More on gender relations philosophy

I basically object to the conventions adopted by local gender relations (or the supposed “Asian Way”). Basically, it means two things: The guy has to go after the girl extensively, and relationships last anywhere from 2-6 years. On the other hand, I advocate relationships that stem from more natural, mutual understandings between both partners and relationships that are shorter in term, possibly 6 months to 2 years. I also expect that a courtship period from 1-3 months, maybe even 2 weeks, is sufficient for a basis for a relationship.

My argument against the convention that guys have to “tackle” (or court, or basically suck up) to girls in order to win her heart is unrealistically romantic. I do not disagree that sending chocolates and doing a lot of really sweet things for her is romantic. The weakness I disagree to is that it does not make for a good foundation for a relationship and that it places undue power in the hands of one side of the relationship: the girls. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not chauvinistic. But I do advocate equal rights in a relationship. Now, my theory is that guys that do really sweet things for girls as “tackling techniques” before knowing her as a person and a friend really means that that guy is not in love with the girl, he merely is in love with being in love. For the first few months, both of them will be incredibly tolerant of each other as all couples do. But past the “honeymoon stage”, its hard to sustain such feelings and suddenly you realise you don’t know her, or realise how blind you were to such things about her.

Taking it to a postmodern interpretation, such a convention of “tackling” puts the power of choice into the hands of girls. That means, girls get undue power over the dependency relationship caused by how stupid men are. If she gets to choose which boyfriend she wants, then she has the implicit power to coerce her potential or her current boyfriend into doing things like — financing her high-spending lifestyle. She can easily do this by threatening to not choose her suitors or leaving him. Of course the suitors would automatically know, but a pretty girl can easily have a stable of would-be boyfriends treating her to lunch and dinner and ice-cream all the time. This is stupid, because its economically inefficient. MANY suitors are going to spend money on ONE girl, and only ONE suitor will prevail. The others will have to repeat the cycle over and over again, and if the courting period is long and hard, its going to suck big time. This isn’t a fair arrangement for men. We’ve become emasculated by our competition for a trophy girlfriend, of which we don’t even know.

What I advocate is for relationships to arise from your acquaintances and for a relationship to form from a mutual, tacit understanding of one another and being comfortable with one another. Its what Chris Rock was talking about when he made a joke about double-dating with another couple who are really in love. “Boy, they REALLY enjoy each others’ company. We’d better not go out with them too much, they’re going to break us up!” Of course being nice is a prerequisite, you need to be nice with everybody, both genders included, so you also be nice to the girl. But then you’ve got to know her, and form your decisions then. Its almost like you know she’s going to say “yes” and you need to convince her to sign on the dotted line.

But realistically speaking, doing all the sweet stuff does get the girls. In this intepretation, I read the action as proof of the validity of respect for the guy. I wouldn’t want a girl I couldn’t respect — I expect girls to like guys who they can respect as a person. So, standing on a table singing-yelling “Sukiyaki” dedicated to the girl at the back there could very well possibly win her heart, but what it really constitutes is that its a proof that he’s not just some ball-less, talentless and useless parasite, he’s an actual person with his own personality.

Now why would I advocate a relationship period of 6 months to 2 years? Because at this point in life, you don’t want to get stuck with a wife. That’s it. You’re not with a wife, you still have the choice to go “shopping” while you still can. I understand the loneliness dilemma, in Chris Rocks words, “Either you’re single and lonely or married and bored.” It pretty much is quite lonely when you’re single and having a partner has its perks and that’s why you’ve got to stick with them forever or come to terms again with loneliness. But 2 years is that period when the relationship gets old. Better get out and give other people a chance before the relationship starts to rot. You’re not going to marry her, so why stay? You know you’re more attractive than that. If you don’t, you risk staying in a relationship purely because of history: “We’ve been together for four years, so even though he’s so unbearable, there’s so much we’ve been through together so I can’t just leave him”. Question: if he’s so unbearable, are you going to marry him? If you are going to stay together any longer that means you are! Shared experiences are important, but shared experiences aren’t everything.

However, I wonder does that mean that one should quit once the going gets bad? Yes and no. I think it takes discernment and some thinking to tell a minor disagreement from a irrenconcible fundamental personality difference or a degradation in trust. I also think it takes transparency and openness, and that’s why I probably will never tolerate any form of silent treatments because it indicates a blackmail form of negotiation. If the trust in the relationship has degraded to such a level, its probably not worth saving anyway. Even if it hasn’t, its not worth the person if she can use such inconsiderate methods, which indicates an assymetrical balance of power in the relationship.

21 Aug, 2006.