Candace Watters Watch
Posted on June 14th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryMy favorite advice columnist is at it again. Candace Watters, who writes for Boundless Magazine, offers this nugget of wisdom for a young woman who wants to move a relationship forward but isn't sure what to do. Ms. Watters advises:
Whatever this young man's reasons for not moving beyond friendship, I'd encourage you to not try and make things happen. A situation like this requires great wisdom because you don't want to do anything that sets a precedent for you as the leader. Biblically, it's a man's role to initiate and a woman's role to respond.
This is also a good way to STAY SINGLE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! Seriously, I'm all down with the guy making the first move. But some guys aren't aggressive, and if you just spend all your life waiting for guys to Be The Leader. Well, you may just spend all your life waiting. (Of course, not that there's anything wrong with that. I happen to value singlehood.)
Anyway, I know I said I would stop linking to Ms. Watters columns. But I can't help myself, they're too good.
RSS feed for posts
June 14th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Oh brother…all that does is teach women how to manipulate men. There could be a myriad of reasons the guy hasn’t made a move (He’s just not into her, comes to mind) but sitting back waiting imprisons her. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her broaching the subject. What he does after that will say volumes about the guy, but the idea of a woman waiting endlessly for some guy to make a move is loathsome on many levels. Having said that, any guy who won’t pursue a woman he loves ain’t worth having.
June 14th, 2006 at 6:11 am
Oh yes…it also teaches women how to be passive victims of life. What fun!!! grrr…..
June 14th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Candice doesn’t encourage passivity. That would be a mischaracterization of her counsel. Check out “Finding a Husband” ( http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001220.cfm ) for an article of Candice’s in which she encourages women to be proactive. Also check out the links at the bottom of that article.
June 14th, 2006 at 6:57 am
It was actually the “you don’t want to do anything that sets a precedent for you as the leader.” comment that really got to me.
What’s wrong with women being leaders? There are certainly examples of that in the Bible. (Deborah)
You’re right though, Candace does preach being aggressive at times. My problem with her advice is that she treats it as thought it’s Biblical, when in fact it’s just her conservative opinion. The Bible doesn’t say anything about dating, and she should be more forthright about that.
Lastly, I would just like to add that “any women who does not pursue the man she loves, is not worth having.”
June 14th, 2006 at 6:57 am
How old is Candace, anyway?
Things are a little different for those of us who are older (I’m 50). My parents instilled in me a sense of propriety and respect for boundaries where women are concerned. Ten years ago when I met Karen on AOL, she wrote that she was a Home Ec instructor and taught classes like relationships and parenting with a strong emphasis on abstinence until marriage. When we met face to face 6 months later, she very clearly modeled respect, propriety and boundaries by her behavior in and out of the classroom, and out of my genuine respect for her, the only “move” I put on her
was to tell her that I loved and respected her. Having established a foundation of love, trust and respect, Karen had the security she needed to express her love for me with a kiss. And out of love and respect for each other and for Christ, we waited until marriage to do anything more than kiss, embrace and hold hands.
The issue of respect and honor is so important in a healthy / happy marriage; while some might consider it old-fashioned or victorian, waiting for marriage builds respect for each other. That said, this “old school” old pharte sees some validity in what Candace has to say to the young woman.
I agree with AG - the young woman should ‘broach the subject’.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:13 am
I almost dragged Catalyst out of Kell’s by his meterosexual hair. Would that have been wrong?
June 14th, 2006 at 7:25 am
I believe Candice is in her mid- to late-30s. She was married one month shy of her 27th birthday.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:36 am
pdxrn,
Was that before or after he kissed your hand?
June 14th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Some good advice to be found here.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Oh dear God! Christian women wanting to be assertive?! That can’t be Biblical!
