TODAY’S WORLD has made dating more casual and low stakes than ever before. It has rendered many of the participants disposable in a process that is as ruthless and fastpaced as it is fickle. In times past, one was forced to physically seek it out, take the time to court and get to know someone, and try to make something stick. Dating apps, social media, and its myriad of avenues for the potential to find a mate make their presence known on almost every corner of the internet. In theory, it should be profitable for everyone involved. It should have made dating more accessible, but with the nature of these applications being photocentric and superficial, it instead cheapens dating and deadens it. And worse, it makes those who feel like they can’t partake reach worrying levels of dejected and spiteful, looking to find a scapegoat, and often taking to idealizing a “simpler time.” A time when dating felt approachable, more traditional, intentional and to the point.
Generally speaking, heterosexual dating in particular seems to have reached a tipping point. The discourses around the pressures and expectations of dating constantly circulating are manifold. The most obvious one, which perfectly goes hand in hand with our society’s growing obsession with the superficial being looks.
A woman’s beauty and youth have been unequivocally tied to the ways in which her worth is measured for centuries on end. The circumference of her waist and hips, the prominence of her collar bone, the suppleness of her skin, the arch of her back, the upturn of her nose, the number of pores, the coarseness of her skin, her height, her weight, the shape and size of her breasts, the colour of her hair and eyes, the fairness or bronzeness of her skin, the expectation to have no hair in certain areas and to be voluminous in others. All of these little, arbitrary nooks and crannies of the average woman in need of diligent attention and improvement, an obsession that has been passed on, expected and enforced by both men and women. The ideal female form has morphed and contorted and willed its supposed importance into our everyday lives for decades- from crinolines and corsets in the Victoria Era, to today’s BBLs and/ or dramatic curves enforced by rampant porn consumption and internet personalities. While it’s human nature to enjoy looking at nice things, this growing emphasis on looks is something that has become grossly overinflated with the prevalence of late stage social media addiction.
That notwithstanding, it would be obtuse to liken the expectations that befall little girls before they even reach puberty age, to the expectations that befall boys and men. We are encouraged to deeply value looks in women, and women are encouraged to be spectacles, to be looked at. We see it in how youth, which is deeply intertwined with beauty in our culture, is used predominantly against older women in particular as a means to “humble” or denigrate them and make them feel less than.
There is an evident gap between the expectations of how women and men should present, with women of colour often facing added burdens to spend copious amounts of money on their upkeep and enhancements. While these expectations to enhance men’s physical appearances have grown, they have increased tenfold for women. Visually speaking, men have been allowed to get away with “unconventionality” and “ruggedness”: rough skin, visible pores, a roman or wider nose, darker or paler skin, extra body fat, the idea of being viewed as a whole rather than separated and dissected into parsable fragments. They were afforded the grace to be something outside of their looks or relationship or marriage- an earner, a doctor, a farmer, a senator, a musician, a provider. On the contrary, women were, for the longest while- an appendage. A mother and a wife, and a representation of the husband’s marital achievement. Something pretty, helpless and defenseless on the side.
Gone are the days where women have to marry out of economic necessity. We are no longer pigeonholed to a lifetime of a likely loveless marriage or mediocrity at best, and rampant abuse with no escape in sight at worst. However, trauma and systematic abuse do not vanish just because the calendar keeps going. The reverberations of a not so distant past still present themselves in curious ways in today’s dating climate.
Choice and liberation often beget the opportunity to strive for better. They open up the window to reflect, to focus on more important aspects that people in a state of fight or flight otherwise couldn’t consider. Matters of sex and dating have always generally carried immense and inherent risk for women. There is the risk of pregnancy, which poses an inherent threat to a woman’s wellbeing, even in the healthiest and most supportive circumstances, and with an active partner involved. The others are statistical cautionary tales; rape- which a woman is more likely to suffer from someone she is knows or is romantically involved with– as well as abuse and brute force that can be easily spurred on by inherent gender power dynamics and/ or physical differences. In times past, marrying out of economic necessity made it so that a woman’s well-being and survival was entirely dependent on a man. Studies show us that even since these previously implemented cultural norms have been dissolved, their impacts and ramifications last years and years to come. We see this exhibited in countries where marital rape is still legal, not criminalized, or considered the norm.
