This is a post I wrote up for a friend’s blog. Emily is my best ex-girlfriend (when she said “let’s just be friends” she actually meant it and we do stay in touch) and when she told me she was writing a collaborative blog on feminism I was intrigued, and decided to write that post about double standards in dating and relationships. Go ahead and look at their blog, there’s some good stuff there. And if you want to comment on my guest post there, do it on their blog. They would love to have more participants.
My personal history with feminism is a bit complicated. I used to be of the opinion that feminism was bad—women demanding in the LDS context that we pray to Heavenly Mother or extend the priesthood to them, that sort of thing. I think I first started thinking about feminist issues back when my mother was attempting to teach me to be a gentlemen. “Why do I have to open doors? They’re perfectly capable of opening them themselves!” Then I started going on dates, trying to figure out what women want, how to give it to them, and then to get them to go out on multiple dates with me. (Still have no clue.) That led to how culture wants me to treat women, which led to what culture makes women think of themselves, which led to should culture be making women think of themselves the way it does. Then I started to run across books like Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women and What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. I discovered that, like all large groups of people, there are wildly varying degrees of feminists. A large part of what I disagree with is called “second-wave feminism.” I certainly don’t disagree with first-wave feminism (suffrage), and the ever ambiguous third-wave feminism seems to basically be “life is complicated and sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” Certainly that’s a lesson that we can all learn, and there are even movies about it. Eventually I decided that the general aims of feminism were good—equality between the sexes is how it should be, with the caveat that equality doesn’t equal homogeneity—and now carry the label of “feminist.*”
Another source of my interest in feminism really stems from LDS theology. It was an eye opening moment on my mission when a Columbia University Grad student asked why we call God a man and I was able to easily respond with “because He is.” We have a doctrine of a Heavenly Mother, though not an authoritatively strong one. We have a doctrine of gender being essential to ones premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose (though I think the correct term should be “sex” in the Family Proclamation). And further we have a doctrine that only married couples can inherit the highest degree of glory in heaven. All of these lead directly to discussions that feminists can contribute to, and I’m happy to have them along as much as anybody else. Because, as we can see, sometimes with all these different doctrines running around it can seem that the church is all over the map on these issues. Discussion is good. I like it. I don’t want it to ever end.
Anyway, thinking about gender equality usually comes up in my life when dealing with dating, which I’m required to do if I want to get married. As an American, my current culture says that I initiate dates, follow-up, am the one that “pops the question” to get engaged, etc. This is a rather recent culture, one created with healthcare, longevity, access to contraception, the industrial revolution, and the movement of marriage from an relationship based on economic advantage to a relationship focused on love.
Dating should be a simple matter. If I like you, I ask you out. If you like me, you say “yes.” We continue until we decide to start going out steadily as boyfriend and girlfriend, and continue that until we decide to break up or get engaged.
Oh, that it were actually that simple.
I have two major complaints about LDS dating in general. First, there’s no LDS equivalent of “going for a cup of coffee.” It would be really useful to have a standard option for a quick, get-to-know-you kind of date with no strings attached. Since there seems to be no equivalent any date has strings attached and isn’t really usually quick or that much get-to-know-you.
Second, there seems to be a weird spot when you’ve gone on a few dates, but aren’t yet boyfriend or girlfriend. It almost seems like there is an obligation to say if you’re not going to ask the girl out anymore, but do we really want to have a Define The Relationship talk after a date or two? Last year I took a girl out on a date and had to very much dance around one of her friends before I could ask the friend out. This has also happened recently to a roommate of mine. It seems that between the 1-4 date range there appears to be an obligation to the person, yet there really shouldn’t be. Perhaps this is the same thing as the benefit of no-strings-attached discussed in the cup of coffee discussion.
Of course, it always goes without saying that communication is key. All these games we play are making the theoretically simple process of The Ask or Say “Yes” If You’re Interested model of dating substantially more complicated than it needs to be. And I feel that things would be simpler if we just communicated more. My sister Rebecca tells me I’m crazy for expecting more communication, but I can hope for a better world, can’t I?
