To other dudes in dating

There is always a distinct danger of preaching to the choir on blogs like this, but it never helps to spread the word, I suppose. In this particular post, I'd like to address my fellow (hetero) men who, like me, are users of online dating sites. I'm sure that we can commiserate on a few aspects that affect men the most on these sites: low response rates, lame responses in general, and people suddenly ghosting you for no real reason. It sucks and can be a blow to the morale. Online dating is not the easy way to Sexville or Lovetown that it purports to be.

With that out of the way, however, one reason why online dating can suck so much for guys, is a reason we owe wholly to ourselves: women get bombarded with messages every day. Guys seem to be locked in an invisible arms race to send out as many messages as possible, hoping something will stick. Until we break out of this pattern, that's an unfortunate fact we'll have to deal with. But it's not just the shotgun approach that hurts our chances, it's also the nature of the messages. Here's a handy list of things to keep in mind:

> If it isn't appropriate to say something to a stranger in public, it isn't going to be appropriate online, either. You don't strike up conversation with a woman you don't know at a bar by immediately asking if she's down to fuck. You don't whip out your cock. You don't start talking about a bizarre fetish.

> If you get no response to your message, leave it be. If you must, you could send a second message after some time, but after that, it's game over. Sending more is just being pushy and reeks of desperation or entitlement.

> If you get rejected, remain polite or say nothing. Guys sometimes complain that women can be very ambiguous in sending rejection signals, but that's because outright rejection turns some guys into aggressive douchebags who belittle women ("I wasn't interested in you anyway, you fat cow!") out of a sense of hurt pride. If you can't handle rejection, get your ass of the Internet and work on yourself.

I'm not a dating coach (and dating coaches are lame-ass guys who revel in intidimation, harassment and a good dose of awful gender essentialism, anyway) and I certainly wouldn't say I have a success formula down for getting awesome dates, because I'm a normal human being just like you, with assets and downsides. However, because I don't always want to couch any advice I give in negatives, here's a few positive pointers that will increase your response rates or at least set you up for a lucky strike:

> Have at least one clear picture of your face and one that more or less shows your figure. It's better to own up to who you are rather than hide your insecurities. A good picture can go a long way - don't settle for crappy bathroom selfies or photos under mega-harsh light.

> More about pictures: you don't need to showboat about the fact that you know other women, and use goofy poses or faces at your own risk. Also avoid the death stare straight in the lens. Vacation pictures and pet pictures seem to be perennial, and are rather safe, but certainly okay.

> Keep your communication short and to the point. Like I said, women have to wade through dozens of messages every day. If you write a position paper on how great of a guy you are, it's likely to go unread.

> Get a bit of a feel on the conversation to see when it's appropriate to ask her out. Some women may be willing to arrange a date after a single chat conversation or three messages back and forth, some are a bit less forthcoming.

> Don't state you are funny or intelligent: prove it. Make a good joke on your profile, or share your opinion on an amazing book you've read. Otherwise you're just filling in a D&D character sheet.

> Don't rely on stupid oneliners or template messages and indicate you've at least read her profile by referring to a common interest or something. In case the profile is bare-bones and just some data and pictures, I get that this is a lot harder, but it's worth a try.

> Keep your own profile not longer than 1.5 screen lengths. Much longer than that and you're going to come off crazy or overly convoluted. Very short may work if you're good at that. If not, about a screen length is ideal.

> Be interested and interesting. There's no harm in giving a nice and considerate compliment, and it's always good to have some interesting tidbit of knowledge or an interesting question up your sleeve.

> The point is not to pretend to be someone else, but own up to who you are and be the "best you". This isn't a job interview where you have to resort to some little white lies.

Letter to my past self

I honestly have no idea who reads this blog. I know it's being read because I see the numbers and figures, but I don't know who you are. Since I always stress that personal growth is a process and that you're not born armed and ready with all the knowledge about the world and how it works, I decided to think about what I would tell my past self, in the not-so-secret (but perhaps misguided) hopes it might ring true for some readers.

Dear 16-year-old me,

I'm writing to you from the future. It's the year 2014, and we still do not have flying cars, but the world hasn't ended either. In many unremarkable ways, it's similar to the world you're living in right now. In some ways, it's remarkably different. But I'm not here to entertain you with a vision of your future self's present.