With this knowledge in mind, gender power dynamics are only referenced by certain men when it benefits them. When they need to remind women that men are physically stronger, physically imposing, have larger organs, and must be consequently ‘superior.’ Conveniently, women are only made to remember that we must be inferior as a direct result of “biological inequalities.” But when these imbalances are referenced in relation to the inherent dangers women considering dating will face, and how painstaking an effort women must make to ensure safety and survival, women are labelled misandrist. Or worse, the label of feminist towards a woman expressing these concerns is thrown back in her face pejoratively, meaning that feminism or its label of feminist- is brought up as a means to discredit women. We are hateful for being proactive and spreading awareness about female safety or femicide, because this awareness is only interpreted as a means to “denigrate” men, or in their words, as man-hating propaganda. Unfortunately, women will still be blamed for “choosing wrong” if they end up decapitated or worse by a date- whether they are hypervigilant or become unfortunate statistics. They are casually met with outrage, blame, shame, and “not all men.” This theme of “male superiority” that has affected the way we have governed, ruled, enslaved groups and even navigated relationships for years still bares its sharp teeth. While women are by and large considered “persons” and “free” in almost every corner of today’s world, there is a subtle undertone that whispers, “we have gracefully and considerately afforded you freedom, don’t mess it up.”
Forget freedom- it is convenient how easily people are willing to forget the humanity feminism has afforded women. Before feminism, one could forget about any avenues of escape in dire situations. The legal doctrine of ‘coverture’ made it so that a woman was not considered her own person, but instead property of her spouse. In 20th century England, “it was essentially impossible to obtain a divorce, no matter how bad the marriage or how cruel one’s husband,” until the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. Before then, divorce was a possibility only accessible for the very wealthy, and still extremely difficult to come by even in countries like Canada. Fearing that these new freedoms might encourage “immorality,” the courts still made access wildly restricted, allowing men to divorce their wives on one instance of adultery, while women could only divorce a man if he had been utterly despicable and “bestial.” This propagated the pre-existing and celebrated customs that it was okay to cheat on your wife, bring her great misery and even abuse her to an extent that was considered “permissible” under the eyes of the law, whereas most women were merely at the whim of their husband’s mercy. During these periods where women were unprotected, men were welcome to have an array of mistresses and sully their wives names baselessly and without consequences. In fact, “in many societies women were simply the property of men, most often their fathers, husbands or brothers. Rape, in many legal systems, falls under property violation- in other words, the victim is not the woman who was raped but the male who owns her” (Harari, 2014, p. 162). Women who did not have the resources but were lucky enough to flee their abusive spouses were still regarded as “breaking the law and depriving her husband of his property” (Atwood, 2018).
Outside of marriage, people often forget that the categorical and systemic exclusion and subjugation of women lasted until very recently in history. Before 1928, women were not considered as people under the eyes of the law in Canada, meaning they were severely limited from gaining any real semblance of social or political power, and had very little public participation or say in their day to day life.
To confront our present, we must refer to our rather recent past. Our history is dark, but we must acknowledge how human nature works. When a system knows that its people have limited to no options with regards to their survival, it makes it all the easier to extort them, and those who profit from the system will not bat an eyelid at wickedness if it means maintaining the status quo. There is little incentive to change or humanize the disenfranchised because one has been taught to see them as inferior and as a result, less deserving of humanization. We see it with employers and the treatment of undocumented workers. This is also exhibited in parent-child dynamics, when it dawns on power hungry or abusive parents that their child is entirely dependent and helpless and knows no other kind of relationship.
By and large, men have historically seen women as something to control and dominate- stemming ultimately from fear, willful ignorance, and feeling threatened by female autonomy and choice. If they did not fear our capabilities and ardently crave control over us, they would not have needed laws in place to render us dependent in the first place. If it was always only about muscle power and their need to protect us, there would have been no need to exclude us from high ranking social positions which require no brute force. There would have been no need to systematically and dogmatically disallow possibilities for us to rise to power for decades on end. Evidence has shown that “women are generally more resistant to hunger, disease and fatigue than men” (Harari, 2014, p. 172). So, it can’t be that women lack mental tenacity. For centuries, gerontocracies have been made up of physically and, in some cases, mentally inept men, who have been largely favoured over perfectly capable women to rule over the masses. If our “weak and frail” bodies were so limiting in combat, why couldn’t we have been granted equal power and consideration in higher ranking roles such as legislation or government that require no physical strength?
