Demonstrators in South Korea swore off heterosexual dating in protest against misogyny. Now the movement is sparking interest among young American women
Men don’t seem to realize that the consequences of women getting equal treatment in the workplace means that more women have the freedom of self sufficiency, including not to date/marry men. Lesbian and bisexual women can of course date each other (and nonbinary folks) but heterosexual women are weighing the idea of dating a man not only against other men, but also against staying single. Relationships are work! Often more work for women who are typically assigned more domestic labor than men. And risk plays a huge part too- not only are women often at risk of pregnancy, but statistically more frequently victims of domestic violence if the relationship goes south. If the dating options are poor enough that the companionship doesn’t outweigh the work and the risk, of course women would rather not date at all.
Women are also less socially isolated than men on average. A lot of men get the majority of their emotional needs met through their partner, but women may be emotionally satisfied with other non-romantic connections.
This type of protest isn’t without precedent either. “Political lesbians” were (presumably heterosexual or possibly bisexual) women who entered relationships with other women for domestic support in the 1970s. Generally this wasn’t super appreciated by the lesbian community who typically prefer lesbians who are attracted to women, but, it was a different time.
I generally agree with your perspective, much of which the article also addresses. My observations are drawn from a quick scan of social media—TikTok in particular. While your points are sound and reasonable, I’m not entirely convinced they capture the full ‘meme-ness’ of this phenomenon as it currently appears.
As I mentioned, memes can sometimes become genuine political actions. However, the reasoning in the dozen or so TikTok videos I reviewed don’t necessarily align with your more thoughtful analyses of the decision itself. I’m inclined to take these women’s statements at face value, listening to their words rather than imposing my own interpretations. It’s disheartening to see anyone feel compelled to forgo intimacy or the potential for loving relationships as a form of protest against Republicans, especially when this choice doesn’t seem likely to have the intended effect on the intended people. In my opinion, things are challenging enough for women without adding this burden. Certainly, if someone feels this is the path for them, it’s their prerogative, and I see no cause to dispute it on a personal level. But the overarching sentiment in these videos strikes me more as an expression of frustration than as a cohesive strategy.
People often struggle to articulate why they choose to do some things and not others. If this idea appeals to women on social media, my point is there are a lot of underlying factors that make it so. Women might not be literally tallying pros and cons of dating but those things add up subconsciously, and get expressed through various forms of speech, including dumb memes.
I don’t think that women choosing not to date feel it as a burden either. If your choice is between someone who doesn’t treat you like an equal human deserving rights and respect or being a little lonely romantically, many will find freedom in staying single.
My point, regarding your second paragraph, is that no one should choose someone that doesn’t treat them like an equal human. But it’s a false premise that the choice is a partner that dehumanizes you or no one – though it might understandably feel like that at the moment. The fact that this feels like “how things are” is why it seems like post-election frustration-memeing. We shall see.
Frankly, I am perfectly happy for women if they never date men again. I would encourage it in fact. But I’m not really involved in the conversation.
I think that we’re circling the drain of agreement here, just expressing it differently. Yes, it would be sad to feel closed out of an aspect of life that you might otherwise enjoy like dating, but those are just decisions that people make all the time. Plenty of gay people choose not to date when it would be dangerous for them. Divorcées or widows might choose not to as well, and no one questions that. It’s no great tragedy, it’s just life. I’m sure plenty of people would also reserve the right to change their mind in the future if they met someone who meets their needs too.
As a form of protest, yes, it suffers from a rhetorical false dichotomy, but I don’t think people advocating it literally believe “there are no good men out there,” generally speaking. I’d say in fact that by use as a tool of protest, they are looking for support from good men who would want to date more equitably in the future (as opposed to fascist subjugation clearly on the table now in the US).
Sounds great, I hope it’s extended beyond four years. As far as I’m concerned, this is a phenomenon with no one losing much and that will sort itself out one way or the other on its own.
Men don’t seem to realize that the consequences of women getting equal treatment in the workplace means that more women have the freedom of self sufficiency, including not to date/marry men. Lesbian and bisexual women can of course date each other (and nonbinary folks) but heterosexual women are weighing the idea of dating a man not only against other men, but also against staying single. Relationships are work! Often more work for women who are typically assigned more domestic labor than men. And risk plays a huge part too- not only are women often at risk of pregnancy, but statistically more frequently victims of domestic violence if the relationship goes south. If the dating options are poor enough that the companionship doesn’t outweigh the work and the risk, of course women would rather not date at all.
Women are also less socially isolated than men on average. A lot of men get the majority of their emotional needs met through their partner, but women may be emotionally satisfied with other non-romantic connections.
This type of protest isn’t without precedent either. “Political lesbians” were (presumably heterosexual or possibly bisexual) women who entered relationships with other women for domestic support in the 1970s. Generally this wasn’t super appreciated by the lesbian community who typically prefer lesbians who are attracted to women, but, it was a different time.
I generally agree with your perspective, much of which the article also addresses. My observations are drawn from a quick scan of social media—TikTok in particular. While your points are sound and reasonable, I’m not entirely convinced they capture the full ‘meme-ness’ of this phenomenon as it currently appears.
As I mentioned, memes can sometimes become genuine political actions. However, the reasoning in the dozen or so TikTok videos I reviewed don’t necessarily align with your more thoughtful analyses of the decision itself. I’m inclined to take these women’s statements at face value, listening to their words rather than imposing my own interpretations. It’s disheartening to see anyone feel compelled to forgo intimacy or the potential for loving relationships as a form of protest against Republicans, especially when this choice doesn’t seem likely to have the intended effect on the intended people. In my opinion, things are challenging enough for women without adding this burden. Certainly, if someone feels this is the path for them, it’s their prerogative, and I see no cause to dispute it on a personal level. But the overarching sentiment in these videos strikes me more as an expression of frustration than as a cohesive strategy.
People often struggle to articulate why they choose to do some things and not others. If this idea appeals to women on social media, my point is there are a lot of underlying factors that make it so. Women might not be literally tallying pros and cons of dating but those things add up subconsciously, and get expressed through various forms of speech, including dumb memes.
I don’t think that women choosing not to date feel it as a burden either. If your choice is between someone who doesn’t treat you like an equal human deserving rights and respect or being a little lonely romantically, many will find freedom in staying single.
My point, regarding your second paragraph, is that no one should choose someone that doesn’t treat them like an equal human. But it’s a false premise that the choice is a partner that dehumanizes you or no one – though it might understandably feel like that at the moment. The fact that this feels like “how things are” is why it seems like post-election frustration-memeing. We shall see.
Frankly, I am perfectly happy for women if they never date men again. I would encourage it in fact. But I’m not really involved in the conversation.
I think that we’re circling the drain of agreement here, just expressing it differently. Yes, it would be sad to feel closed out of an aspect of life that you might otherwise enjoy like dating, but those are just decisions that people make all the time. Plenty of gay people choose not to date when it would be dangerous for them. Divorcées or widows might choose not to as well, and no one questions that. It’s no great tragedy, it’s just life. I’m sure plenty of people would also reserve the right to change their mind in the future if they met someone who meets their needs too.
As a form of protest, yes, it suffers from a rhetorical false dichotomy, but I don’t think people advocating it literally believe “there are no good men out there,” generally speaking. I’d say in fact that by use as a tool of protest, they are looking for support from good men who would want to date more equitably in the future (as opposed to fascist subjugation clearly on the table now in the US).
Sounds great, I hope it’s extended beyond four years. As far as I’m concerned, this is a phenomenon with no one losing much and that will sort itself out one way or the other on its own.