I am disappointed in the Washington Post with their latest attempt to explain the problems our generation faces with dating. The author, Libby Copeland, who I’m assuming is male, must be in a relationship where he is dominated. That’s the only way I can explain the way he constructed the article. I think most reasonable women will agree that they are not only more picky than men, but more difficult to deal with, due to unique communication and emotional needs that men are not prepared to handle until repeated viewings of Dr. Phil. But Libby tries very carefully to do a tit-for-tat balance where both sexes are equally responsible for dating failure.
1. When it comes to qualities that each sex wants in their mate, it’s obvious that women have the now-cliche “laundry list” that starts with something like sense of humor and ends a few dozen qualities down with ambition. As for men, it begins with hot and ends with hot. Yet Libby tries to attribute the laundry list phenomenon to men, as if we are the picky ones.
Centuries from now, scientists may point to this as the moment in time when the pickiness gene became dominant. In the end, it will come down to one really old, lonely guy and his list.
“She must have blue eyes. She should like animals, but not in a weird way. No thin lips. No lawyers,” he’ll be writing, just before he keels over and the human race comes to an end.
That guy may be old and lonely, but for every one of them there is an equally old women, living in a house with dozens of cats. Old men who date are eternal players, bachelors. Old women who date are used up, worn out, and exploited by corporations for tanning and Botox treatments.
2. When it’s time for the author to give an example of his observation that people these days are picky, he does this by picking a story about a guy dumping a girl who likes to eat mayonnaise.
“Some people are mayonnaise people, I completely understand it. But I. Hate. Mayonnaise,” Peters says. He thinks it’s a texture thing. “I just find it to be the most repulsive thing in the world. And she’s just going on and on about how great mayonnaise is and how you can eat all these things and my stomach is just curdling.”
He stopped calling her. He knows this sounds really bad.
Imagine the hate mail that Libby would have received if he chose to tell a story about a woman who stopped dating a guy because he had a cheap car, or took her to – God forbid – a bar where the drinks were priced under $7. Or maybe about the commenter who recently wrote here that she would never again go out with a guy who allows her to pay when she insincerely offers to. I understand that the Post can’t bring out the truth over the absurdity that is a woman’s dating game because of their mainstream nature, but trying to pin it on males is inaccurate, and paints a picture to naive readers that men are as responsible as women for the mess we are in. Last time I checked, women are demolishing us in divorce court, withholding sex in power games, and holding us to standards that do not exist. An attempt to write this article from a balanced viewpoint would have resulted in a massive assault on the paper from various family and women groups, asking when the Post became a vehicle to spread misogyny.
This is simply the resurfacing of the thousand year old problem where guys want to pump and dump and girls want to screen for something long-term. Instead the author created something that makes men out to be as picky, if not worse, than women, so now these 30-something single women everywhere can forward the article, which hit number one on the most emailed page, to their friends and say, “See.. It’s not us! Let’s go out this weekend and drink!”