Esquire needs your help to say stupid shit about women

Just saw this on a couple of email lists and, well, wow.

Esquire is asking the women of America to take part in something huge. How huge? It just might be the largest survey of American women in the history of survey. Our goal is to interview 10,000 women – you read that correctly: 10,000 – and we only have one question: What is something that men don’t know about women?
Building on our popular monthly feature 10 Things You Don’t Know About Women (examples below, or by clicking this link ), we want to educate the American man about women in a way no one ever has: By directly asking 10,000 of them.

Finally, Esquire’s readers can understand those wacky creatures called women. By hearing random thoughts from them.


Feministing readers, let’s help them out, ok? Here’s the rest of the message, leave your responses in comments.

What exactly does Esquire want you to tell us? It could be a secret about the female species that you want to finally let us men in on. Could be a helpful hint, or a piece of advice no one’s ever had the heart or guts to give us. It could be something that you wish men would get through our thick heads.
When we ask celebrities, here is the kind of thing they tell us:

  • We find dark-colored sheets creepy. And they don’t conceal stains. – Jane Krakowski

  • We can scan a room faster than you can. Within sixty seconds we can spot every girl to watch out for and all the men we’d like to meet. – Carmen Electra
  • Women grab their crotches, too. We just have the decency to do it in private. – Padma Lakshmi
  • When you hug a woman at the end of a date, if you have any romantic intentions whatsoever, do not “bro-patâ€? her on the back. – Minnie Driver
  • We don’t want to hear the sound of you brushing your teeth and going to the bathroom at the same time. – Connie Britton
  • If, when asking a lady to spend the night, she says no, accept it and do not try to tip the scales with an offer of breakfast. Any girl who is swayed by the prospect of an omelette is probably not a keeper. – Liz Vassey
  • We shave our toes. – Ana Gasteyer
  • Best girlfriends can be very affectionate with each other. Just because we occasionally hold hands doesn’t mean this thing’s about to turn into Girls Gone Wild: Ultimate Spring Break. So simmer down. – Christina Applegate

So think hard about the unexplored pockets of male ignorance, and help us out. Help all men out. In the end, you’re really helping yourselves.
Now, if you’re stuck, here are a few fill-in-the-blanks to get the wheels spinning. (Or, not. Feel free to ignore these and express your own creativity here.)
“The best way to make sure we will not go to bed with you tonight is…�
“The most chivalrous thing a man can do is…�
“At the end of a first date…�
“Not all women are…�
“If you had actually been able to look in the girls locker room in high school, you would have seen…�

Based on one of their suggested topics I’d say “The best way to make sure we will not go to bed with you tonight is…â€? to ask for the deepest darkest secrets of womankind for an Esquire article. And, “Not all women are…â€? anything. Which is why this is dumb.
Anyway, help me out, people. Entertain me until Lost starts tonight. A little Thursday silliness never hurt anyone.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

118 Comments

  1. Shadow32
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    As a guy, I’ve always been a little baffled by the “What do women want?” question. It’s as meaningless as “What do Jews want?” or “What do Europeans want?”
    Is it that it’s easier to think in terms of what generic women want than what the specific woman you’re with wants? The latter, it seems to me, is all you really need to figure out.

  2. Cola
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    My answer is: women are people. If you ever meet a woman who can stand to talk to you, ask her yourself what she does and doesn’t want out of a relationship with a man, because I can guarantee you her answer will be nearly %100 different from mine.

  3. Kimmy
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Crshark, it depends on the person and how often we go out. For instance, my mom and I go out each and every Saturday for lunch, so we always pay for our own. Some friends I see less frequently, so we alternate. Or, if I’m flush and feeling celebratory I might insist on paying. Or the friend might. Just kind of depends on the circumstances, and it’s never assumed that anyone is definitely paying for anyone else’s food until it’s been discussed.