Please. Who the heck cares. I do hate it when people abuse scripture in an ill-advised attempt at backing up their point. And I hate it that so many single Christian women are told both that 1) they are supposed to sit back, “submit”, and wait for life to start when some guy asks them out and that 2) they should try to move this along by some form of subtle manipulation so they can avoid being Christian spinsters at the grand old age of 23. But seriously? Aside from it being somewhat offensive and vaguely annoying, it’s really not that important. I think that women who want the kind of guy that doesn’t have the guts to ask them out should go ahead and be the initiator. This is the 21st century and gender roles are shifting. I really don’t think it’s a matter of Heaven and Hell. It’s more about being bored on Friday night.
If this seems like a strong opinion, I’m sorry. I wasn’t a feminist until I stopped going to a MFI church and realized that the entire world is not that warped.
June 14th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Ahahahahahaha *sigh*, both.
BTW, I meant “metrosexual” (Don’t want to be compared to Dubya).
June 14th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Bess — you’re setting up a Straw Man. So easy to knock down. Unfortunately, the article does not say what you imply it says. Candice is a very assertive woman herself, and encourages appropriate assertiveness. She is not an appropriate target of your anger, my friend.
June 14th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
First, the “kissing on the hand” move is Gold. And the more I drink, the better the move gets.
Second, I would like to say I appreciate JP’s sudden interest and energy in writing insults. Perhaps he could take this renewed interest and WRITE A FREAKING BLOG POST.
Lastly, Ted. Candice wrote two whole articles on why women shouldn’t buy homes. Because evidently, according to Candice, men find homeowners unattractive. We prefer the homeless.
I’m not sure where she gets this research (or where that verse is in the Bible). But it’s ridiculous. I don’t know your association with Candace, but the chick is whack.
Yeah, I said it. Whack.
June 14th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I hate to say it, because I enjoy being around strong, assertive women, but strength can be intimidating to a lot of guys.
We men seem to need to develop a certain masculine image of ourselves, whether true or not. If a woman can see through that into our shallow frailties what possibly do we have left?
My wife learned very early that she can end any argument by saying, “You’re right Hon” very sarcasticly. That’s all I needed, even though I know that she knows I’m full of it. I still loooooove to hear it even dripping with sarcasm.
To 444 - You kissed before you married? You met on the internet? I am shocked! I am sure there is someone who can get this marriage annulled for you. How can this be of God?
(Note: for those of you who do not recognize sarcasm, this is sarcasm. Not the note idiot, the post.”
June 14th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
pdxrn said:
Too late.
June 14th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Thanks Jack.
June 14th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
I remember earlier posts about Candace’s ridiculous position that single women shouldn’t buy homes our of fear that they may scare away prospective suitors.
What bugs me the most about the current topic is the unfortunate tendency of many Christians to try to apply Biblical principles and concepts about marriage to non-married people. Dating people are not married. Therefore, inposing concepts such as “submission” onto that relationship just crushes it. Women, whether single or married, are not to submit to men in general, just married women to their husbands (and husbands to wives–”submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”); men, whether single or married, are not to love all women as Christ loved the church, just their wives.
Engaged people need to position themselves for marriage and thus prepare to live by Biblical marriage principles. Dating/courtship, all the “pre” marriage stuff isn’t directly addressed in the Bible…but that doesn’t mean that any male-female romantic relationship is automatically subject to the Bible’s marital principles….trying to subject them such is a major contributing cause to all kinds of male-female relationship weirdness,” angst and broken hearts. It’s all avoidable.
Her comment, Biblically, it’s a man’s role to initiate and a woman’s role to respond” is not true. What Scripture supports this? This is one of those pat phrases passed around as if its wisdom in red letters in the Gospels. NOT.
Also disturbing about what is said here re: Candace’s post (and, I admit I haven’t dug deeper into anything she’s written, as I’m not compelled to based on the quality of what I see here) is her statement about not wanting to set a precedent as a “leader.” The Bible does not state explicitly or implicitly that women are not to be leaders, in the home, the church, or world at large. Just because a women submits to her husband and her pastor doesn’t mean she doesn’t also lead. The implication here is that women should never take the initiative in major decisions, which is also very unrealistic and not Biblically supported. While spouses make decisions together, it takes two brains to live life well, and both need to be able, willing and encouraged to broach critical topics and decisions.