And I haven’t even started to talk about the idea of false expectations. Needless to say I have two friends, one of whom very much dislikes Jane Austen and one who calls Jane Austen her patron saint, that I want to see duke it out over the issue of expectations. But I’m not sure I want to see a pitched battle in a book club. (Or do I?)
Now that I’m back in the dating game, I remember why I hate it so much. My friend Allan once explained the dating cycle as such: You go on dates because you’re lonely. Then you get your heart broken and don’t want to go on dates. Eventually the pain of loneliness eclipses the pain of heartbreak, and you start dating again. It’s a vicious cycle.
There’s a reason it feels like “Once more unto the breach, dear friends.” I get to look forward to staring at the phone for about half an hour just trying to work up the courage to ask a girl out. Maybe I need more of the Courage Wolf Meme (Warning: some language) in my life, like this one:

And to anybody reading this blog that I’ve dated, just FYI that I’ve only had one date that was neutral, and it was back in high school. I’ve had no bad ones, and lots of good ones. Dates are fine. Girls are fine. Hanging out with girls on dates is fine. It’s the institution of dating I hate. Is it weird to hate something of which you enjoy every individual part?
13 comments:
Very thought provoking post Carl! I have a love/hate relationship with dating. In response to your "grab a cup of coffee," have you ever just asked a girl for a quick lunch or hot chocolate? I think that those situations are what you make of them. If the person makes it seem more than casual, the pressure is on. I just blogged about this topic a little bit ago.. I think we, as in LDS singles, need to chill out and just relax when it comes to dating!
Lies Carl!! "there’s no LDS equivalent of “going for a cup of coffee.” That's so not true - you can't get coffee but in the summer you get frozen yogurt and in the fall/winter you get hot chocolate! Psh, Starbucks as awesome pastries and hot chocolate :) I used to invite guys out for hot chocolate or froyo all the time - it's a good icebreak and very non-committal! But overall a very good post and I liked it :)
You have every right to want clearer communication in this area. Heaven knows I do. And I still think that if, after a 3rd date, a guy knows he doesn't want to ask a girl out again, he should indicate so one way or another so that she doesn't spend a couple weeks waiting for a call. He can be a little subtle if he needs to, but even just tossing out the word "friend," can be useful. It might feel awkward to say something after just three weeks, but I can say from personal experience that a girl like me will unintentionally make things far more awkward if she has to wait three weeks to find out that the guy has simply lost interest.
So much in this post to comment on; this would be a great group discussion sometime.
I have to disagree with you about using the word "sex" instead of "gender" in the Family Proclamation. I'm certain that every word in that document was scrutinized and that the use of the word gender was very intentional. Gender is much more than the biological sex of a person, and I agree that it is an eternal part of each person. There are very real differences between men and women, and I believe that those are divinely designed differences.
What about going out for ice cream as the equivalent of going out for coffee? I can't count the number of first dates spent at the Malt Shoppe! Lunch dates or after-FHE/institute dates also tend to be more casual. If a guy, after several dates, still hasn't taken me out on a Friday or Saturday night ("prime time"), then I know that he's not super interested - which is fine.
Though I believe the Proclamation is an inspired document, I too wonder at the use of the word "gender" instead of "sex." (This link explains the difference: http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/index.html)
Is the church making allowances for hermaphroditic individuals who identify as masculine or feminine and accordingly embrace that lifestyle? Or are they simply using the term as it is popularly used, that is, as synonymous with "sex"?
It's so sad to say: I wish more girls just said 'no' instead of baiting you along.
I am man. I need direct communication. I don't need, 'maybe some other time', several times. A temporary broken heart it always preferable.
Isn't ice cream the mormon vice?
Carl, I'm glad you finally put these points into writing. I've heard you express most of them before (rather recently), and you know I agree.
I will say that I seem to hear men complain a lot that girls aren't straight-forward because we don't want to hurt your feelings. You're right. You're also guilty of the same thing, though. Just sayin'. To reiterate a sentiment that has already been expressed, a little heartache now is better than a lot of heartbreak later.
And yes, because of this phrase, I'm a little meaner than I used to be... I feel a little better though when I realize that in this context, meaner=merciful.
I just want to weigh in on the "gender" versus "sex" debate.
My opinion, as a feminist and lifelong student of Women's Studies, is that the church needs an entirely different term. As others have already noted, "sex" refers to the biological factors that come from being a man or a woman. Biological differences that remain consistent throughout time and between cultures.
"Gender" is a term that was created to describe the manifestations that vary between cultures. So, wearing high heels and lace is considered feminine in our culture, but a few hundred years ago European men were wearing high heels and lace.
This means that if the church goes with "sex," they only include biological differences. And if they go with "gender," they're only covering cultural things which, again, vary between cultures.
So... how about "sender"? Or maybe "gendex"? Well, not really. But I still maintain that neither of our accepted terms quite do justice to the eternal natures of men and women.
I think the church just did the best they could, using an imperfect language.
This makes me feel guilty for all those times I said, "No, I'm busy next Friday," instead of "In case you missed it, this date was an unmitigated disaster. Why do you think I'd ever want a repeat performance?"
And all those times I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't get your message," instead of, "I wouldn't go out with you if the survival of the human race depended on it."
But in all seriousness, there were a couple times I went out on dates with guys who I thought were nice, but I wasn't super interested in them. I tried to be polite and cordial, but I think I just came across as cold. Sigh.
I think we should read "gender" in the Family Proclamation as a synonym for "sex." The First Presidency probably avoided using the word "sex" so members would not confuse it (as so many do) for the sexual act instead of what it is, one's biological identity.
It is translated into Portguese this way: "O sexo (masculino ou feminino) [...]." A literal translation would be, "Sex (masculine or feminine) [...]."
The Spanish reads, "El ser hombre o mujer [...]," literally, "Being man or woman [...]."
You've NEVER had a bad date? Lucky you. :-) Glad I'm not out there now. Wishing you joy and your life's companion, sincerely.
Wow, lots of fantastic comments. Thanks! A few follow-up points for you all here. Okay, not a few.
First, Taci's blog entry on dating is great. I love the “dating is a sport” analogy, and have awarded it “quote of the day” status.
Second, I completely disagree with you, Emily, on the subject of being subtle. Being subtle hasn’t ever worked in the history of dating. Ever. Just say it. Otherwise you get situations like the ones Beth has described, which may be well-intentioned, but just don’t really work.
Third, the issue of a “casual date.” While I agree with the sentiments that there are more casual dates like getting froyo or the Malt Shoppe, I still feel that we LDS give them too much weight. Melanie’s idea of a “prime time” date is another criteria we could use to judge seriousness, and a brilliant one at that, but I can’t help but wonder if we will ever be able to generate a standard date that is specifically designed to be casual. Even in her comment she said they “tend” to be more casual. Will we ever have one that just is casual? For example, when I took out that girl last year and then had to wait to ask out her friend, all we had done was go to lunch. It was about the most casual date you can do, and she still read too much into it—even though I was careful afterwards to give her absolutely no signs I was going to ask her out again.
Fourth, it makes me want to cry that Anonymous is right. I had one girl in my life say “I’m just not interested in you that way,” and it made my day. Had a friend over a few days later and he asked me how I was doing. I replied “I had a girl say ‘no.’” His jaw dropped. “That’s awesome!” was his reply. *sigh* Communicate. More.
Fifth, Rachel is right that a little heartache now is better than a lot of heartache later. Don’t be afraid to break someone’s heart if it’ll be better in the long run.
Finally, I feel that on the “gender vs. sex” debate I wasn’t clear. The point perhaps deserves its own blog post and yet I just tossed it in a parenthetical remark. I feel that “sex” is one end of the spectrum, where everything is pre-determined by biology. “Gender” is on the other end, where everything is determined by culture and surroundings. The church’s position is somewhere in the middle, but closer to the “sex” end than the “gender” end. The translations Adam has pointed out (and the German I looked up) seem to indicate that’s correct. Adam and I were talking about the idea that perhaps they should have included both terms in the Family Proclamation, i.e. “gender and sex are an essential characteristic . . . ” However, that might needlessly complicate the issue. Emily’s comment that we need a term for the middle ground is a good one.
And the fact that I haven't had a bad date might have more to do with my innate optimism than anything else. It also is probably why I've never broken up with anybody as of yet. "Ah, it's not so bad. We'll give it a few more weeks and see," sort of thing.
Post a Comment