  4. Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    I figured I’d add for my own edification that I actually had a (nearly) lifelong friend who called me up one day to ask what women wanted, because he was lonely and felt he needed a relationship (and the implication was that he needed it now, damn it). My answer was to just talk to women as individuals, like he would anyone, and decided based on the substance of their character if he wanted anything to do with them in the first place. I told him that if he’s seeking a relationship, he should be seeking an individual with whom he wants to spend a significant amount of his time, not just a “woman.”
    He seemed a little disappointed.

  5. exelizabeth
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    What (Esquire) men apparently don’t know about women: we are not a different species. Nature fact of the day: women and men are actually the same species.
    How’s this: a woman is a complex, conflicted, flawed human, just like you. You have way, way more in common then men’s magazines (or women’s magazines) would have you believe. If you understand that, you’re much more likely to connect with a woman (or, hell, anybody).

  6. UltraMagnus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    The survey is bullshit and probably just filler. Whenever a magazine or website needs space to fill they can always fall back on the “men are from mars/women venus” tropes and sell some ad space.
    And I’m going to echo Kimmy’s statments. I am one of those women who go by the whoever does the asking should do the paying rule (though it’s not really a “rule”). If I ask a guy out I’ll pay, if he does then he pays. And I’ve offered to split the check once when a guy did the asking, but only because I was getting major “you will owe me” vibes from him. He got pissed and we never went out, or spoke, again and that suited me just fine.
    Also, as far as “chivarly” goes, I pose a question to those who defend the institution: What are gay couples supposed to do? (And don’t give me gender stereotype bullshit answers, like the butch lesbian gets the door, etc.)

  7. Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    @Shadow32: I think you put it well and I think that’s exactly why this “survey” is so anti-woman even as it panders to them. It is designed for guys who are looking for generic women, generic lays, generic encounters. It is a strategy of knowing the shortcuts to a woman’s bed so you never HAVE to know her as a person, and what she as an individual finds interesting or attractive.

  8. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    jfaustus,
    I grew up in the Midwest too, and had the same experience as you, that most people believed the gender stereotypes (even my parents, who are more educated than most people in my hometown).
    Do you really think the Midwest is much worse than the coasts in this regard? (I mean, I certainly feel so, but it would be interesting to come up with some sort of study…)

  9. spirina
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    I just have one question: Who, exactly, other than Ana Gasteyer, shaves their toes?
    Because I sure don’t. Nor do I find dark sheets creepy.
    Weird, for some reason these sweeping generalizations just don’t apply to me.
    Maybe I’m not a woman.

  10. exelizabeth
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    @Ninapendamaishi, I’ve lived on the West Coast all my life and I would say belief in gender stereotypes, as a generalization, is less intense than that described in jfaustus’s comment.
    This varies as individuals, of course, and progressive men express what can be sometimes a more insidiously and irriatingly sexist because they are convinced they are so enlightened.

  11. jonquill
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Just thought I’d throw my two cents in on the chivalry thing. It’s an out-moded and archaic idea. I mean, pulling out someone’s chair does seem a bit much, but is there something to be said for simply trying to make a good impression?
    You ask someone out, be it of either gender, isn’t there temptation to be overtly nice to make a good impression? If I ask someone out, I tend to pay, and vice versa. I’ll hold a door for a first date, but, much the same way, if I meet my new girlfriend’s friends, be they male or female, I’ll hold the door as well, buy a round, something like that.
    I’ve ended up hanging out with a guy I don’t know at a bar, end up in a good conversation, and when I order a shot, I’ll ask if he wants in.
    Protecting and taking care of someone, just because she’s a woman, by default, is definately off, but being accomidating could easily stem from a simple desire to be liked.
    Does this come off as manipulative, just the same? Is it the expectation that these efforts EARN you the right to things that turns it wrong?

  12. feiminí
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    “The best way to make sure we will not go to bed with you tonight is…� To assume we will by default.
    “The most chivalrous thing a man can do is…â€? (without even tackling the use of ‘chivalrous’) Be a feminist.
    “Not all women are…� the same.
    “If you had actually been able to look in the girls locker room in high school, you would have seen…â€? Something that looked unbelievably similiar to what you saw in the boys’ locker room, I imagine. But we can’t tell you because we didn’t go to your school, and see above answer.

