Note: I started this post awhile back and it got set to the side during the blog vacation.
Everyone should read Jill’s rant against the supposed failure of feminism for dictating the kind of man all women want. The survey that asserts so was done by none other than Dodge Trucks. If you don’t remember, Dodge was under serious fire last year for putting on a so-called lingerie bowl during the Superbowl halftime last year.
After the brouhaha caused Dodge to incur extreme modifications to the original Lingerie Bowl, including outfits that provided real coverage and the addition of safety pads, a Dodge executive was quoted as saying,
“We definitely skewed it male, but that is fine,” [marketing director Joe] Eberhardt said. “If all of a sudden we lose female Caravan buyers, it would be an issue. I don’t think we have.”
The Lingerie Bowl turned out the be a disappointment for most who watched it. Something about the sports bras and uni-boob, I suspect.
But it’s Daimler-Chrysler’s assumption that women don’t pay attention to this kind of marketing strategy and draw connections between the trucks they’re trying to sell to men and the minivans they sell to the mythical soccer mom. I presume plenty of non-feminist women are just as put off by the Manly Man routine as feminists are put off by the normative gender roles that Dodge uses to market its products.
Even I, a straight feminist, have said that I like masculine men. I just don’t like the macho and arrogant sort of masculine men. Like Mr. Eberhardt.
Taking a cue from Jill:
vs.
The Ideal Man According To Lauren
| Sixty-two percent of women surveyed said they would rather see a man’s hands rough and working hard than well-manicured. | Manicures aside, one hundred percent of Feministes agree that if your fingernails are snagged enough to put a gash in my face, I may require you to trim them if you ever want to get close to me again. Ditto on toenails. |
| Ninety-two percent of women said dependability is a desirable characteristic in an ideal mate. | One hundred percent of Feministes think that dependability is a must for any inerpersonal relationship, be it sexual, platonic, or any other arrangement. Any person who says otherwise has issues with being treated like a respectful human being. What kind of stupid survey is this? |
| Seventy-five percent of women said their ideal man buys his grooming products at a grocery store or drugstore, not a salon. | One hundred percent of Feministes agree that taking one’s love-bunny to the health food store for a personal shopping expedition is way more exciting than hitting the deodorant aisle at Walgreen’s. Plus, the love-bunny will smell way better. Naturally! |
| Forty-one percent of women said their ideal man spends his time watching sports. | I have a rule here. I don’t date anyone who watches sports unless he also plays them. Currently. Not back when he was in high school. Ditto for home improvement shows. Vicarious living is okay to a point, but the trend will not be repeated in my house.
This is a silly point, anyway. I only date snobbish nerds, the kind who would pick up a good book over the TV remote or Playstation controller. |
| Ninety percent of women said they prefer low-maintenance, easygoing guys. | Christ, who doesn’t prefer a low-maintenance, easygoing partner? Most men would answer the same way, that is, unless they’re looking for Hiltonites for girlfriends. And in that case, we’re not interested anyway. |
| Seventy-two percent of women said their ideal man spends his free time doing home-improvement projects. | Back up, yo. That’s my hammer. Get your own damn toolbox. |
The most insipid thing about the article covering this Ultimate Man story is the title: Hold the quiche: Manly men are back. Feministing pointed out that a member of the anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum tried to use the results of this totally unscientific, marketing-driven survey to prove that feminism is on the outs:
“It just shows that there are some things that you can’t change and that, while feminism for a long time has been pushing us towards androgyny with little girls with trucks and guys with dolls, women tend to have feministic traits and guys the opposite,” says Carrie Lukas, director of policy with the Independent Women’s Forum. “If anything, it shows what feminism hasn’t been able to accomplish.”
Sorry, Ms. Lukas (Do you mind if I call you Ms., darling?), but most feminists aren’t aiming for prescriptive androgyny as much as we are working against normative prescriptions of gender roles. Feministic traits. That’s funny. Lukas should quit the shill chamber and look for a comedy gig.
But back to partnerships. One has to have standards. I have others as well. In no particular order:
- No extended adolesences. I don’t mind occasional trips down Teen Beat Ave., but if the only thing you can talk about is what AnkleByte33 said during your last 13-hour Halo stint, I’m out the door. That’s just fucking boring.
- Passable credit, please. I haven’t busted my ass over the last few years to keep my credit good just so you can drag it down with the charges you ran up at Toys R Us buying fancy Lego sets so your geek friends would think it’s cool that you built a Star Wars aircraft carrier-looking thing for the low, low price of $129.99. Read a book lately?
- Steadily employed.
- Does not buy into Dodge-sponsored gender tripe.
- Left side of the aisle. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to sleep with a Republican. In the same bed. *shudder*
- Has principles and standards of his own and, omigod, sticks to them.
- Has goals. Goals, people! And by goals I don’t mean, “Hopes to eventually become a rock star/professional skater/artist/etc. by putting the shoulder to the grindstone, i.e. spending all free time pot smoking, Texas Justice watching, and memorizing lines from Napoleon Dynamite.”
- Prefers a partnership over a dictatorship (as long as he is willing to admit that not only am I always right, but I fight dirty).
Excuse me, is my slip showing? No wonder it’s difficult to date these days.
Related Reading: Pandamanda’s Defense of the Blue Collar Man.
I would say that is some funny sh*t, but I have to get back to letting my toenails grow. Thanks fer der laugh.
Wow. I always thought the problem with you and me was that I’m married, and my wife and I are not really poly. And I’m far away. And we’ve never met. You know.
It never occurred to me that you would reject me out of hand.
“I have a rule here. I don’t date anyone who watches sports unless he also plays them. Currently. Not back when he was in high school. Ditto for home improvement shows. Vicarious living is okay to a point, but the trend will not be repeated in my house.”
Now, I love boxing. I watch it and I analyze it. But I don’t have the time (between my job and my little boy) to box seriously, and it’s hard to do just foolin’ around (just ask Hardass).
I also watch motorsports (and when I say “watch,” I mean put on inthe background while playing with my son). Not, you know, NASCAR, which I don’t like, but F1, LeMans, and other road racing. I can’t do that because, well, job, boy, you know. Really big time suck, racing is. I have friends that race and autocross at the serious hobby level — the kids have to be in school. Plus, it requires mucho dinero. I mean, I get paid well, and it would take some big sacrifices for me to go racing.
C’est la vie.
I just think most people want to marry someone they can respect and care for, and who can respect and care for them. Everything in between is fluff.
Most fiction AFAIC is living vicariously, I rarely read fiction and when I do it’s on an audio book on a long drive. Sure, good fiction gives us insights that are difficult to understand without becoming involved in the characters and the settings that the author creates, but at the end of the day we read fiction because we enjoy escaping into the world the author creates and that seems to me to be just as much as a waste of time on an existential level as gazing into your navel.
(zipping up the flame retardant suit) :)
But you have to smoke pot… a lot of it… to make watching Texas Justice even halfway tolerable.
Well, if it is from a Dodge survey it must fall under “very suspicious”.
Anyway you list is far better and funnier. I have never been able to see the “Watch sport on TV” thing.
I had a friend who was always complaining that I would rather spend time with my girl friend on Sundays and not go over to his house and watch football, he made the mistake of calling me a pussy whip sissy.
I just smiled and said, “I much prefer watching my girlfriend than 22 men in tight pants play grab ass, now who is the sissy?”
He left me alone after that.
Shit, Rick, I have my hazmat suit on, too. I let it all out on this one.
Thomas, I’m exaggerating. I don’t like watching sports but like playing them every now and again. My overall requirement is variety. Too much of one thing makes a person very, very dull.
That made for some good reading, Lauren. I guess I know why my girlfriend is still with me after all these years. It’s fun being poor and in love.
I have seen several blogs comment on this insipid survey. This was by far the most entertaining. But really, it is such a ridiculous survey, I’m surprised so many people responded to it. Ultimately if out there in the world resides a woman who desires a jagged fingernailed, sports watching man who has no hair product…then I’m fine with that. It’s that twit who tried to suggest this indicated a trend toward anything, ever, that bugs me. I mean, can’t there be some sort of analysis rights removal for people who have no ability to analyze? That ends my semi-rant. Lauren, your list was good.
I strike out on three of the eight. One of them is a definite detriment. Asking for a good credit history after you have established one is far and equal: he gets to claim that you reciprocate on the deal. Don’t marry a bipolar like me if you can be aware of it.
Steadily employed strikes me as a reassertion of old sex roles. The question I must ask is can your perfect man insist on the same for you? What if he’s stricken down by one or more diseases? Will you stand by him or dump him when he can’t work? (It’s no better than a man who leaves his wife because she’s old IMHO. Human beings aren’t dray horses and, for that matter, dray horses shouldn’t be dray horses either.)
Having goals is a peculiarly Western demand. “I want to be a doctor!” I think it is equally valid to say “I want to write and keep writing” which isn’t an end, but a process.
Nothing else strikes me as unfair or not thought through.
I second your list, and steadily employed I take to mean NOT a pot-smoking good-for-nothing who will spend money you earn on aforementioned star wars regalia etc.
My partner and I have both been in financial difficulties during our relationship (his were first, so I supported him, now he’s reciprocating during a temporary income-low for me). I don’t think it’s unfair of either of us to want the other to be doing something and hopefully supporting themselves somehow; if either of us becomes sick or loses our job or decides to become an artist then hopefully the other will be understanding and supportive. For me this isn’t about sex roles but equality and contributing to the relationship.
And I do believe Mr. Eberhard was “reassigned” after that debacle. (My #2 son-in-law works for DC)
Isn’t it lucky that we don’t all want the same thing?
I love my husband dearly, but he’s not everybody’s cup of tea — and neither am I.
Sheesh, if you took this survey seriously, the logical outcome would be that there would be a very small number of marriageable people of each sex, and everybody else would have to remain unpartnered.
Then again, there’s always a gap between what people say they want and what they actually do want, and often an even bigger gap between what people want and what they end up with.
RE: steadily employed. Within my age group, this is more indicative of a certain level of responsibility than it is about job status. And I’m with you on the goals you outlined — I don’t care so much waht they are as long as the ambition is something the person I’m seeing is actively seeking.
re: #5
Why? I hear so many people (mostly women) make income, politics or religion an issue. Income may always be a problem if expenditure and income don’t tally; but politics and religion shouldn’t affect love.
re: #8
Most guys expect women to have that attitude :P But where I live we have the perect mechanism for dealing with it… we go down the pub! Anyway relationships work best with one of the partners ‘silent’.
Monjo asks: Why? I hear so many people (mostly women) make income, politics or religion an issue. Income may always be a problem if expenditure and income don’t tally; but politics and religion shouldn’t affect love.
i can’t speak for Ms. Lauren (or for ‘mostly women’) but i can suggest that for some folks politics, religion, love, etc., are not separate spheres – are instead interwoven & intertwined – impossible to pull apart. for such folks politics & religion will always affect love, and of course, vice versa…
also, Anyway relationships work best with one of the partners ’silent’.
no offense – but speak for yourself. i respect & take deep pleasure in my partner’s voice, & she in mine. given the years under our belt i’d say our relationship is working quite well. i’d be very unhappy with a ‘silent’ love…
_________________________________
and Joel stated: Having goals is a peculiarly Western demand. “I want to be a doctor!” I think it is equally valid to say “I want to write and keep writing” which isn’t an end, but a process.
i very much agree that an orientation toward process is a valid lifepath – but “having goals” is not a “Western” demand. a brief turn through either Asian or Middle East history will readily show this – there’s thousands of folks in these worlds who were completely focussed on, for example, being a doctor… or a litigator, or a scientist, or poet or whathaveyou – of course there are cultural differences (& yes capitalism changed everything) but “Eastern” folks aren’t necessarily more or less goal-oriented than anyone else.
Yep, men buying their beauty products at the drugstore is DEFINITELY a sign that feminism has failed. How do we cope with such tragedy?
I like watching baseball, though. My fiance and I watch it, but we don’t watch the commercials. That’s the only thing wrong with sports — stupid commercials.
Monjo, how could you possibly say that politics and religion shouldn’t affect love? That’s just completely unreal to me! The conservative people where I live tend to have a strictured, limited view of women–even if they are women. Essentialism is the name of the game. Most of the conservative people I know tend to believe that women in general are not as intelligent, not as capable, not as rational, not as clear-thinking, not as honest, not as morally strong, etc. etc. as men. They are more than willing to admit that there are those once-in-a-blue-moon women who are unusual and could quite possibly be as intelligent, etc. as men; yet they also patronizingly put “those” women in a special “not-quite-women…they just “look” like women” category.
I’m a woman. I’m not an essentialist. I’m not a conservative. I don’t really want to share any of my free time, let alone my bed, with someone who holds such an oppressive view of women. Like it or not, one’s politics and religion do contribute to a certain outlook on life. I’d like to be with someone whose views complement mine, even if they are not exactly the same. I can’t imagine being with someone whose views contribute to an outlook that downgrades my entire being. I can’t perform the type of mental gymnastics one must when “loving” a person who “loves” you (you, the individual person), but doesn’t really like you (any/all of the factors that combined to create the “you” that is an individual person: sex, race, ethnicity, religion, creed, color, education, history, class, background, etc.)
Color me cynical, but I don’t want to be the exception to someone’s rule. Capisce?
And again, income isn’t a factor so much as dependability and responsibility are. Steady work is indicative of that, though individual circumstances may apply.
Exactly, Lubu, on your points, especially, “I’d like to be with someone whose views complement mine, even if they are not exactly the same. I can’t imagine being with someone whose views contribute to an outlook that downgrades my entire being.”
I would never be able to commit to and love a person who honestly believes I am lesser-than.
I wish more women would pull a Lysistrata and tell their men “Deliver on the political front or …. ”
More commentary at my blog.
spending all free time pot smoking, Texas Justice watching, and memorizing lines from Napoleon Dynamite.
That’s awfully specific, Lauren. Sounds like “been there, done that” time. Have you been dating my old boyfriend?
I doubt all Republicans think women are inferior, many women are Republicans too :P
Is true that in US politics and religion are bigger issues than they are in the UK. But nonetheless I fail to see why they matter, if someone loves you, treats you with respect, with warmth and would split Everest for you, then humdiddlidum to the rest. If you are looking for your love to mirror you, may as well buy a dildo. And you should want someone who compliments you more than complements. For love is unconditional. Sayeth I the romantic.
jam: I do speak for myself – and no offence but get a GSOH, ’twas a joke alas.
Defined Goals are overrated.
Monjo, “complements” was not a typo. “Compliments” can be nice, but I’m into action, not words. This probably doesn’t sound very “romantic” (whatever), but love is shown through acts, not words.
Other than that, I think it comes down to our (seemingly) different definition of love. I don’t think it’s possible to love someone who sees you as a lesser being. They may call it love (as in “I love my cat”), but it’s not the real thing. That mild fondness is not “love”. What do you consider “treating with respect”? That “I’m the man, therefore I’m the Head of the Household” attitude is complete disrespect, no matter how many doors he opens.
Do you not believe that folks should hold similar values in order to raise a family together? That dildo comment of yours was beyond belief. I’m not looking for a “mirror image”, but someone who I can get along with and work together in a partnership with. Conservative men (in my area, anyway) don’t want a partnership; they want an “I’m the boss, you’re a mere woman” relationship.
We expect to get along with our friends, right? Why would we want less from a romantic relationship? Why should we be expected to put up with mistreatment and disrespect from our “loved ones” that we would not tolerate from friends, neighbors, coworkers?
Wow. What a brilliant post. And OT what a fancy looking blog. Joni I am with you on this. Low maintenance thats me. :)
I’ve never had defined goals, yet things have always worked out because I’ve taken what surprises life drops in my lap, and then I work hard and do well with the opportunity. If you work too hard and get stuck on one particular goal, you may miss out on a lot along the way. I wouldn’t be enjoying myself at law school, and I wouldn’t have just purchased a new loft had I stuck with my original “goals” coming out of undergrad.
Maybe a better way to put that is that you want a “non-slacker” or perhaps a “non-loser.” :-P