symptoms of a scatterbrain

A general rule of thumb that I live by is that people usually do things for a reason. If something seems 'stupid' or against their own interests, there is almost certainly some reason for it down the line: some set of circumstances which highly incentivise that act. But I just don't see what is incentivising men to... not try at all?

And, like. Almost every piece of dating advice I ever see for men is telling them to Do More, if not to change themselves. Feminists of course will tell men to put more effort into their appearance (but not too much or that's 'narcissistic', and you'll be called 'ugly' either way), and to do various other things to be of more use to women. But alpha male type alt-right groups will also tell men that they'll never ever get laid unless they are manly and powerful and assertive enough. Conservatives, too, will look down on men who spend too much time playing video games or enjoying 'girly' things or porn.

I saw a commenter on /r/MensLib (a feminist subreddit for talking about men and men's issues) once talk about it as how for women, dating is seen as an entirely passive thing: you put yourself out there, and roll the dice to see if you can find a Good Guy. Going on a bad date is like getting hit by another car, or something: something that just Happens to you. The onus is entirely on the other party, and it is probably Their Fault, rather than just - two people not really vibing with one another. And I don't think that's inaccurate!

(It also, admittedly, lines up with cultural views I see in fiction: I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an interaction betwen a man and a woman in a story where the man wasn't the one who was Wrong and needed to grow and change. The fact that I have seen *two entirely separate instances* of an aromantic asexual Jughead actually needing to *track down and apologise* to a girl who kept insistently hitting on him despite his sexuality... It seems to be just ingrained in us as an essential element of the story, you know? Or Notting Hill! There, the woman DOES mess up, and apologise... but that's not an appropriate climax, so the man has to reject that, and then ultimately come running back for forgiveness because he's Learned Better. This isn't just an anti-man thing: it's part of how female characters are so often treated as purely passive figures, merely being acted on by external sources but lacking the layered internal complexity that men are granted. Men shift and grow and change and learn; women simply Are.)

And it also makes me think about the renewed pressure on women to act almost as gatekeepers for men. That's always been a trope, from every part of society: for conservatives, women exist as Rewards for men who are sufficiently successful and wealthy and white; for the alt-right, they are Rewards for men who are sufficiently dominant and aggressive; for leftists, they are Rewards for men who are sufficiently feminist and, like, good at cunnilingus? (Like, it is so often treated as just an assumption that if a man is a Good Feminist, he will have no trouble finding a partner at all, because men who are jerks will inevitably be rejected by women. Which. Is not, in my experience, reflective of reality.) Women are supposed to give sex out *only* to men who have Proved Themselves in these ways; to do otherwise is a sign of 'not respecting themselves' at best, and somehow like eugenics-ly lowering the value of men all around by rewarding the wrong people at worst. (Racists are *extremely* afraid of women sleeping with men of colour, who are invariably presented as either sexist and abusive or effeminate and incompetent in comparison to the Noble and Protective White Men.)

That is: in the 2010s, there was a big push back against the idea that women having sex just for its own sake was a bad thing, and that sex was just a thing people want to do sometimes. That women should not be judged by how much or what kind of sex they have, and that the idea that a woman is 'diminishing' herself by having sex is sexist and gross. But in the 2020s I can't help but see that as having reversed. I mean, we literally had the 4B movement, where women were encouraged to not have sex with men as some kind of statement against men's behaviour...!! You can't really get more overt than that!!

But the point is: I see so much more... weird judgement placed on women who 'don't have high enough standards' or whatever. This sort of condescending 'girl, you do NOT have to fuck that guy who won't eat your pussy' sort of thing. Which probably isn't intended to take the form of slut-shaming, but... often kind of has that knock-on effect? Where it's still very much mired in that 'if a woman sleeps with a man who is not of sufficiently high Status (specifics may vary), something bad is happening and she has been left lesser for it' ideology.

And it's not just about sex, either: there's a weird assumption I've seen, again from all sides of the political spectrum, that a woman falling for a man romantically has, like... lost against him, or something. Like it's an inherently submissive act. I mean, this perspective often goes both ways, actually: see all the men getting very angry at seductresses or whatever who manipulate them and wrap them around their little finger such that the man would do anything for her but she doesn't give a shit back!! or whatever bullshit. But then this gets sort of weirdly reproduced on tumblr where the Ideal Guy is one who worships the ground of a woman who doesn't even really like him much.

And like... falling in love is (from what I've heard) a good feeling!! Especially when that love is reciprocated!! (Or, like, when you get to be in a relationship with them, I guess? In the above example?) By not really wanting our female characters (and IRL women!) to fall for men, aren't we denying a fundamental positive experience? I saw someone on reddit gush about 'she feel faster and harder' dynamics where the woman is the simp, and the comments were very negative, claiming that this is too much like IRL where the woman is more invested. But in this dynamic, the woman is the one getting what she wants, while the man might actually be settling. Isn't that, in fact, the *opposite* of what these people would claim to see IRL...? Women having to settle for a man, who gets everything he wants? And yet despite this, there's something about the idea of a woman being happier with a man - truly loving him and getting him - that makes us uncomfortable. Women are supposed to be chased. Women are supposed to only reciprocate feelings when and if the man has proved himself sufficiently to a council of external observers.