  13. sepra
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Wow, there are so many good answers I could give if this were being written as a serious piece. Like, “odds are, a woman you care about has been raped.” So many men hear the statistics and don’t stop to think about what they actually mean.
    Posted by: harlemjd | January 31, 2008 12:40 PM

    I submitted this to Esquire. I thought it was important, and while it has 0% chance of print, maybe it will make someone think.

  14. harlemjd
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Spirina,
    I don’t shave them, but I do wax my toes when I get a pedicure. Finally, there’s something girly about me!

  15. Yoshimi
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    I shave my toes, too :)
    Jonquill: I frequently open the door for strangers (male or female)or carry things for my friends when their hands are full. If you would do it for a man or a woman, it’s probably ok, and if you are genuine and honestly don’t have the expectation of sex, it probably won’t look manipulative.

  16. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Theaetetus:
    To be clear, I am not defending chivalry. I am objecting to your crass and dismissive generalization that men who decry chivalry are only doing it as a ploy to get laid. So your ad hominem “I can see that that concept may be a little bit beyond you both” was misdirected in addition to being inappropriate.
    On the semantics of “many”, I guess what you meant to say was that too many guys pretend to decry chivalry in order to manipulate women into bed. Or maybe just that it is wrong when a guy pretends and manipulates. Agreed completely on both points. One is too many.
    But words matter, and that’s not what you did say. When Chris Matthews says that many women vote for Hillary because she’s a woman he is rightly called out for being sexist — not because he’s factually wrong (I’m sure one could find “more than some and less than all” such women), but because in framing the siuation in that way he is erasing complexity and reducing women. You did the same thing.

  17. Gretchen
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    So, the point is to answer in a way that would make any straight reader of Esquire never get laid again.
    Thus-
    “*Giggle* I absolutely LOVE it when men blow a big stinky fart right before we go at it!”
    or
    “OMG! We totally talked about how much we loved it when boys would pick our noses on dates while my college volleyball team was changing in the locker room!”
    or
    “Women’s wildest fantasy involves skinny dipping in lakes and then pulling leaches off men’s genitals. Oh yeah!”

  18. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Theaetetus:
    To be clear, I am not defending chivalry. I am objecting to your crass and dismissive generalization that men who decry chivalry are only doing it as a ploy to get laid. So your ad hominem “I can see that that concept may be a little bit beyond you both” was misdirected in addition to being inappropriate.
    On the semantics of “many”, I guess what you meant to say was that too many guys pretend to decry chivalry in order to manipulate women into bed. Or maybe just that it is wrong when a guy pretends and manipulates. Agreed completely on both points. One is too many.
    But words matter, and that’s not what you did say. When Chris Matthews says that many women vote for Hillary because she’s a woman he is rightly called out for being sexist — not because he’s factually wrong (I’m sure one could find “more than some and less than all” such women), but because in framing the siuation in that way he is erasing complexity and reducing women. You did the same thing.

  19. Whitemore
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    While I believe Esquire’s stupid poll is demeaning, diminunizing and alienating of women, I must say that I do find dark sheets creepy, and thought some of the famous women’s comments were pretty funny.
    My addition would be: “It is never funny to squeeze my boob and make a “ee-onk” bicycle horn sound.”
    Why? Because more than one bf has thought that was the be-all, end-all of funny.

  20. Gretchen
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Whitemore-
    I totally laughed really loud at that.
    Although- I guess it shouldn’t have been funny since you were offended. I think its funny because it makes the boyfriend look really, really
    *really*
    Dumb.

  21. Posted January 31, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    I think you are all missing out on our chance, as women, to really tell men the truth here. I mean, why pretend like we want to be treated as human beings, when the truth is we are all just adorable little objects that only exist in relation to men?
    So let’s be honest, if men had been able to see us changing in the locker room in high school, they would have seen some hot girl-on-girl action. Action that could only have been made hotter by a high school boy joining in.
    Am I right, ladies? Or was that just at my high school?
    (In case it doesn’t come across strongly enough in this post, I am joking.)

