I hate Evan Marc Katz with every fiber of my being right now.
To be fair, at least Katz admits men have high standards as well, even if his column is clearly meant primarily for women. David Zinczenko, though, is the type of guy who might as well be kicking his friends in the balls every time he types.
>> David Zinczenko, though, is the type of guy who might as well be kicking his friends in the balls every time he types.
Didn't Kafka write a story like that?
I gotta disagree. With the caveat that all of these kind of articles are really about what the writer wants in a mate but the other caveat that women have said just as inane things to men about what women want (like this one girl that wanted to set me up with one of her friends but only after she completely changed my wardrobe because normal women want men in Brooks Brothers suits - and she'd known me for two years and she thinks I want a NORMAL woman?)
but Zinczenko only seems to be saying that men want strong women that don't need them (the mowing the lawn and fixing the computer bits) but want them and actually make them know that they're wanted (which is pretty universal in couple dynamics - no matter who you are dating, you want to think that they actually want you around and compliments aren't so hard).
Except for that whole baseball cap deal. I don't get that.
i'm lumping #3 in with number #2, maybe #6 in that he's saying he doesn't want a fag. i was reading some article a while ago about how you should eat meat on dates because vegetarians are obviously flaky/obsessed with dieting, or possibly lesbians.
Actually I was going to say that Katz sounded like a moron.
True, especially the whole condescending attitude towards religious preferences (which is not lessened when you're talking about your own group).
The thing is the sentiments express follow a formula which is as sound as far as every dating article. The problem is the talking down and sneaky sexist phrases used to express it. "Smart - but only with computers, not power tools, those are BOY thing. Good posture - because that means you know how to fuck!" Which, if you want to date an asshat who thinks he "gets" women and says stupid things he assumes they want to hear, I guess is useful.
> her body and what it's good for.
What a great phrase that is. It so perfectly ecapsulates misgynist objectification. Or, to put it another way, EUCH. BLEAH.
Oh, awful. just awful. awful. What can one say? Where to begin? Awful.
God. Just SHUT UP. SHUT UP. SHUT UP. UGH! Every word I read it gets WORSE. SHUT UP
4. Software Savvy...Maybe it's a giant sexual metaphor, but women like men who know hardware, and men like women who know software...There's something sexy about a woman who can click a few buttons and get something working exactly the way she wants it to. (That is, as long as the buttons she pushes aren't his.)
at this point it's safe to stop reading. that's not an opinion.
2007-10-12 06:08 pm (UTC)
It's all so clear now!
In a way, it's just like managing employees; to keep them focused and determined, they have to feel like they're taking on new challenges and meeting new goals. If not, they're more likely to sneak around - and get their satisfaction elsewhere.
There's a reason I won't go into management. And I guess there's a reason I eschew romantic relationships too.
Jeez louise these guys are bad.
2007-10-12 06:20 pm (UTC)
Re: It's all so clear now!
Yeah, that's pretty awful. Nothing sexier than buzz words and management techniques.
2007-10-12 06:24 pm (UTC)
I'm architecting the perfect relationship, solutioning problems before they arise!
"Honey, I'm going to calendarize this boys' night out for you and put together an action plan for things you all can do: poker, bar night, sports night. I'll re-configure your palm pilot pylons to sync with your calendar (since I'm such a whiz at software). But you know you're also free to come up with your own activities. Think outside the box, as long as outside the box doesn't include strip clubs."
2007-10-12 06:37 pm (UTC)
Re: I'm architecting the perfect relationship, solutioning problems before they arise!
I dated a financial manager who once said she had a vision during sex of her orgasm as 3-D dynamic pie chart with pleasure as an increasing value, but she was being witty about her focus while starting a new job.
2007-10-12 06:56 pm (UTC)
Re: It's all so clear now!
God *damn* it, that made my brain automatically apply my current least favorite management buzzphrase to sex: "Work smarter, not harder."
I needed to take a shower anyway.