In the western world, we may be “liberated,” but women still exist within this state of constant appraisal and furor. The pressures to look perfect even after giving birth. The growing desire for absolute independence and emancipation that remains under question and scrutiny. The constant questioning from others on the relevance of our autonomy. When we express these sentiments, which cannot exist outside the weight of our historical context, many men are unable to sympathize, fathom or acknowledge it without taking it as a personal affront. The pendulum always swings back to an idea we have known, one that has dominated our way of living for decades, but that is still one of the most contentious words even today- patriarchy. This same patriarchy, which kills, mutilates, debases and subjugates both men and women- is upheld by many across the dating spectrum. Our model of existence has been to give men all the power, autonomy and choice thus far- it’s no surprise that to challenge this status quo may be interpreted as sacrilege.
Patriarchy has seemingly worked well thus far and afforded men opportunities they would otherwise have had to work twice as hard for- who would want to give that up or acknowledge its shortcomings? And so, feminism is condemned and false narratives are pushed: women don’t know what they want, and it’s up to us to tell them; women don’t truly want independence; women all desire a heterosexual marriage with children and will become miserable crones if they choose a life outside of the status quo; women don’t know how to choose the right man and shouldn’t be afforded the privilege to have this choice. We are told that we don’t know what we want, and never have, and should not have been granted these freedoms- of which we seemingly now profit from more than men in today’s world. There are some who proudly claim that women should be so lucky that we were eventually granted a taste of freedom, that men can take it all away. They blame our higher standards on having too much choice or partners – as if the only classifier of cultivating a healthy relationship is related to sex. Narratives regarding a woman’s so-called purity, sexual desire and history have always existed and evolved over time depending on the religious, cultural, and even economic practices of an era. Historically, men collectively understood that if they invested a perverse interest in controlling women sexually by pushing these narratives, they could pre-emptively damage our self-perception and make us question our worth with regards to who and how often we choose our partners. A choice that posed great threat to their access of the ultimate goal; marriage- “[a patriarchal structure that is] based on a system of exchange, one in which men are traditionally taught to provide economically for women and children in exchange for sexual, housekeeping and nurturing services” (Hooks, 1981, p.76).
One cannot speak about patriarchy without examining how we are socialized. Many men are socialized to avoid self-reflection, emotional regulation, and care work. This then leads to unresolved emotions, misplaced anger and arbitrary expectations to fight feelings of inadequacy or discontentment. There are men who expect potential partners to have had a low number of sexual partners, but simultaneously expect a one night stand from the same partner, because they have been conditioned to have sex as soon and as fast as possible. They have been conditioned to attribute the act of “conquering” to their self-worth, as the crux and ultimate goal of relationships, which leads to a disturbed notion: if a woman has been “conquered” by previous men in the past, she is now deemed impure. The problem with this notion is that, if the act of sex with a man makes a woman impure, the act in and of itself, and/or the man would be the natural culprit making the woman this way.
In her book Ain’t I a Woman?, Bell Hooks discusses how rigid religious teachings from the Victorian Era impressed upon the general male psyche when it came to matters of sexuality and women. Due to rigid religious teachings, women were seen as evil temptresses, and “[men] sought to suppress sexuality because of their deep fear of sexual feelings… such intense fear and distrust of women bred misogynistic feeling” (Hooks, 1981, p. 30). The 19th century brought with it more secularism and wealth, which led to the scrapping of the harmful notion of women as evil temptresses, but the majority of these beliefs never fully dissipated. Methods of shame and control over women via sex have always existed, but they shift and morph according to culture. This shameful rhetoric turns acts of sex and intimacy into something that is inherently dirty and debasing, because men are unable to fathom other men wanting to engage with women intimately in a way that is not inherently predatory, vulturish and undignified. Sex, in the eyes of many, is still viewed and taught as an act of possession. A means of “imprinting” and “conquering” which is a far cry from the way many species relate with one another in the animal kingdom. These archaic beliefs are not far removed from the not so distant days of legally viewing and accepting a woman as a man’s “property,” or “damaged goods” the second she has been ‘taken’ or ‘sullied’ by someone.
Through a modern lens, this fractured view of intimacy still corrodes the dating market. The messaging is subtle but still exists; men still view women as temptresses, sexual deviants and checkmarks on list of achievements. A general disregard that turns sex and dating into something to be gamified. Unfortunately, the men who emotionally shut down when they hear the word patriarchy, are the same ones who refuse to acknowledge that these ego-driven expectations of men have largely been brought upon them by their fellow peers and forefathers. That these customs have existed since time immemorial because they were, first and foremost, implemented by chauvinistic men in charge. Disregarding matters of sex and intimacy, many other dating expectations that are still present today were begotten from chauvinistic eras that mainly served men at the time. The idea of paying for dates was engendered from the same idealized past where men were the sole bread winner and women were glorified indentured servants with no bank account or a penny to their name. Everything in relation to courting rendered a power play- a game of peacocking and chasing relentlessly. Some of the men today who complain about women expecting a first date paid for are the same ones who will romanticize a past where a woman could not pay for a date, and in some areas of the world (still holding true today), could not choose their own mate. This often idealized past of a man being the primary bread winner was begot during a time when women were severely unprotected and limited due to laws established by men. These dating customs still reflect in our culture today, except they now have to coexist with female liberation.
For that reason, today’s customs collide with expectations of the past, giving rise to confusion in the way that many men view themselves, and their place in a so-called misplaced culture. It thus enables men (and women) to prioritize mainly the materialistic and worldly, instead of the spiritual, metaphysical or psychological.
With regards to the materialistic, we have developed a pavlovian response to view dating and money as two things that are inextricable. And economic disparity- a bug in the feature of our faulty economic model- is another pain point. Money is an important tool in patriarchy and male identity. Patriarchal expectations placed on men to adhere to the hegemonic model of masculinity via means of acquiring wealth to attract women have always governed matters of dating, courtship and family planning. The traditional times secretly longed for by some people also included a promised reward (i.e. assets, a home, the guarantee of retirement) following persistence and dedication- and this belief was often extended to dating. Today’s dating market is volatile and highly independent, because it is mirroring an equally volatile and independent economic model. We may be exposed to more financial prospects and opportunities than ever, but we live in a period that is much more cutthroat, unforgiving and rapacious than ever before. In a job and housing market where everyone is highly disposable and feels unprotected, it’s no surprise that people may unconsciously reproduce similar attitudes towards their relationships.
Generally, today’s world places an emphasis on independence that we have never quite observed in previous generations. And many men in particular, may deem this outcry for independence from women as a personal affront. They are confused, because it appears that the ball is now in our court. And as aforementioned, when someone has limited options, it makes it all the easier to extort them. But when that person seems to have all the choice- there comes the opposite extreme of the spectrum. Why try hard if women have all the choice now? Why be chivalrous if women claim to be “independent with no need for a man”? There is a subtle punishment that is enforced in reaction to female desire for autonomy. We see how this plays out with laws against female reproductive autonomy. As women grow more independent and men more disgruntled, we collectively grow more distant. This makes it so that the real mechanisms dividing us such as avaricious leaders and governments; the predatory obsession silicon valley has with manipulating our personal data; the cost of living and unmanageable family planning; are seldom thoroughly investigated. The state of our world encourages us to reach for something simple and digestible as a mere distraction, because investing the hard work, confronting our world, its history and our anxieties is much too difficult.
Acknowledging that there is no easy way to solve these myriad problems, and that we are virtually at the mercy of an unforgiving system can be disillusioning. It goes against everything that we have been trained to believe. Men have been taught to adhere to strive to be the pinnacle of masculinity, to view femininity as something docile and small. On the other hand, women have been taught to be cautious of men, but to make them and child rearing their ultimate goal as they get older.
As these roles and notions have been brought into question over the last few decades, many have taken to re-evaluating their sense of self and identity. For some men, there is a form of masochism that has been co-opted regarding their modern ideas of masculinity, especially as people continue to ditch gender roles and redefine feminism. If men are no longer the ultimate life achievement for most women, they must outdo themselves- otherwise they risk competing with the lesser sex who are meant to be inferior to them. Sometimes, this masochism manifests in a form of anti-human detachment in pursuit of sex, women, money and status. While men have always been praised for these practices; having mistresses, neglecting their wives and sometimes even kids, cheating or having a slew of casual sex partners, there is a simultaneous outcry begging to address the so-called male loneliness epidemic and identity crisis.
While acknowledging that expectations on men to succeed- especially financially- are very real, there is also an immense self imposed pressure that many refuse to escape. Young men today learn and maintain masculinity through some or most of these pillars: sex, money and status. They are subliminally taught from a young age, through jokes, comments, algorithms, and passed down ideology which often begins at home. These expectations in turn become the very road blocks that inhibit men from desiring or pursuing genuine relationships with women, whether they be romantic or otherwise. Even in cases where the man may desire real connection, the messaging he has received on his self-worth and place in society in relation to women has often caused so much damage to the point of limiting his willingness to develop emotional intelligence. These pillars reinforce the persistent pressures men face to live up to hegemonic standards of masculinity. When certain men feel they are unable to live up to these ideals, they may lash out on women and blame them for daring to be deemed equal because they believe that men were always just as disempowered- if not more disempowered today- to begin with.