  22. Theaetetus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    jfaustus: I am objecting to your crass and dismissive generalization that men who decry chivalry are only doing it as a ploy to get laid.
    Did it hit a little close to home? Otherwise, why are you leaping to defend the many – yes, many – men who are manipulative?
    But words matter, and that’s not what you did say.
    Right. I said “many”, and I meant “many”. I said it wasn’t “all”, nor was it “none”.
    As you said, you feel hurt when someone says “all men do X”, because you’re a man who doesn’t do X. Generalizations without exceptions are unfair to those exceptions.
    However, I made an exception, and a quite clear one. I didn’t even go so far as to say “most”. So, what upsets you about this? Are you maybe in that category of “many”?

  23. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    Theaetetus: Again with the ad hominem.
    Did it hit a little close to home? Otherwise, why are you leaping to defend the many – yes, many – men who are manipulative?
    To correct your misunderstanding: at no point have I defended manipulative men. I have defended the discourse from sloppiness.
    To answer the question of why I would leap to do that: Perhaps because I think your position is wrong or, at best, so poorly stated that it amounts to the same thing? Perhaps because I think that making crass and dismissive statements about either gender is morally wrong? Or that making them about men is a bad tactic (whether it’s morally wrong or not) because doing so gives anti-feminists the opening to say that we do the same things we criticize them for?
    I didn’t say I was hurt. I did not and have not made this discussion personal.
    If you have a response to my comparison of your use of “many” to that in any of the four examples I gave I would be interested to hear it. In any case, please stick to the arguments? No need to attack me personally to make your point.

  24. Not_Your_Girl
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Hey Everyone,
    I’ve been reading feministing practically everyday for almost a year and now am finally posting! (yay!) I know, I know, you’re all so impressed with how quickly I started posting, yes, I know, people are always so impressed with my total lack of procrastination.
    Anyway, on to my actual comment:
    I think we should really do this. (If that’s what was actually being implied, my bad, I read the post as being more of a let’s amuse ourselves by mocking these douche-machines amongst ourselves.) I know Sepra said she sent in harlemjd’s rape comment, I don’t know if other people sent in responses, but I think it could potentially be awesome if we all en masse sent in responses to Esquire. So many of y’all posted really great potential responses everyone who didn’t comment on this thread has plenty ready in her head. I agree with Sepra when she said that they probably wouldn’t publish the response she sent in, but I was thinking that if mass amounts of feminist women sent in good responses, like say 10,000 or more of us, they might publish some or at least they might take notice of the fact that vast numbers of women think that the survey is both deeply sexist and embarrassingly imbecilic.
    I think if we galvanized every similarly minded woman each of us knows both on the web and IRL to respond to Esquire with answers like the ones here that call to attention the fact that this “survey” (okay that may have been an inappropriate use of quote-marks) is sexist and misogynistic from its very core, it could very well make some impact, if not on the published article, at least on the minds of some of the Esquire staff.
    (Obviously, I know that y’all do stuff like this on a regular basis, and it’s not like I’m advocating anything new or different, so sorry if the length and wordiness of this comment comes off as annoying or offensive or self-aggrandizing or something in anyway. that was not my intention at all. for whatever reason i just got incredibly excited about doing this.)
    Anyway, great merriment and such to all!

  25. Not_Your_Girl
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    OMG, I didn’t realize my comment was so excessively long. Sorry about that!

  26. SarahMC
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    So, jfaustus, how are feminists supposed to address objectionable male behavior?
    I understand why you don’t approve of the use of “all” but why “many?” What are we supposed to say then? Or should we not talk about men’s behavior?

