The Student Room Group

Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by loveleest
Well it could be the same in reversed lol. I never, and I mean almost never see guys (my age) making eye contact with me, let alone smiling at me. I get approached like 3 times a year by guys (my age). How am I supposed to know if they want me to approach them?
What if I approach them, then they reject me and talk about the weird girl that approached them in starbucks....


That is the issue about dating and making moves. You win some and you lose some. Most of the time, it is the guy that tries to make the first move, sometimes the girl should do so.
Original post by Wired_1800
Your mother should tell you about boys and dating. It is a right of passage for many people.


I don’t know anyone who’s mum taught them about dating? The only help I got from my parents about dating was “don’t do it”. It’s a nice idea in theory but in reality very few girls have an open enough relationship with their mums to talk about relationships and sex. At most it’s a brief and awkward chat about using protection.
Original post by snowman77
A guy who is attractive and approaches a girl - he is cute/sexy/confident.

A guy who is ugly and approaches a girl - creepy, weird, sexual harrassment, pervert, rapist etc.

There's a good image (can't find it now) which sums up different things a guy can do. And a girl will think everything an attractive guy does is cute/mysterious/sexy. The same things done by an ugly guy will be creepy/weird/loser-like.

And then girls say looks don't matter and it's personality which counts. That is utter rubbish. :lol: Looks only start to not matter at a much older age (like 40's or 50's). Right through your teens and 20's, even into your 30's, looks are everything.


I agree. Some women talk loads of rubbish. I think for young people, looks matter the most, then you consider the confidence, style etc.

For older people, looks don't really matter that much because most of the women have lost their looks due to life, children or stress. So they can’t go for attributes that they don't have. Besides, physical attraction takes a back seat since their situation has changed. At that age range, they are mostly interested in social attributes like wealth, class, status etc.

The funny thing about this situation is that some women will shout that “looks don’t matter”, but would never give an ugly dude a chance. A girl at my uni has even said that she did not want her children to be ugly, when asked why she prefers looks.
Original post by Wired_1800
That is the issue about dating and making moves. You win some and you lose some. Most of the time, it is the guy that tries to make the first move, sometimes the girl should do so.


Well, so why were you complaining about me at least showing signs when guys never show signs they want to be approached? How am I supposed to know they are into me?
Original post by Wired_1800
Your mother should tell you about boys and dating. It is a right of passage for many people.


Not everyone has a relationship with their Mother like that...I dont....
Don’t generalise dude, I’m a feminist and I believe in equality for BOTH genders. I’d happily give my coat up for my BF or pay for dinner.

There are different types of feminists. Some just want women to rule and others want equality for everyone. Some feminist fight the patriarchy AND capitalism, others don’t.

I just don’t want my gender to define how I should act.
Original post by loveleest
Well, so why were you complaining about me at least showing signs when guys never show signs they want to be approached? How am I supposed to know they are into me?


Not everyone has a relationship with their Mother like that...I dont....


If you don't have a relationship with your mom, that is fair.

You are now changing your stance. Before you used to argue that you would never approach a guy, but now you are talking about not having sufficient cues from lads.

To me, we are not all the same, you will get a good sign from a guy and nothing from someone else.
Original post by Wired_1800
If you don't have a relationship with your mom, that is fair.

You are now changing your stance. Before you used to argue that you would never approach a guy, but now you are talking about not having sufficient cues from lads.

To me, we are not all the same, you will get a good sign from a guy and nothing from someone else.


Well, to me, there is no reason to approach a guy with no evidence he will be interested. Like....guys hardly make eye contact with me (no joke)
So what if I changed my stance? I change my opinions all the time. I would be okay with initiating a conversation. BUT it would be better if the guy gave me some hints because that never happens.

BTW, Why did you say mom and not mum....you are not American?.............
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by loveleest
Well, to me, there is no reason to approach a guy with no evidence he will be interested. Like....guys hardly make eye contact with me (no joke)
So what if I changed my stance? I change my opinions all the time. I would be okay with initiating a conversation. BUT it would be better if the guy gave me some hints because that never happens.

BTW, Why did you say mom and not mum....you are not American?.............


I have been Americanised so much that i make grammatical errors.

Now you probably see how frustrating it is for a guy. What kind of signals would you need to talk to a guy?
Original post by Wired_1800
I have been Americanised so much that i make grammatical errors.

Now you probably see how frustrating it is for a guy. What kind of signals would you need to talk to a guy?