I wanted to impart some advice on you that I could have used back then.

Don't listen to people who tell you you should let go of your anger and accept things the way they are, but make sure your anger is focused on the right culprits. Don't lash out at people who don't deserve it. It is seductive to make fun of people who occupy lower rungs on the social totem pole, but by mocking them, you become complicit in the structures you'd like to change.

Don't hold on to grudges and don't hold on to self-flagellation: the former is, as someone once said, drinking poison in hopes the other guy will die, and the latter is cutting off your nose to spite your own face.

Don't listen to people who claim to speak with common sense, but develop some of your own by experiencing things. Don't be afraid to try new things. You'll miss 100% of the shots you'll never take. If you fear embarassment and being made fun of because you're a sensitive person, you diminish yourself. Own up to who you are. It's okay to be a little awkward sometimes. In 15 years from now nobody's going to remember except you.

Although you can't see it right now in the cutthroat jungle that is secondary school, you are an incredibly privileged person - and one with the capacity for change. Not everyone is given that quality, but don't be too hard on yourself if you fail a personal goal. Your time is a limited resource, and so is your bodily constitution and your mental health. Don't lose track of that. You might be stronger than you give yourself credit for, but you'll never be as strong as you'd like to be.

You can't change the world, but you can bring about subtle shifts in your own happiness and the happiness of people you care for, which may influence wider society at large in the end. Some people will remain assholes for the rest of their life, but remember that the best revenge is to live happy, not to dedicate resources to make them even shittier people than they already are. Tone down on your impatience - that is really your very worst trait.

Life will get better. You'll unfortunately suffer through terrible relationships, but you'll also know what it feels like to be loved pretty much unconditionally. Don't set yourself up as a saviour for other people. Focus on sorting out yourself and drawing boundaries. Don't let people syphon away your good cheer and take advantage of your good nature because you like to feel validated.

Love and sex are not a race. People around you are just as confused as you are. You're not entitled to someone's affection for being nice or whatever. Girls are individuals and don't belong to a hivemind - society is constantly trying to pull wool over your eyes in this regard, but make no mistake, while they sometimes seem to like "assholes", in fact they feel drawn to self-confidence.

You'll never be everyone's taste, but there will be plenty of girls and women who will think you are good looking. Take advantage of the fact that in ten years from now, you'll be at your physical peak, and don't let insomnia or bad dietary habits ruin the fact that nature saw fit to give you a mostly able body.

Also you have asthma. That's the reason why you can never keep up in long-distance running and always end just in front of the fat guys and the ectoplasmic skeletons. Get it tested and get medication for it, instead of accidentally finding out you have it when you're 24.

Keep sticking up for people who have it worse than you do. Keep reading. Keep writing. Keep being curious. Keep a budget. Don't play too many video games. They're nice entertainment and build some skill sets, but they're also a time sink where the investment isn't worth the eventual reward.

If you must take drugs, always make absolutely sure you're doing the right dosage.

Do your best a little more in French class. Resist the urge to pick at scabs, as you get older they will heal more and more imperfectly. Learn to relax. Trust your instincts. As time passes, they will get honed ever more sharply, and they will mostly turn out to be 100% on the money.

With lots of love,
your older self

Public service announcement

Updates will be at a slower pace in the coming months. Because of my involvement as a moderator of a Dutch-language feminist Facebook group, part-time site admin and blog contributor, my writing efforts for progressive politics will mostly be directed there, rather than here. I will still occasionally update, but it will be less frequently.

Rhetorics of progress (V): First aid during debates

Whichever way you turn it, tone is just as important in a message as the medium if you want to reach an audience. You'll speak differently with a minister than with your friends, for instance. To convince someone, it's always best to speak or write the way that will make that person most receptive.

However, tone has been used for decades to silence progressive movements, and feminism in particular. Opponents would allegedly listen if feminists were more 'reasonable' or 'didn't use such strong language'. These are usually excuses not to have to listen, or a one way street to the infamous 'smarm'. Put bluntly, someone who is smarmy will focus only on formalities and not content, and will often keep coming back back to useless non-statements.

This brings me to five defence mechanisms that I've come to identify a couple of years back in a big presentation on progressive thought. I think it might be useful to run down that list again to help people arm themselves against those mechanisms.