And why do shared religious and political beliefs count as arbitrary criteria? I wouldn't want to date a rightwing antichoicer, or an Eustonite who thinks science has conclusively ruled out the existence of male bisexuals.
Ditto. And hey, my "dating requirements" have worked out a-okay for me! I mean, part of how people develop such "requirements" is they base them on experiences they've had in the past. It's called learning. Me, I rule out profit-oriented folks and libertarians and people who really like to drive. And reading is mandatory. Because I know from experience that without these "requirements," any relationship will be filled with strife. Why not avoid it? Dating is not so important that it's worth fighting all the damn time.
I think this is the most offensive bit for me too, besides the "moments of ditziness." Religious beliefs, political beliefs, and educational background* are all more likely to be deal-breakers than money or good looks. It seems that every "why are you still single?" article has to include something like this, lambasting women for wanting to date a guy who can hold his own in a conversation. We are all such snobs.
Then again, my unfair and exacting standards don't seem to stop me from getting laid, even without a baseball hat.
* Formal or informal. I'm not that elitist.
Baseball caps on women are not sexy ladies! Just another reason to not listen to the asshats at Yahoo.
I like the first Zinczenko list because it starts with the assumption that the women reading this are full-lipped, full-bosomed, bootylicious babes...and then continues from there. Because that's not enough to keep Joe Six-Pack happy! You also have to act like a sexy tomboy, but a mildly retarded sexy tomboy. That way, men won't have to put up with yicky girl behavior from you, but they also won't be threatened by the possibility that you might be their equal. And if you can't pull off that balancing act, get used to a lifetime of lonely Saturday nights, sister!
I don't think I've ever seen a "how to snag a man" article that was more transparently about the writer's personal preferences. I guess if I wanted to date David Zinczenko specifically, it'd be useful to know that he wants a baseball-cap-wearing woman who will mow his lawn and fix his computer but also play dumb and helpless to inflate his ego. I'm just not sure if that information is going to be useful in the larger dating scene.
How does one get a job writing features for the Yahoo frontpage, anyway? It looks pretty easy.
1. Be a dude.
3. Insightful observations posted!
Well holy shit I think I just figured out why I'm not married yet.
2007-10-12 09:03 pm (UTC)
how to turn a guy on in one simple step
1.) make it abundantly clear that you really like having sex with him and there just aren't enough hours in the day for all the busy you want to get.
end of story really. i personally have never needed nor wanted anything more than that in a sexual relationship. sure there are specific things that are hot, but those are going to vary from guy to guy. for instance, i really don't think most men think big fluffy socks and over sized t-shirts are as hot as i think they are. and yeah, i don't get the baseball cap thing. but what it really comes down to is that there is no algorithm for a satisfying love life, and it's a shame that so many women (given how many articles of this kind get written directed at women, it seems safe to assume this) think that that's not the case.
Hm, no wonder I'm single. I have the wrong underwear and no baseball caps. Oh yeah, and while I believe in complimenting people, I don't believe in constantly stroking their egos just so they'll hang around me. Looks like it's Spinsterville for me.
A study was done a while back tracking couples. After all the paradigms and research and fancy buzz words, it boiled-down to one key thing: The couples that lasted were nice to each other.
All these advice columns and books and clap-trap miss the mark. Don't worry about being nice or dealing with whatever issues you have which make it difficult for you to express empathy or concern for your fellow beings, just worry about your underpants and accessories? WTF?
A bit of wisdom I've learned in handling divorce cases: "Pigs marry pigs. Swans marry swans." (Appalachian wisdom at its finest!)
P.S. Why all the ellipses? Did Zinczenko keep pausing to masturbate while writing this article?
No that's me cutting out redundant sentences - this post would be twice as long without them. There was a lot of "good posture is important and we like good posture".
2007-10-14 04:55 pm (UTC)
Punkass LJ RSS?
Does punkass have an rss feed for LJ?
2007-10-14 07:33 pm (UTC)
Re: Punkass LJ RSS?