What this girl in this situation should do, I know not. But, this Candace person doesn’t seem competent to dispense relationship advice, at least not for women without lobotomies and for men who want women without lobotomies.
June 14th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
The way I see it, Candace should stop writing articles at once and hereafter remain silent as commanded by 1 Timothy 2:12.
June 14th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
If a woman needs to initiate something in the relationship, then she should. but afterwards i think the man needs to be the man. i hate feminists. there’s nothing wrong with the man being the man in the relationship. MEN SHOULD BE MANLY.
what girl wants a wimpy guy anyways?
June 15th, 2006 at 3:20 am
Since when is a woman with an opinion a feminist?
Since when should we hate them?
I really enjoy the times when my wife initiated stuff in our dating and marriage. It reaffirmed me and let me know that we are both heading in the same direction.
It’s called communication. She’s gotta tell me what and where she wants to go so I have a chance to work with her.
How many guys have complained that their wife expects them to read their mind? This attitude of not initiating during dating would seem to cause serious communication problems dur9ing marriage.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:25 am
FFTM - thank you for discriminating between marriage behavior and courting/dating behavior. Dating is not practice for marriage. Although some in the world treat it as such. To treat dating as practice for marriage would seem to make marriage the practice for dvorce.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
What the heck is so hard about saying “Hey, would you like to go get some coffee with me?”!!!! If a man can’t even lead in something as simple as that where can he lead?
Has someone been spiking the water with estrogen? Sheesh.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
As a 40 something I have no problem with that, but as a 20 something, my insecurities would have slowed me down a bit. All I’m saying is that people should be honest with how they feel and be willing to take the risk in expressing those feelings. If they cannot, it will create problems later in marriage.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
AW, I agree with you on all fronts (probably not something you’re used to hearing).
June 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Oh crap. Is there some kind of subliminal brain washing occurring through this blog. FFTM and AW are in agreement on something.
Where’s my Koolaid?
June 15th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Well, my brain can always use washing.
AW, are you a former BT-er? If you’re in your early 40’s (which I think I read on one of these comments), you’re not too far ahead of me. I welcome that, since I think most who blog here are about a decade younger than I. Did you go to PBC? I started at BT & PBC (yes, post-B.A. & teacher license) in 1990, in the old building in further NE (not downtown), which another church now owns & uses. I marched in the parade up to “the butte,” carrying a chair. Watched the domes get built. All irrelevant, but I’m enjoying my 2nd glass of red wine. I don’t think you answered my previous question (not that you’re obligated to, but why not?) regarding your current profession in education???
FFTM
June 16th, 2006 at 2:51 am
I am a librarian in a public school. Yeah, it’s my secret identity.
I never attended BT but visited often. I was part of a pre-MFI church in Oklahoma in the 1980s.
I was scheduled to go to PBC in 1987, but due to some disobedience, chose my own way. That has forever changed the course of my life. Not the attending of PBC, but the disobedience.
We probably would have been contemporaries had I attended.
Oh, I enjoy a glass of red wine and we keep a wine cellar. We would be thrown out of leadership if they found out, so we keep it quiet. We still have a beer at the best bar in town over the best Reuben in town. But, we have some degree of freedom from the Lord in this. I am waiting to be called on the carpet and shown the door of the church. Well, then we can have the freedom to move on to be someone elses little “blessing.”
Did I forget a question? It isn’t on purpose.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Librarians are cool. No need to keep it secret.