While shame is an effective tool used by the patriarchy to leave men in a constant state of inadequacy, it is also used as an effective tool to keep women from experiencing the full capacity of our freedom and choice since many men fear that they no longer measure up- emotionally, intellectually, financially or otherwise. How does hard work measure up when the people who were previously yours to dominate and essentially own are now able to reach unprecedented levels of excellence and in some cases may even surpass you?
We, as a society, have become too desensitized to women’s suffering, which has persisted in such a categorical and systematic manner for centuries. It takes a lot of hard work to undo the beliefs we have absorbed through generations of conditioning. As a result, there have always been countermovements that exist purely to falsely equate feminism’s victories to the reason behind male suffering: loneliness, the proliferation of the porn industry- which is by and large owned by men- and male suicide rates, to name a few. These “parallels” being “drawn” are simply false equivalences and stop us from questioning the status quo, perhaps, in fear of “dismantling” the nuclear family, among many other structures. Feminism’s victories have merely afforded women the ability to dissect and reject institutionalized dehumanization propagated by centuries of chauvinism and patriarchy. However, because that same patriarchy does not encourage behaviours such as reflection, emotional acuity and even empathy in men, men are stuck in a system that both benefits them while keeping them from exploring their true sense of self outside of pre-ordained sexist social orders or perfected masculinity. They are stuck in a limbo that encourages little psychological and emotional advancement, but rewards self neglect in pursuit of status.
Regardless of the painstaking effort of Match Group and other dating applications to gather our data- relationships and true intimacy cannot be manufactured. Historically, we may have manipulated it by way of limiting or forbidding choice, but we forget that even dating for love, until very recently, was not considered our normal. The modern idea of marriage as we know it today being centered around genuine love and connection is new, as it was oftentimes nothing more than a business deal to exchange “property” (women) and contain wealth. Now that choice is in the equation, the easiest scapegoat is feminism to those who feel cheated from what they should be privy to. It’s too difficult to reckon with the mess that previous generations have bestowed on us otherwise. It’s too difficult to acknowledge the extent to which chauvinistic scientists of the Victorian Era misled and intentionally disinformed for centuries, adding to the arsenal of male entitlement that deliberately mystified the female species. The act of turning love into something that can be chosen, has been one of humanity’s greatest and most destructive wins to date. When one has been told they are entitled to something for years and can no longer have access to it, they may feel that it is their biological imperative to have that thing by force- even if that “thing” comes at the cost of someone else’s dignity and sense of humanity.
Men feel that not only do women have it all now, but we have too many options. We have been afforded much more freedom than our feeble minds can handle. And even with societal pressures to choose someone who will not kill us, assault us, abandon us while we rear children alone, to stay young, to nurture and carry life to term while remaining the same pant size, to face career setbacks while your body heals and recovers from the trauma that is pregnancy – men believe women still have the upper hand. Even women who, knowing they may not be equipped for a life of motherhood, and justifiably resign themselves to a child-free lifestyle are still castigated and shamed- but women must have it so easy, right?
The belief is that women are held on a perceived pedestal, that they experience more opportunities- when in reality, the playing field is simply being levelled– and excel more. They are outraged at women for being audacious enough to “finally have it all” and still complain about non-issues such as patriarchy and late-stage capitalism. Women are blamed for questioning the status quo in regards to female independence, and men blame us for having fought for this. They blame us for daring to exist as equals in the continually dehumanizing economic and political landscape that our predecessors laid neatly down for us, and they blame us for wanting even more change. Patriarchy has taught all men that they must be providers, conquerors, entrepreneurs, but outside of possibly gaining some kind of reward or recognition in exchange, it has never really told them why. The possibility that these arbitrary roles don’t have to be enforced on one half of an entire species is unfathomable because men were never encouraged to examine the downsides of being treated as a monolith until now.
Instead of investigating their own dissatisfaction, or questioning the same status quo that has enabled so much grief, destruction and masochism, the men scratch their heads and think to themselves:
“Hasn’t feminism gone too far? Do these women want to take over the world? Haven’t we given them everything? (And they still won’t choose us).”
Leave a Reply