Really...I mean this is a British site, so..?

No, because I give signs. Guys my age dont look in my direction. He needs to look in my direction at least, lmao.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by loveleest
Really...I mean this is a British site, so..?

No, because I give signs. Guys my age dont look in my direction. He needs to look in my direction at least, lmao.


Many people have been Americanised that we interchange British and American words.

So you would only give signs to the guy?
Original post by Axiomasher
But the passing of laws don't of themselves represent what people actually believe, no matter how you characterise 'many'. I'm sure there are laws which do represent the beliefs of 'many' but that's not the same thing as saying a law demonstrates the belief of many, indeed some laws seem to fly in the face of popular belief no matter that there might be democratic representation of some kind. Moreover, there will be laws passed every day which the wider population are completely ignorant about let alone have a belief as to. Let me help you out though seeing as you're not getting anywhere with all this. I believe that women are people, I don't believe that a foetus is a person, I believe that a foetus starts to gain personhood when it is at, or is close to, physiological independence from the mother. Is there an arbitrary quality to that? Sure, but as I definitely do not accept that a fertilised egg is suddenly a person and there is a development from that to personhood I think that is the most sensible point at which to identify the status. Until a foetus is physiologically independent then it is still, in my view, something of an organ of the mother.


So you believe that, at the point where a child could be viable and physically survive without the mother, that we should outlaw abortion at that point? That isn't arbitary at all and, in fact, much of the argument for 24 weeks was based around that.


http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2008/05/viability-and-the-abortion-debate-what-really-matters/

(With an Oxford reference for your perusal)


Obviously, you know I'm about to say "Science is advancing to the point where children more and more premature are being able to survive. This is why the current limit was placed at 24 weeks because, at the time the laws were passed, that was the limit that science could save the child.

Currently, Amillia Taylor is the youngest premature child to be born(At 21 weeks). Do you think that the age of abortion should be reduced to less than 21 weeks, now that science has improved?

And you still haven't answered whether or not you thought that terminating women prior to 1929 was morally wrong, given that they were not legally 'persons', either.

If your 'When is a child a person' is truly arbitrary and you recognize that, then I honestly can't argue with it. Nor can you argue someone who says 'I believe only I am a person worthy of life' because you have chosen the same line for your morality: Complete arbitrariness.
Original post by Wired_1800
Many people have been Americanised that we interchange British and American words.

So you would only give signs to the guy?


idk, i might initiate one day..who knows....lol
Original post by ThatOldGuy
So you believe that, at the point where a child could be viable and physically survive without the mother, that we should outlaw abortion at that point? That isn't arbitary at all and, in fact, much of the argument for 24 weeks was based around that.


http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2008/05/viability-and-the-abortion-debate-what-really-matters/

(With an Oxford reference for your perusal)


Obviously, you know I'm about to say "Science is advancing to the point where children more and more premature are being able to survive. This is why the current limit was placed at 24 weeks because, at the time the laws were passed, that was the limit that science could save the child.

Currently, Amillia Taylor is the youngest premature child to be born(At 21 weeks). Do you think that the age of abortion should be reduced to less than 21 weeks, now that science has improved?



This is a really interesting point. I think that the abortion laws should keep up with the advancement of science. Its a damn shame that doctors aren’t willing to intervene to save a baby born before 24weeks
Original post by loveleest
idk, i might initiate one day..who knows....lol


You should!
Original post by loveleest
If I didn't use TSR, I wouldn't have even known that guys want women to do the approaching. It's literally only men in the UK that want women to start doing the approaching, it's so odd to me.
A lot of guys dont give hints or even smile at me so how am I supposed to know they want me to approach them?

This...was my response.

Guy dont give me hints that they want me to approach them so how am I supposed to make a first move?
You don't need hints. Just go in with the view that most guys will **** anything and you will be ok. :awesome: In that regard, you've always got the upper hand as a female.


This is what happened to me this morning (with regards to approaching girls + them giving signals):

This morning, there was a new girl at the place I work part time. She was staring at me a reasonable amount (we locked eyes for a good 2-3 seconds a few times). She smiled at me when I went to get something I needed from a desk drawer near her.

I overheard her saying she was an Italian exchange student. So immediately I knew I had to approach, because in those cultures, they have clearly defined gender roles - which means men always approach women. After a while, I plucked up the courage and asked her a few questions like "what's your name, are you on a foreign exchange etc." She was pleasant, but more out of politeness, rather than a sense that she actually wanted me to talk to her.