  27. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Hey, SarahMC. I don’t think we’ve ‘spoken’ before, so at the outset my complements — I like your comments a lot.
    I don’t think I would object to it universally. I read “many” in this context to mean “all”, to be crass and dismissive. That’s what I objected to. The same word could be correctly understood differently in another context.
    The author’s denial that she meant to be crass and dismissive was undermined by her snarky, ad hominem attacks so I pressed the issue further than I probably would have otherwise…
    Now that I’m thinking about it, though, isn’t it enough for us to describe and criticize the objectionable behavior? To say that too many men engage in it? To encourage people to stand up against it? To discuss what elements of the culture encourage and condone it, and to go after them? What does gratuitous quantification add? Research-based quantification, on the other hand, can be quite powerful. As in, “study after study has shown that 1 in 3 women have been raped.” Or, “economic studies consistently arrive at the conclusion that women earn 70 cents to the dollar compared to men doing the same jobs.”
    Dunno. Now I feel like I’ve gone way over the edge, but I suppose that’s what happens when you’re raised by a sociology professor with a low tolerance for “unsupported assertions” (his words)…

  28. kissmypineapple
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    I read “many” in this context to mean “all”
    There is no context in which “many” means “all.”

  29. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    kissmypineapple:
    Sorry, I was compressing some of my comments from above. Take a look (there are a few), and let me know if you still think I’m off base?

  30. NekkidNancy
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    I like dark sheets and don’t shave my toes. And I don’t scan a room for women I have to “watch out for”.
    I hate sweeping generalizations. There is only one secret to understanding women: Treat them like PEOPLE, like individuals who all have their own thoughts, preferences, likes, dislikes, and personalities. Don’t imagine that they’re a different mysterious species.

  31. UCLAbodyimage
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    “What is something that men don’t know about women?”
    That they know the difference between the words “many” and “all”? :-) .

  32. jfaustus
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Ouch!!! Snark attack! Snark attaaaaaaa-

  33. SarahMC
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Jfaustus, much appreciated. :)

  34. waxghost
    Posted January 31, 2008 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    Not_Your_Girl, I think that’s a great idea.
    Mine: “I really wish that more men realized that we are not all the same just because we have vaginas.”

  35. YouCanToo
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    “What is something that men don’t know about women?”
    Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We’re not inherently anything but human. (Robin Morgan quote)

  36. Wildberry
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    Well I wish my ex-boyfriend had known that there was no such thing as “boyfriend rights”. It really pissed me off because even though I had agreed to the title of “girlfriend” (something I objected to initially), he wasn’t entitled to anything. Mostly his so-called rights seemed to be stupid stuff like randomly grabbing my ass whenever he wants. Luckily it was a long distance relationship, if it wasn’t it probably wouldn’t have lasted as long as it had (which was still only about 2 and a half months).
    Once he had been going on about “boyfriend rights” within my mom’s fiance’s range of hearing, and he told him that he had the right to “shut up and do what you’re told”. I got a good laugh out of that.
    Anyway, my point is, thats what I would submit to this stupid survey, that men aren’t entitled to anything.

  37. Katxyz
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    My brother, who is a little manic sometimes, was ranting on about his dating life and offered me $75 to tell him what women want.
    I told him women want $76 dollars. :)

  38. BeezNeez
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    What men need to know about women: More about anatomy and physiology.
    Examples:
    On a message board, a poster and I were complaining about male cluelessness with regards to nipples. She mentioned a guy friend of hers who once asked in all seriousness, “Why do women always get horny when it’s cold outside?”
    A jerk online asked me if my “pussy” was “moist” at that moment. I replied factually that generally, the vagina is always moist, even outside of sexual excitement. His response was kind of a, “What, really???” Um, yes. What the heck do you think it is, an inverted penis? (Actually, I think that’s what some guys truly think …)
    On the moist vagina topic, I was downstairs and my brother was upstairs. The downstairs box of pantiliners had run out, so I asked my brother to bring some down. He did so very reluctantly and added, in the presence of my mom and myself, “You know, it’s not my fault that you guys crap your pants all the time.”
    *stunned silence*
    “What exactly do you think these are for?” I asked. Without waiting for an answer, I turned to my mom and said, “You can explain it to him.” Since my mom likes making him uncomfortable. But I love how he just … assumed what they were for.
    Anyway. Why the crap did we have to learn in 6th grade sex ed all about wet dreams and erections and spontaneous erections, but the boys learned jack all about the daily workings of the vagina? Annoying.
    (Yes, this is a long comment. Sorry.)

  39. crshark
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:41 am | Permalink

    “My addition would be: “It is never funny to squeeze my boob and make a “ee-onk” bicycle horn sound.”
    Why? Because more than one bf has thought that was the be-all, end-all of funny.”

    Whitemore – I agree! How incredibly crass and vulgar! But if your BF’s uttered a “Ding-Dong” sing-songy doorbell chime. Now that’s Komedy!

  40. LPOP
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    ok, well here is another take.
    Esquire is going to have a one or two page “article” about What Women Want. It’ll be exactly like the last 1000 issues of Glamour, Cosmo, Men’s Health, and every other stupid magazine. If I may borrow a line from a great move, they’re just there– like parsley. Because many people don’t want to think about much while waiting for their car to be repaired, or for their turn in the stylist’s chair, or while sitting on a plane on the tarmac. It’s like chewing gum. A stupid space filler that will make people feel like they are enjoying themselves, when in fact they are just killing time. I don’t think it’s anything to get riled up about.

  41. Posted February 1, 2008 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    Not all women give a shit about what colour sheets you have. Oh, and we don’t all want to ‘change’ you or ‘train’ you–that is such sexist bullcrap.
    The best way to ‘make sure’ you go to bed with us is by not being a moronic asshole.
    If you had been able to look in the girls’ locker room, you’d've seen a freaky pillow-fighting lingerie party. Oops, no, you’d've seen a bunch of girls trying to get dressed without showing anyone else any part of their body.
    I just really HATE these overgeneralizations, and I hate that they’re saying ‘female species’ as if men and women are so dissimilar they might as well be horses and dolphins or something.

  42. AmethystCate
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    I figured I might as well submit my answer and see if they’ll have it…. it would be nice to think that some of these brilliant feminist ideas actually get published.
    Dear editors of Esquire,
    The following is my submission to your survey about women. I hope you appreciate it.
    Not all women are… happy to be portrayed by men’s magazines, and concomitantly expected by these magazines’ readers, to be part of a monolithic ‘other species’ defined stereotypically by its physical features, grooming habits and perceived inability to communicate. In reality, many of us (dare I say most?) prefer to be approached as individual human beings with unique personalities, needs, desires, values and beliefs which cannot be encapsulated in overly simplistic forums asking ‘why do women do….?’ Individual women are (shock, horror, surprise) as varied and different in their perceptions of the world and their fellow humans (of any gender) as individual men are. Attempts to box us into a stereotype of who women are and what they want are as insulting as the attempts to force men into similar boxes by telling them how to ‘deal with women’ or interact with each other.

  43. Posted February 1, 2008 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    I like opening the door for women. Not because I consider her weak or inferior, but because it shows I am paying attention to her. Same for pulling her chair out and holding her coat. –vtcheme
    Unless I’m holding the door for the elderly or someone who clearly needs help (for example, if both hands are full) entering or exiting, I mostly hold the door for women so I can check their legs and asses when they walk by. Yeah, I admit it: chivalry is bullshit -but I enjoy the view anyway.
    Also, as far as “chivarly” goes, I pose a question to those who defend the institution: What are gay couples supposed to do? (And don’t give me gender stereotype bullshit answers, like the butch lesbian gets the door, etc.) –UltraMagnus

    Take turns, I guess.
    Not all women want men to pay for their date. –Jovan1984
    Can you give me their phone numbers?
    “If you had actually been able to look in the girls locker room in high school, you would have seen…â€?
    …a bunch of young women rush to the door to punch/shove/beat your ass out of the locker room. –Xana

    Uh, I think the idea is to be able to watch the girls without getting caught, a fantasy common to most if not all straight adolescent boys.
    So let’s be honest, if men had been able to see us changing in the locker room in high school, they would have seen some hot girl-on-girl action. Action that could only have been made hotter by a high school boy joining in. –radikelsey

    Aha! Just as I suspected when I was a randy teenager!
    Seriously, magazine surveys like this one are just filler, and should be taken about as seriously as Larry, Moe and Curley.

  44. Marshall Lucky
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Not all women . . . want to fuck you. –Cara
    And here I thought they were just playing “hard to get”. Damn!

  45. lyndorr
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Huh, I always thought holding the door open was just something most people do for people entering behind them.
    Anyway, surveys like this are done because they sell. There are also lists about what women should understand about men. Still, I don’t like the wording (different species?) or the concept that men and women are more different from each other than from other men or other women but this concept is quite popular in society. If men and women are shown to be different, they can (unfortunately) be treated differently right?

  46. Shadow32
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    BeezNeez, good point about sex ed.
    I’ll hold the door open for either sex to avoid letting it hit their face, but I admit I’ll make an extra effort for women. On the other hand, if a woman told me never to do that for her again, that’d be fine.
    As for paying, I’ve had several women I asked out pay for my meal–given none of them wanted to go out again, I assume it’s some sort of compensation for turning me down. I am considered “nice” and I know turning down nice guys makes some of my female friends feel angsty and guilt-ridden, so maybe that factors in (personally I don’t get why turning down a nice guy they’re not attracted to would be worse than any other guy they’re not attracted to, but it’s not my call).

  47. ShelbyWoo
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    but I admit I’ll make an extra effort for women.
    I’m curious…why not make the extra effort for everyone? I hold doors open for people, regardless of gender. I admit I do make an extra effort for those that are disabled, elderly, very young, or overly burdened with packages, but not for one gender over the other.
    I am considered “nice” and I know turning down nice guys makes some of my female friends feel angsty and guilt-ridden, so maybe that factors in (personally I don’t get why turning down a nice guy they’re not attracted to would be worse than any other guy they’re not attracted to, but it’s not my call)
    I’m guessing it’s because they’re worried he’s a Nice GuyTM, not a normal nice person. You know, the guys that are soooo nice until they don’t get what they think they deserve for said niceness…then they become assholes. That, and women in this society are expected to be careful of other’s feelings, especially if they are “nice”, feigned or not.

  48. Megan
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    “It just might be the largest survey of American women in the history of survey”
    um…No, actually. Correct me if I’m wrong, but at least 10,000 American women have been surveyed in, oh, I don’t know, the Census?
    But kudos, Esquire, on choosing such a “huge” number. With such a representative sample of qualitative data, you’ll surely be able to project your results on to all American women!
    The sociologist in me just died a little..
    (To be fair, I love reading this stuff. So much funnnier than “women’s interests” magazines. And I swear I learn more about my own anatomy from men’s mags…)

  49. Rock Star
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Also, as far as “chivarly” goes, I pose a question to those who defend the institution: What are gay couples supposed to do? (And don’t give me gender stereotype bullshit answers, like the butch lesbian gets the door, etc.)
    Magnus, I’m afraid this is an impossibility, since chivalry in and of itself is based on bullshit gender stereotypes.
    I’d add that women don’t like it when after you’ve told them REPEATEDLY that you’re not interested, you say “I’d really like to kiss you right now” and the woman says “that’s not a good idea” for you to say “I think it is a good idea” and then lean in to kiss her. Not that this recently happened to me, or anything.

  50. Theaetetus
    Posted February 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    jfaustus: I don’t think I would object to it universally. I read “many” in this context to mean “all”, to be crass and dismissive. That’s what I objected to. The same word could be correctly understood differently in another context.
    So, you gave a word a meaning that no dictionary in the world would ascribe to it, and then got angry at me for using it. And when I pointed out to you that by “many”, I meant “many”, you got angrier and said I was crass and dismissive.
    There’s a very interesting thing here, however:
    The author’s denial that she meant to be crass and dismissive was undermined by her snarky, ad hominem attacks so I pressed the issue further than I probably would have otherwise…
    I’m not female. Did your erroneous assumption of my gender lead you to believe that my words had an entirely different meaning than the one that’s in the dictionary? Would you have told a guy who said “when I said ‘many’, I meant ‘many’, not ‘all’” that he was being crass and dismissive?
    Further, would you have pressed the issue as far as you did if you knew that I was a guy?
    And finally, I can probably guess what your answers to the above will be. The question is whether they’ll be honest.

238 queries. 1.856 seconds