Red wine is even cooler. Jesus drank it. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for us, right? The people who insist Jesus drank “grape juice” clearly haven’t looked in the meaning if “wine” in the Greek or into the “refrigeration systems” back in the day. The Bible is very clear: drunkenness is sin; drinking is not. Anyway, we have a collection, too. My husband knows a great deal about wine, and our mission (re: wine) is to make it accessible to everyone, i.e., figure out what you like and drink it, regardless of how expensive or “fashionable” it is or isn’t.
No worries, most leaders in religious/legalistic churches imbibe a bit and keep it secret. I think the idea is that “as long as no one knows about it, it can’t cause anyone to stumble.” Crazy logic all around.
Salut.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:49 am
in vino veritas
in wine, there is truth
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:39 am
So much has been said of what not to do here, and you guys missed the obvious thing girls should do: flirt. If you like a guy there are plenty of ways of showing him that you’re interested without physically throwing yourself at him or having “the talk” aka “defining the relationship”. Girls have been flirting since the dawn of time, but somehow that simple innate ability of women is suppressed and oppressed by so-called conservative values.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
My favorite thing is when my wife flirts with me. It still makes me get goose bumps and feel great about myself.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:36 am
My favorite thing is when your wife flirts with me, too!
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
“..Girls have been flirting since the dawn of time, but somehow that simple innate ability of women is suppressed and oppressed by so-called conservative values…”
I couldn’t disagree more. If any movement is responsible for the “suppression of flirtation” it’s the feminist movement. They are the ones who get up in arms everytime a book (ie “The Rules”) is written encouraging women to be feminine and flirtatious. Besides, some of the biggest flirts I’ve seen are the single gals at church.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
You are so unscrupulous.
But, I’ll bet you liked the attention!
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:30 am
Well, I guess we disagree then. I didn’t know what flirting even was until I got out from under the shelter of CBC and MFI. I can’t ever remember any girl flirting with me there (of course, I was a pretty big nerd then, too). So much pressure was put on finding “the ONE” and marriage that it was virtually impossible to show any interest in anyone without them immediately coming to the conclusion “OMG! He must want to marry me!” That kind of oppressive environment tends to hamper the growth of your social skills with the opposite sex, especially in dating. Stuff like flirting is actively discouraged.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Well I could name names but I won’t.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
I’m sorry, guys, but honestly ALL girls flirt. It’s part of who we are, and we cannot help it. If anything, we have to make a conscious effort to NOT flirt just to avoid sending the wrong message to certain individuals who may misread friendliness as flirtation. And, since girls are flirtatious by nature a lot of girls misread guys’ (IF they’re interested in the guy) friendliness as flirtation just the same. It’s kind of like wishful thinking!
I think the bigger problem there is the whole, “OMG he likes me and wants to marry me” factor. That way of thinking is what makes a lot of church girls seem “desperate”. If we could all just relax about the dating scenario a bit and quit pressuring young people who simply “like” each other to define their relationship and know off hand whether or not he/she is THE ONE I think it would help! The truth is, you’re not going to know if he/she is THE ONE until you actually spend some time and get to know each other extremely well - then you can start thinking about the long term possibilities.
And guys… if a girl is not flirting with you, I don’t think it’s because she’s “suppressed by conservative values”; maybe she’s just not that into you!
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:10 am
Touche’, ChurchGirl!
But I disagree, not all Christian girls flirt, or at least they didn’t seem to when I was at CBC, and I’ve been the blind-sided victim of “the talk” more than once. If I had seen clues beforehand I would have known to tone things down in the friendship. Just sayin’.
I agree that the church just needs a healthier and more relaxed view on dating. It’s just dating, mkay?
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
AAAAAGH!
There’s a whole LOT of generalization going on here. All or nothing, left and right…..the dualism of it all is a little scary. Take a second and think, folks…..do you really believe that every woman/man is exactly the same as you because of their gender? A lot of the comments that people are making here sort of dead-end at that point if they’re continued logically. Remember, there’s 6 billion of us here, and we’re all different….and the biggest/most important difference of all from person to person is probably NOT gender, when it’s all said and done. To say ALL girls flirt or ALL Christian girls don’t flirt or that girls can’t help flirting…..these statements are a hazard to themselves and others, because there’s no way to know whether or not they’re true. So, becker down, Virgil.