About half an hour later, I asked her "so, may I ask, do you have a boyfriend?". She said yes. I asked "is he Italian, does he live in Italy?". She said yes. I asked her what she was doing afterwards and she said "going out with a friend". I pretty much ended the conversation there and didn't talk to her again. It was clear she wasn't interested in me.

So a girl who I thought was giving me decent signals, was actually just being pleasant and friendly, not wanting anything romantic/sexual. I could have tried to flirt, but she didn't come across like she wanted me to. Also her English wasn't great, so there was a language barrier (she asked me to repeat 2 things I asked her, because she didn't understand).


Now you see why signals need to be a lot stronger than a bit of smiling and eye contact? And in those first few seconds of him talking to you, you've really got to be very open and friendly. Guys will generally not waste their time if your behaviour is obscure or they can't pick up obvious signals. They will instead move onto a different girl. Life is too short to chase a girl who is messing you around.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Axiomasher
Firstly, I am not persuaded that you know how old he is. Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised about 10-year-olds using internet porn if they can get erections. Maybe I was a freak but I was already getting erections as a 10-year-old, I'm guessing you weren't (assuming you are more than 10, which I admit is an assumption).


Well, judging by the photograph, I know for a fact that he's no older than 12, and, at that age, his parents—if they're responsible parents—would most likely have some sort of control over his internet access. I'm sorry to hear that such an idea is alien to you, though.
Original post by loveleest
It's literally only men in the UK that want women to start doing the approaching, it's so odd to me.


It really, really isn't, but w/e.
Original post by snowman77
You don't need hints. Just go in with the view that most guys will **** anything and you will be ok. :awesome: In that regard, you've always got the upper hand as a female.


This is what happened to me this morning (with regards to approaching girls + them giving signals):

This morning, there was a new girl at the place I work part time. She was staring at me a reasonable amount (we locked eyes for a good 2-3 seconds a few times). She smiled at me when I went to get something I needed from a desk drawer near her.

I overheard her saying she was an Italian exchange student. So immediately I knew I had to approach, because in those cultures, they have clearly defined gender roles - which means men always approach women. After a while, I plucked up the courage and asked her a few questions like "what's your name, are you on a foreign exchange etc." She was pleasant, but more out of politeness, rather than a sense that she actually wanted me to talk to her.

About half an hour later, I asked her "so, may I ask, do you have a boyfriend?". She said yes. I asked "is he Italian, does he live in Italy?". She said yes. I asked her what she was doing afterwards and she said "going out with a friend". I pretty much ended the conversation there and didn't talk to her again. It was clear she wasn't interested in me.

So a girl who I thought was giving me decent signals, was actually just being pleasant and friendly, not wanting anything romantic/sexual. I could have tried to flirt, but she didn't come across like she wanted me to. Also her English wasn't great, so there was a language barrier (she asked me to repeat 2 things I asked her, because she didn't understand).


Now you see why signals need to be a lot stronger than a bit of smiling and eye contact? And in those first few seconds of him talking to you, you've really got to be very open and friendly. Guys will generally not waste their time if your behaviour is obscure or they can't pick up obvious signals. They will instead move onto a different girl. Life is too short to chase a girl who is messing you around.


Your first sentence alone is why I really won't bother. Not every girl looking that is approaching is looking to get laid.
Original post by Dheorl
It really, really isn't, but w/e.


Yes it really, really is. I know if I was in America I wouldn't have this problem.
Original post by loveleest
Yes it really, really is. I know if I was in America I wouldn't have this problem.


Yes, because the entire world consists of America :rolleyes:

There's what, 200ish sovereign states in the world, containing in total 20 times the population of America combined, and you make a judgement on all of them based on that alone?

Not to mention how diverse America and the people contained within are. Just because you can go to a bar and have a guy approach you, that's no basis for assuming half the guys in that bar wouldn't be more than happy if maybe you approached them.
Original post by loveleest
Your first sentence alone is why I really won't bother. Not every girl looking that is approaching is looking to get laid.


Yes it really, really is. I know if I was in America I wouldn't have this problem.
It was more of a tongue in cheek comment, you didn't need to take it literally. :lol: The point I was making is that guys won't act stuck-up, arrogant or *****y. They will be a lot more welcoming than the majority of girls.

No acknowledgement to the rest of my post? It took me a while to write that. :frown:


edit: you cant write the b word anymore? wow, political correctness really has gone mad.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending