[Wamvan] Why feminists have better sex

[Meenakshi Mannoe]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/love/dating/why-feminists-have-better-sex/article2185391/

Thought this article was fabulous. I love how she deconstructs the
myths that inform contemporary dating guides, and how the zeitgeist
pits feminism against romance (wtf?!)

----------------------------------

Why feminists have better sex
ZOSIA BIELSKI
>From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Sep. 29, 2011 5:43PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Sep. 30, 2011 3:58PM EDT


Single and conceiving through a sperm donor, Lori Gottlieb, the author
of the controversial self-help book Marry Him: The Case for Settling
for Mr. Good Enough, lamented having applied “feminist ideals” to her
dating life.

Like countless writers in the screeching pink dating-book genre, Ms.
Gottlieb pitted feminism against romance, a manufactured rivalry now
explored in Outdated: Why Dating is Ruining Your Love Life. U.S.
author Samhita Mukhopadhyay writes that an “unchecked industry” of
dating tomes blames a “bastardized exaggeration” of feminism for
boosting women’s careers while nuking romance, chivalry and even
masculine men.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
Sorry, Rush: Feminists are sexy
Why are passionate women always compared to cats? Meow!
Why women have sex, according to Stephen Fry

VIDEO
Steady work for Internet dating consultant

VIDEO
A business card for love
“Feminism is considered ‘icky’ … an unattractive choice that will
never get you laid,” writes Ms. Mukhopadhyay, a 33-year-old speaker,
lecturer and editor of the blog Feministing.com.

She argues that books such as He’s Just Not That Into You, Don’t Be
That Girl, The Man Whisperer and Marry Him play on women’s
insecurities, pushing antiquated gender roles and impossible
expectations. Why are dating books all geared to women? Because women
are still viewed as the party most invested in relationships: “Women
always want more and men always want less,” Ms. Mukhopadhyay writes.

Her dating guide for feminists attempts to debunk myths peddled by the
mainstream dating industry: that men are simple and women are complex;
that women aren’t hardwired to have sex like men, and that women who
make more money than their romantic prospects may be out of luck.

The author ultimately hazards that feminists are actually better
primed for relationships than other women: They have better sex
because they like their bodies; they know what they want, ask for it
and walk away when their partners aren’t accountable; and they don’t
define their self-worth through couplehood, which can make for softer
breakups.

Ms. Mukhopadhyay spoke to The Globe and Mail from Brooklyn.

How many crappy dating books did you have to read in preparation for this?

I probably read nine or 10. I was never really into those books, but I
had a friend who gave me a copy of Why Men Love Bitches by Sherry
Argov. I was frustrated that an intelligent, independent woman was
getting her advice from a book like that. There are also plenty of
books written by men about dating for women. [Travis L. Stork’s] Don’t
Be That Girl was probably the most appalling book I’ve ever read. Each
chapter was a caricature of a woman – Busy Girl, Needy Girl, Whiny
Girl – and advice on how not to be that girl, including, “Don’t talk
about your job too much” and “Don’t ask when he’s going to call.”
These dating books fall into a long tradition of men diagnosing women
and their nervousness.

Your argument is that the dating self-help industry, not feminism, is
ruining women’s love lives.

The idea that feminism hurts your love life is a really regressive
idea. Basically the advice is: Don’t brag about your career, don’t
make a man feel emasculated, make sure he asks you out because you
don’t want to upset the gender dynamics. They say feminists hate men,
but I think that’s a very negative caricature of men, suggesting that
men are so fragile and sensitive that if you ask them out you will
ruin society as we know it. I think a lot of women get confused.

Dating books often warn about the perils of the loss of men’s
breadwinner status. But author Stephanie Coontz argues this isn’t the
first crisis in masculinity: In the fifties it was the housewife
making hubby work too many hours for her domestic accoutrements. Now
she doesn’t need him at all, and that’s a problem.

In the last 10 years, we’ve had this supposed crisis of masculinity.
On a statistical level, it’s true: Men’s and women’s lives have
changed. Women go to college and have jobs. You don’t see many
households that could survive off just one salary. It’s not
necessarily a crisis, it’s a change.

If men are not the primary breadwinners, then what does it mean to be
a man? Where are they getting their self-esteem? But I don’t see it as
a crisis of masculinity. I think the crisis is in our inability to let
go of this traditional idea of masculinity.There are men who get
intimidated by really successful women, but I don’t think the solution
is hiding your success. I think it’s dating guys who aren’t insecure.

How do dating books for women harm men?

They put really unfair expectations on men: They’re expected to still
pay for the date, to ask the woman out. They always have to be the
“man.” The men writing dating books say men care about two things:
having sex and eating with you. I find men to be rather complicated
emotional creatures. These books reduce the experience of being a guy.

You defend ‘man boys’ – those perpetual adolescents. You suggest that
media and psychologists who slam man boys are like the dating book
authors who berate single women.

I think it’s a really problematic caricature, but it is loosely based
on reality. I think it’s partly a result of living in an economy where
few of us have money to buy houses and have kids.

At the same time, you describe the “Great Sacrifice” of feminist
dating, which is that many young women are loathe to sound “needy,”
meaning they don’t ask for anything in their relationships. The result
is that they often don’t get anything they actually want.

This internalized idea of this Desperate Girl is a sexist caricature.
Women end up frustrated because they feel they have to have sex with
the guy because that’s the only way they can get his attention, and
then pretend they’re ok with just having sex. But really they’re not,
they want to be in a relationship. We’re in this experimental phase. I
think it is important for women who want to express themselves
sexually but don’t want a relationship – that does happen, especially
among college-age women. They really, genuinely, just want to have sex
and don’t feel like they have to be in a serious relationship or get
married.

Many in society, including the authors of the mainstream dating books
you rail against, have a hard time accepting that women might want to
have sex just as much as men. Why is that?

It pushes against the notion that women are super emotional about sex
and that the only reason a woman should have sex is to try and keep a
man. You lie back blindly and hope that by morning he will have
thought to propose. That’s basically the idea of female sexuality
they’re building these arguments off of. The other part that’s missing
here is that men are emotional about sex.

You write about your casual-sex 20s, ‘It felt like a legitimate way to
fight patriarchy and heteronormativity, one delicious experience after
another.’ Eventually the exercise becomes unpleasant. Why?

I was wanting more accountability, but the language we have to talk
about sex didn’t allow it. There was this assumption that if you were
casual you could also be disrespectful. It could be part of the
bratty, childish sexuality of the early 20s, because as I’m in my 30s
I’m finding more people that are respectful and communicative in
casual relationships.

You personally don’t want tradition but more ‘accountability in your
relationships.’ Feminists you knew wanted ‘emotional accountability
from men without being cast as needy.’ What do you mean?

Being accountable to yourself and owning up to the things that you
need, that’s what I had to do when I concluded that casual sex wasn’t
exactly what I was looking for. And then finding partners who are
accountable to your needs. We excuse behaviour. That’s not just the
way a guy is, it’s that he’s being unaccountable.

You agitate for a ‘radical and compassionate approach to dating.’ What
does that entail?

Dating books are like dieting books: One approach isn’t really going
to work. The radical approach is being really introspective about the
things you need, and accepting yourself for the things you need, and
then going out to look for it – or not going out to look for it and
being okay with that. The most radical approach is not having an
approach.

Can you see how your suggestion that feminists ultimately have better
sex lives and relationships could turn people off?

It’s not necessarily that being feminist makes your relationship
better; it’s being confident, knowing what you want and recognizing
that your identity does not rely on the success of your romantic
relationships. You don’t have to embrace feminism to recognize that.

This interview has been condensed and edited.