Speaking for myself, I’m a born flirt….and I only mean something by it if I mean something by it, which I might choose to share or not. And, if I don’t choose to share it, only I am responsible for my feelings, but if I do choose to involve another person at a conscious level in how I feel about them (i.e., “define the relationship” verbally), then responsibility is shared. See how complex it is? When things are only implied, the implier is in the relationship alone, and they alone will pay the price if they wind up pining away. That’s the way I see it, anyhow, not that I’m some kind of shining example for all this stuff.
And, for the record, a feminist is just someone in favor of the advancement of women who advocates the equal VALUE of males and females. It’s not a dirty word, and it’s not *against* anyone. I’m a feminist. I hope all of us are….I’m not really in favor of keeping anybody down.
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Jiminy is complaining about dualism, but manages to talk out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. Oh, that’s right, any opinion that takes a specific stand is taboo with you. My bad, I forgot you were the queen of ambiguity. Logical dead-end? Some people call that a “conclusion”.
Geez, calm down. Nobody was generalizing ALL women or even ALL Christian women. I said I was just sharing my perspectives on CBC single women.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Is this cricket calling me “Virgil”? Question… why would my stating that all girls are flirts by nature be “hazardous”? I have a gazillion (for cricket’s sake - no, I do not mean literal - I wouldn’t want to cause another “hazard” for you!) girlfriends, many CBCers, and I don’t know a single one who isn’t a flirt in some way or another. I honestly believe that what we refer to as flirting is part of our God-given DNA. Guys, imagine what life with women would be like without flirtation… BORING! But, that’s just MY opinion!
You know what’s interesting? I’ve been a female all my thirty years, and never once did I feel “kept down” or undervalued - no offense cricket, but a lot of that is just bull! Why do women feel the need to set themselves apart by labeling themselves “feminists”, why can’t we all just be women? To be perfectly frank (no, not that Frank!), being a female has been more helpful than anything. Now, I’m sure with that statement all the feminists would go nuts, but again that’s just MY opinion!
Cricket is just another example of someone making the dating scene more of a hassle than the healthy, exciting experience it should be. It shouldn’t have to be so complex. WHY DO WE HAVE TO ANALYZE EVERYTHING IN SUCH GREAT DETAIL? Relax, love God, be true to yourself and enjoy life - quit majoring on the minors!
Now I’ve got to go home and flirt with my husband, he LOVES that!
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Thanks for clearing that up.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Just for the record, I’ve never been a man!!! Yikes…
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Yer typical / casual flirtation wasn’t a problem where I went to church … but the worship team groupies could really be disruptive, especially when they started throwing their bible-bookmarks on stage …
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Insane Warbler, I missed you! Pdxrn had to fill your shoes there for a few days.
As for flirtation, I don’t usually notice it unless it is very overt. However, wives (my wife included) seem to sense the slightest amount of flirtation whether directed at me or anyone else in the room.
Jiminy, welcome back. I’ve been trying to catch up on your past rants. Nice to see the jetlag is over. Rant On!
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Funny Jack.
And just as we are all so different, there are many different kinds of “feminists” out there.
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Arcane Warrior reminds me of some of my patients.
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Which ones?
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
The ones who need colonic hydrotherapy.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:23 pm
“…And, for the record, a feminist is just someone in favor of the advancement of women who advocates the equal VALUE of males and females. ”
Advancement of women to what? Maleness? Why should we “advance”? Aren’t we fine the way God created us? I already know that I have “equal value” with men because Jesus made it very clear that he valued men and women equally. I am NOT a feminist (in fact it conjures up images of hairy legs and armpits when I think about it). I am happy being just feminine!
