I am embarrassed for my fellow Americans who flaunt their racism so publicly. What they did was offensive, but the conditions of where we grew up - compared to the wealth of Wall St. - is also offensive."
While New Yorkers continue to debate whether race has anything to do with crime, or whether it should be reported, the list of racially violent and lawless episodes continues to grow.
On May 12, black women taunted two teenage girls on a subway before "hauling" the girls off the subway, beating them and stealing one of their phones.
The local NBC affiliate did not disclose the race of the mob, but it didn't have to: The attack was videotaped and posted on YouTube.
On Staten Island in December, two police officers were hurt trying to control a mob of 50 black people attacking a single family home. Firefighters finally disbursed the crowd with fire hoses to get them away from the officers. Several pictures and videos show some of the action.
Last June, hundreds of black people rioted on Brighton Beach in an annual event called Brooklyn-Queens Day. Four people were shot and one killed. Much of it was posted on YouTube.
According to the New York Post: "The shootings didn't surprise neighbors, who've gotten used to trouble on previous Brooklyn-Queens Days."
"These kids come not to swim, they come for turf fights," said Pat Singer, president of the Brighton Beach Neighborhood Association. "It's a problem every year. It's really hard on the businesses. All day long, all you see are hundreds of teenagers. Of course you're going to have problems."
In May of 2011, more than two dozen black people on a "rampage ... terrorized" a Dunkin Donuts. The "swarm mob" attacked patrons, destroyed the fixtures and stole food, reported the Daily Mail, which published the story with pictures.
A few months before, the same scenario unfolded at a New York Wendy's. A mob of black people were fighting and destroying property, and a teenage employee was attacked and hospitalized with a concussion.
Also like the episode before, the New York Fox affiliate removed the videos of the attack from its website - but not before Hip Hop New 24-7 posted it.
This is a long list. New York is a big city.
Last summer, a Bronx man said he was taunted for being white and beaten by a black mob on a subway. No charges were filed, and police refused to list it as a hate crime.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.