1. Denial

"I don't see the problem."
"You're making this up."
"It's not as bad as you think it is."

Knowledge and facts are the perfect antidote against denial. Thanks to the Internet, there are hundreds of sources available to prove feminist theses and clearly point out the issues. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but it may also help to refer to examples of everyday life for people who have trouble accepting feminism.

2. Shift

"Women's empowerment is bad for men."
"Muslim women have got it so much worse, though?"
"Workers' rights trump women's rights."

Some people seem to think that one group's success will always be to the detriment of another - which is not necessarily the case. Female suffrage didn't render men powerless. It's useful here to point to intersectionality and lead the discussion back to a common theme instead of falling for 'divide and conquer'-rhetoric, that today have resulted, for instance, in the fact that the white Flemish underclasses see the Muslim underclass as its opponent, while they in fact face a shared predicament.

3. Appropriation

"We are being oppressed, not you."
"But what about our problems?"
"When is it going to be International Men's Day?"

It's always useful to check whether the person who says this, may be making sense, but similar to the shift strategy, it's important to keep the discussion on topic. It may be rewarding to speak about proportionality here (e.g. relationship violence proportionally damages women more often and more severely). As a last point, it's useful to consider whether this isn't an argument in bad faith to legitimise certain forms of oppression, such as the victim role that religious extremists or MRAs often resort to.

4. Vilification

"The status quo is fine and those who challenge it are evil."
"You are màking this into a problem."
"Feminism has a sinistre agenda."

The backlash against feminism is sometimes rooted in the fear that a now oppressed class will behave like today's priviliged class. Be on your watch for straw men (like individual examples of extremists that have appropriated the feminist label), and don't shy away from a debate on good and bad moral values. It's also helpful to acknowledge anger without pouring oil on the fire, and lead the discussion back to a calmer place.

5. Violence

"Stupid cunt."
"You need to be put in your place."
"I'll beat you up."

Leave the discussion if possible, or remove the person from the debate. To lash out in equal measure is usually a bad idea and will often lead to escalation, unless you're left with no other option. It's not a bad idea to name and shame people who do this - if they are using their real name, for instance.

Rhetorics of progress (IV): I don't have to listen if you have nothing to say

Every once in a while, I will read someone lamenting how the Internet makes people wall themselves up in their own ideological bubble where few ideas that contradict this ideology seep in - and if they do so, it's through the already filtered reflexes of that very ideology. Never mind that I think people have always been this ideologically insular and prone to seek out peers with similar opinions, there is also something disingenious to this remark.

I mean, who could be against examining your personal convictions critically? It seems like a no-brainer, yet so few people seem to do it. But here's the thing: critical self-examination does not automatically involve inviting ideological opposites to the table. For example, white supremacists are among my ideological antipodes. I know what their arguments are like. I have nothing to gain from exposing myself to their hatred, except, I suppose, to learn what their argument du jour is and how much it is a crock of shit.

I do understand that some people are turned off by philosophical rigidity and the conviction that right- as well as left-wing zealots have that They Are Right, but the truth is not in the middle. Some people believe that the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean that we should all compromise and say the Earth is somewhat flat but also somewhat spherical. I'm all in favour of synthesising philosophical positions and eliminating false opposites wherever possible (e.g. that caring for the environment and a vibrant economy are somehow at odds), but some things cannot be reconciled, and some things are just false.

Invoking moderation and listening to other points of view is often abused as a part of smarm: focusing on the style rather than the arguments, prattling in a condescending tone about how people are too convinced of their points of view, while offering no arguments. It bypasses debate and nullifies it, precisely by insisting that we should listen to people who have nothing to offer. That in itself will draw the ire from self-appointed 'moderates', out of the misguided kumbaya-like belief that everyone can offer something in a debate.

In closing, I believe it is very important to remain self-critical and not become fixated on a particular viewpoint to the exclusion of evidence or logic to the contrary. But I also believe that I don't have to entertain or tolerate viewpoints whose argumentative significance is close to zero and has already been roundly refuted - climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, religious fanatics, MRAs, and so on. I could do well without these points of view polluting debates, and will happily keep excluding them.