June 24th, 2006 at 4:15 am
Feminism also cosnjures up an image of angry women. Why the anger? That is a huge turnoff regardless of gender.
June 24th, 2006 at 4:18 am
IW - gentle as an internal bath - you should try it for yourself, Warbler.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Oops, I did it again…..
I wasn’t ranting just now, honest. I was just talking. Ranting means anger, frustration, emotion superceding common sense. I was just arguing my point, and if I appear vehement, it’s just because I believe in what I say (good thing, or I wouldn’t be saying it).
FICM…..dude, calm down. I don’t understand the hostility, really. I have no quarrel with logical conclusions….and I do NOT see how I was talking out of both sides of my mouth just because I said my behavior re:flirting may not be representative of my gender as a whole. That’s not doublespeak….that’s just me trying to be both fair and thorough in the way I carry out my argument. I said the bit about the logical dead-end because it seemed like that conclusion hadn’t been explored, because I thought if it had been explored, people probably wouldn’t have said what they did. I made an assumption. If I was wrong, I’m sorry.
ChurchGirl…..I don’t think I’m really personally responsible for helping to complicate the dating scene. It’s complicated enough all on its own, and my way of looking at it is just for me….I only shared for sharing’s sake. Didn’t I say I’m a born flirt? Please read before you accuse, thanks.
Advancement = development, opportunity, etc. “Aren’t we ok just the way God made us?” For me, that’s not the point. Yes, of course, it’s good to accept ourselves and other as we are in the present moment…..and then keep growing and changing for the better, because the present moment itself is constantly changing, constantly giving us the opportunity to grow. Are we or are we not here to be as much as we can be, to develop what we have as far as we can? As an educator, I sure hope that’s the way that most people feel.
If feminism conjures up visions of hairy legs and armpits for you and you can’t get past it, that’s your prerogative…..but…..I don’t think it’s enough justification for you to condemn an entire movement wholesale and still consider yourself a thoughtful person. Feminists (like women!) are diverse creatures, and not all of them think the same thing. I, myself as a feminist, just happen to think that people without penises are still valuable members of society, and should be able to do all that they are capable of because it just bloody well makes sense. If this is a radical idea, I guess I’m a radical, and I’ll deal with that. And for the record, when my legs are hairy, it’s just because I’m lazy that day, not because I’m making a political statement.
And, I gotta say, people, that y’all seem to be joining forces on the whole “aren’t we ok the way god made us” thing, but don’t you find it a little….funny…that you’re still against hairy legs? Just sayin’….
June 24th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Looks like you have a supporter there, AW.
June 24th, 2006 at 9:45 am
People without Penises ARISE!
June 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
great piece Jiminy…
It is wonderful to be able to appreciate many different attitudes and impressions.
It just always amases me when FICM and Arcane Tag team a discussion and end up throwing around so much hate.
Those boys need to take a chill/day in the sun and recognize that their opinions are fine until they start excluding people based on their own preferences of who we “should be”.
The guys are historic. It’s like interacting with robots that you and i have created just for the purpose of remembering how shallow and uncompassionate people used to be.
you know the one about Old dogs and new tricks…
June 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Uh, for the record, and before the chunks fly, I’d just like to say, that I like women. In fact, I like women a lot. And, for the record, if a woman can accept that I only shave about twice a week, I can accept her stubbly legs. However, I still have to work through the arm-pit hair issue.
The latter goes back to when I was 13-14 and took a swimming class at the Auburn YMCA … I was kinda sweet on a dark haired girl in the class, who, because we were in the water, I only ever saw from the neck up. Then came the dreadful moment we had to jump from the high-dive, and while she was climbing the ladder, I saw her unshaven under arms. Never had I seen the like - up to then, girls were always pretty, smooth and they smelled good too. Though to this day I’m not sure which shocked me more - that she had long, black and curly arm-pit hair, or that she had more arm-pit hair than me.