What if a woman could just like a man and go after him? Again, this is something that seems anathema to everyone: conservatives would say it's emasculating and unnatural; the alt-right would call her a slut and consider her unworthy of commitment; in a fictional character, progressives would decry her as some 'boy-crazy stereotype' who obviously exists to please male fans. (Even though as I've said, women like this are usually only respected in the same sort of way that chasers respect trans people: good for fucking, but not to bring home to your parents, and not to *respect*.) If a woman does this IRL... well, progressives know not to outright say that this is wrong behaviour. But there's a looooot of pressure to go along with the party line of 'men today aren't trying hard enough and need to shape up if they want to earn a relationship'. Someone who doesn't go along with those jokes tends to be cold-shouldered pretty quickly, IME. Or, y'know, if it's online, they're accused of actually 'obviously' being men living out their sexual fantasies, or something.

This is getting so long, but: based on what I've seen from heterosexuals talking about their romance experiences... both sides seem to have remarkably similar feelings: that they have to try very hard to meet gendered standards (even when their partner has never expressed this preference) and so feel a need to repress their true feelings so as not to bother their partner. I also hear a lot of experiences of someone letting down that barrier or that expectation momentarily, and getting a negative reaction, and feeling extremely hurt by it. Even if that reaction was very brief and not necessarily indicative of a lack of desire to compromise. Women talk about doing all the emotional labour, but in different words, so do men!! I suspect that there's a lot of very internal self-consciousness that gets projected onto the other party without actual communication, which leads to a build-up of resentment.

Which also makes me think about that tumblr post. About the guy in the uni class chat who 'always argued with everyone' and always had to get the last word in and heavily dominated the conversation. And that, on the final day of class, somebody finally called him out on it, and chewed him out, and the OP was sooo vindicated by that. Obviously this is the internet so we can't ever know if this actually happened, but... it's a story that resonated: many many people reblogged that post crowing about how awful that guy was and how glad they are that he got his comeuppance and how they know sooo many people like him.

And I just couldn't help but wonder. Did anyone... try asking him maybe to dominate the conversation less? Before that final reckoning? Is it maybe possible that he thought he was just doing what he was supposed to do, getting discussions going and pushing back and jumping in first to avoid that awkward silence when nobody wants to initiate the conversation? Did he think that this was a fun class and that they had really great conversations there, and that the people he talked to were his friends?

It makes me think about a post on reddit saying that autistic women were fortunate because they got actually told how to talk and do things the expected way. Whereas autistic men were just left to flail and then punished when they failed.

It's widely agreed that women are constrained too much socially, right? Are given too *much* guidance on how to speak and act according to Societal Norms. Women are taught how to conform to a community and are rewarded for doing so. Men, though... men are supposed to be the Leaders, and/or, are rewarded not for continuing conformity, but rather... making substantive changes in the world: for Succeeding in Making Money, or Defending Someone, or whatever. And it's pass or fail. You either do it or you don't. Men don't get taught the same sort of language of 'act in these ways and you will be accepted and supported by the community'. Men don't expect to have a community in the same way.

I think about trans men talking about how, once they transition, the world becomes so much colder to them. That both men and women stop smiling at them. Or trans men talking about how, once they transition, suddenly, they need to be so much more careful about not expressing their anger, because now anger is A Threat. Or needing suddenly to be so much more circumspect in their interactions, because even a friendly greeting is now not a bid for connection or community, but rather Predatory.

I think about the patron we had at the library who was known for spending wayyy too much time talking to the librarians, preventing them from doing their work. (Which: we did get quite a lot of lonely people coming through! That was fine and okay! But we did need to cut things short to do our jobs sometimes, unfortunately.) And how, when we realised that he was only doing this with female librarians, some of us immediately turned on him and were extremely put off by it. But if it were a woman who only wanted to talk to other women, it'd be immediately understandable why, right? Wasn't it possible that this guy was also afraid of men, or had had bad experiences with men?

I just - I don't know. Unfortunately, when I look back at it all, if I were asked what I want to actually say to men or women... is it that women's standards are too high? Absolutely not!!! I think nobody should date anyone they don't want to date. I think people's preferences are usually pretty immutable and that even when those preferences are very hard to see achieved in the real world, well, that is just kind of a shame, and there's not really much that anyone can do about it. (E.g., most people who are geeky would like a partner who shares their hobbies, but some hobbies are very heavily gendered, so if you're in one of those and you're straight... the odds really are just heavily stacked against you, unfortunately!!) And I dislike the idea that anyone should have to, like, fundamentally change themselves in order to be 'worthy' of love. 'Worthiness' doesn't exist. And unlike what seemingly everyone wants to admit, there are plenty of women out there who will want to date or fuck even men who 'don't deserve them', whether those men are Assholes (proving that nice guys and/or lesbians finish last) or, like, fat Magic The Gathering players who watch hentai, or something.

I guess maybe my perspective is that some of our social norms and means of communication are really working against us...? Like, is there social pressure on women not to date/fuck men they actually genuinely really like (or just - want to fuck, because that's a thing that happens sometimes) because they feel that doing so would be Undermining The Cause Of Women somehow...? And if maybe somehow we could shift the narrative away from Men Earning Sex (through sufficient hygiene and Feminism) to just... two people who have similar preferences getting along and enjoying their time together?

But also. As I've said on tumblr before... in the past, there was severe economic and social pressure to get married and have kids. Maybe what we're seeing now is just the inevitable consequences of chipping away at that incentive. Maybe a lot of people just really struggle to find someone they sincerely want to 'spend the rest of their life with' when the choice of not doing so is also an option. I think that that would be overall a good thing.