The women who could be allies but are not (yet)

The recent surge of female groups against feminism is a curious thing, and one that leaves a lot of feminists and their allies befuddled, especially if the women behind antifeminist statements do not seem to be overly religious or motivated by a conservative agenda. Microtrends like this invariably open up old sores for me, too.

Hook, line and sinker

See, I totally understand why most men are apathetic at best towards feminism, and consequently don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, making it easy for them to become misinformed. I also don't lay the responsibility to be feminist at the feet of every woman. I understand that women who have been raised by conservative values will sometimes buy these hook, line and sinker, or that they might be simply misinformed as well.

But what raises my hackles is when I see or hear women speak out against feminism who, by all rights, already espouse and live by a lot of what feminism stands for. I'm talking about women who have struggled against sexual conservatism to express themselves, women who value having a career and resist the pressure to settle down and have babies, women who are unafraid to speak up and make their opinion known - women who have no qualms competing with men and who fight for their personal freedom.

Not some think piece

This is not some think piece where I will berate these women for not reading feminist theory, because it would be especially presumptuous of me - a man - to tell these women how they should be feminist. In fact, what has set some of these women against feminism is probably that they catalog conservative pressures to be a certain type of woman right along with the pressure they feel from some feminists to be a certain type of woman. Let me get back to that in my final points.

For the sake of argument, I'll try to explore three typical anti-feminist arguments that you hear from this particular type of woman who has a feeling of hostility towards feminists.

1. "I'm not against feminism per se, but..."

Let's get this one out of the way first. The assumption usually here is that feminism is a thing that has already served its purpose. This assumption is much more widespread among men, but it's a little myopic to say the least: it's not because you personally have rarely had experiences with street harrassment of haven't experienced sexual coercion or misogyny, that nobody else does, or worse, that it's victims' own fault.

2. "I don't need feminism because I love men"

Obviously feminism doesn't hate men, but wants to bring down patriarchy - a pervasive system that systematically and disproportionally empowers straight men, usually to the expense of everybody else.

I'm sure that women who say this have had great individual experiences with men, might have had caring fathers or cool brothers, and so on. But there's something that's nagging about this statement, which leads me to the next one:

3. "I'm not like those women"

In 'The Gender Delusion', neuroscientist Cordelia Fine noted research that the more women rise in a typically male hierarchy, the more they will start adopting values traditionally associated with masculinity. In a very recent article, Soraya Chemaly has noted this as well.

A perverse side effect of these masculine values - that ulimtately root in patriarchy - is that they relegate women to second tier status. So by adopting the dominant discourse of power, they start seeing (some) other women, or men seen as not conforming enough, as weak and less worthy.

Individual vs social

There is something disingenuous about this. It's one thing to say "I'm not interested in feminism because I don't believe women should be equal to men" (as religious conservatives would say), which is at least a consistent position. It's another thing to - often consciously - put feminism to practice as an individual but work against it on a social level.

So yeah, I feel slightly despondent when I see the next celebrity, accomplished woman or powerful role model express her preference for 'Real Men', pity her own gender as typically weak and emotional (or dabble in the old 'men are like this and women like that' fairytale), and generally use feminist accomplishments as a launching pad to perpetuate a status quo.

You mean they owe other women something?

To be owed something is a very thorny subject in feminism because it is reminiscent of some men who feel that women owe them sex, love or attention for no reason other than that these men want it, the woman's opinions be damned.

So no, this particular type of anti-feminist women doesn't owe feminism anything, but it would be nice if they could turn around to see the flaw in their thinking. Note that this is not me saying: "here's how you should behave", but "here's why I think you're wrong". Those are two different things.

Consistency is hard!

In a broader sense, it's a frank conversation that anyone should be having with themselves, including self-avowed feminists and progressives. Another good example is the generation of Baby Boomers who's built its career and fortune on the institutions they and their parents worked to make more meritocratic, yet is now shutting the door for everyone else. Or how some radical Islamic groups demand respect for their right to wear the headscarf (which is fine), yet deride any woman who doesn't as a slut.

Expecting total ideological consistency from an individual is probably unfair. It's very human to believe contradictory things or to act contrary to one's self-image and ethos. To demand perfection is to buy into the Nirvana fallacy. I'm just disappointed with a segment of women who would probably be great feminist role models (I'm not asking for activists) to be so vicious against the people who could be her natural allies.