I had never had a crush end so abruptly as the first time I spied unsightly under-arm hair.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Wow Michael, accusing someone of hate seems…..rather hateful.
Please read the entire thread Michael. I think I am an advocate of women. Or, you could thrill us with another one of your gangsta’ rap hate songs.
Your vagueness about which hateful comments you refer to is perplexing. Could you be more specific, or is your generality another symptom of your “hate.”
The first step to hatred is to generalize the individuals or groups you target and then create a stereotype based on the generality. But hey, who am I to harsh your buzz. Have fun, I am sure it makes you feel superior.
But, for your sake, I will be a doddering old man with archaic sexist ways who is unable to change. May you glory on, bro. Hope you feel better.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:15 am
OK, Jiminy, so I’ll admit I may have jumped the gun on that accusation, but in my defense, your “rant” left me confused on whether or not you flirt, and if so whether you intended to flirt and if you really meant it or not or whether you feel this kind of argument is a run on sentence and whether or not run on sentences make a good argument.
My knee-jerk reaction was my way of saying “use less words, you’re making my head spin”. I still don’t understand what “conclusion” you were referring to, as you didn’t seem to make one and even in your rebuttal you fail to mention the point (maybe it was that you think you’re a flirt?). Again, I wasn’t generalizing all women, just my own personal experience at CBC, from my male perspective. So, please ease off on the accusations of hate-mongering, people. I like and value women, and I like them to be feminine, and if you find that sexist, that’s not MY problem.
One thing that women should know about the difference between guys and girls when it comes to flirting is that subtlety is lost on men. So a girl might think she’s a big flirt, when most guys would think “huh?”
Jane: Hi! (Ask me out!)
Bob: Hi! (Where should I go for lunch?)
Jill: (Jane is such a shameless flirt!)
Bob: (Why is Jill so angry all the time?)
or
Jane: Hi, Bob. Want to go get lunch?
Bob: Sure! (Dude, how did she know I like lunch? She’s cool. I should ask her out!)
Jill: *head asplodes from jealousy*
June 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
FICM,
The statement “I’m a born flirt” doesn’t strike me as particularly ambivalent….and it’s not a run-on sentence if you use conjunctions and punctuation.
I gave up on worrying about other people’s intellectual inferiority complexes for Lent, and I so enjoyed it that I kept going. I like words. I like using them, and I like using them creatively….it’s purely a matter of how I like to communicate, not a matter of whether or not I’m “right” in doing so…so, accuse away. The way I see it, we have a whole language at our disposal, and it seems dumb to limit ourselves to only the simplest things because someone might strain a neuron. I’m not writing Dickens or Kafka here. It’s not that bloody difficult. Grow up.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Me? An inferiority complex? That’s not possible since I acutally am smarter than most people. hehe
June 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
So basically, the conclusion would be… women talk too much (or use too many words in this case)???
FICM - You’re funny, I love your little dialog - it’s hilariously true!
June 27th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Women think men are dumb and therefore explain things a dozen different ways, hoping that they’ll understand at least one of the explanations.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Just think, Jiminy could have bought me lunch and avoided this whole argument.
Jiminy, I’m sorry. Let’s not fight. I’ll buy you lunch!
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Oh, FICM is such a flirt!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I saved myself for marriage (even my first kiss) and I ended up in a very bad relationship. My sister made out with a bunch of guys and she has a great marriage. I no longer believe in sitting back waiting…I believe in getting out there and seeing what you do or do not like or can deal with. That doesn’t mean sex; it means just don’t marry the first guy you are attracted to. Be assertive. Then marry the perfect one for you. If he doesn’t come along, stay single.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:56 am
marry for the security.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:38 am
FICM,
If we’re ever in the same city, you’re on….I never turn down lunch with a good sparring partner.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Well, personally I’m not going to marry a guy who can’t be assertive. I’ve got the femme fatale role down too well.
But I’ll give him points for effort if he at least tries. That’ll make me feel comfortable enough to be a little more forward.