Don't be 'That Guy'

I have always maintained that feminism must be both a theory and a practise. Practise without theory has no direction and may often end up doing feminism a disservice, while theory without practise accomplishes nothing but intellectual self-satisfaction.

How do you 'do' feminism then? Like, in daily life? And as a man? I've already written a few short tips (under the 'Minimal effort' title) that you can do to be a better ally even if you feel uncomfortable discussing or arguing in public.

Disregarding the question whether men can really be complete feminists because they are not women, there is much more that we can do to both help ourselves and help women. This includes a category of breaking with what I call 'That Guy'-behaviour that irritates me to no end among some men who claim to be supportive of feminism and its goals. So, don't be*:

That Guy who brushes off criticism by saying "but I mean well!"

Because he tries to be a good husband to Felicia and listens to the opinions of women around him moreso than his peers do, Patrick can't see what's wrong with advising women to not wear revealing outfits late at night in dodgy areas in the city. Instead of reflecting on what he might have done wrong, Patrick goes into defence mode, digs in his heels and keeps repeating he "means well" as if that is a magic mantra that will shield him from criticism.

That Guy who dismisses women's perspectives and feelings as part of the discussion.

George is a scientist with a keenly analytical mind. He enters a discussion on everyday sexism where a woman complains that salesmen always address her husband first or seem to assume that her husband will know more about the matter at hand. George launches into a discussion of why this salesman might assume that and will be frustrated about the 'anecdotism' of the woman with the story, completely ignoring his privilege of not having experienced any of her frustration on a personal level.

That Guy who thinks he's entitled to make sexist jokes because he "gets it".

Frank is abhorred by acid attacks on women in the Middle East and came out in support of stricter laws on sexual violence. He also realizes that in many ways, women still don't have it as good as most men. When someone then calls him out on casually referring to a celebrity as a "vacuous bimbo", he dismisses that criticism by saying that he can't possibly mean it that way.

That Guy who enters debates and wants to be heard despite not knowing a lot about the topic at hand.

In an ongoing discussion about underrepresentation of women in higher management, Robert pipes up with selfmade theories about how and why this is, despite never having really thought about this before. He disturbs the discussion and objects to being told to listen because he is very eager to share his opinion, although it is irrelevant.

That Guy who tells all the ladies to calm down.

A discussion is getting particularly heated, and Richard steps in to say that he finds the atmosphere too toxic and that people should calm down. Instead of trying to honestly understand why they are upset, he manages to turn the discussion against him, confirming his prejudice that feminism is being hijacked by "hysterical women".

That Guy who is "just asking questions".

James can't stay away from a good debate. In a discussion following a news story about sexual assault on a minor, he starts theorising about age of consent laws and bringing up the possibility that some minors might enjoy sex. In the outrage that follows, he fails to see that he's been acting pretty airily about a touchy subject that some may have personal histories with, and decides that feminists are bad at debating.

That Guy who lectures feminists about how to do feminism.

David is an experienced guy and socially progressive. He can't help but offering suggestions about the marketing strategy of feminism, its branding and its messaging, in ways that he believes would improve the movement, inevitably rousing anger in activists who have dedicated years to the cause, and ignoring that the root cause for the pushback against feminism is (usually) not their comm strategy, but society's sexist structures.

This list can be virtually endless, but I'll end on a few brief notes that extend beyond men who are already engaged in socially progressive movements in one way or another. As always, I'm aware that I may be preaching to the choir, but I want to demonstrate how easy it can really be to make a positive difference without becoming a full-blown activist.

So, allow me to present some quick parting shots. Don't be That Guy who:

... takes criticism of some male behaviour personally
... wants a cookie or a pat on the head for not being a horrible person
... pushes for sex although all physical, mental and even verbal cues say she doesn't want to
... decides to strike up random conversations with random women who are out alone at night - there are plenty of avenues to meet women where they don't already feel unsafe
... reduces gender to stupid stereotypes
... cat-calls, whistles, honks or jeers at women
... brings up issues that affect men only when the conversation is about women
... feels entitled to female attention
... calls other men gay, girls or pussies if they don't meet some arbitrary standard for masculinity
... is totally That Guy without realising it

* All of this may apply to some women as well, but I write mainly for men.