A perspective on gender equality: neither feminist nor red pill

We need a more comprehensive perspective on gender that isn’t biased against particular genders.

© Dave DuBay

I began writing about men’s issues a few years ago because I wondered why mass shooters are almost always male.

In one article for the Portland (Maine) Press Herald I wrote that social pressure to be a “real man” can push some men and boys—especially if they feel insecure—toward violence. And the hazing men experience in all-male groups and frequent lack of deep male friendships can lead to social isolation.

The “real man” trope also creates problems for women. The chivalric notion that men must protect women can lead some men to feel like they’re entitled to control women, which can result in domestic violence. On top of that, increased gender equality can feel like a loss of status for some men, resulting in what sociologist Michael Kimmel calls “aggrieved entitlement.”

But a deeper problem is that we scold men instead of taking men’s issues seriously. Over three-quarters of suicides are male, but when gender is mentioned the focus is usually on women and girls. Females attempt suicide more than males, but a cry for help shows they believe someone might listen. Males commit suicide more often because they don’t think anyone will listen.

I pointed to our culture’s zero-sum approach to gender as part of the problem—talking about men’s issues means excluding women, except when moralizing at men about “toxic masculinity.” Instead, I wrote that “one way to encourage men to be more empathetic is to be more empathetic toward men.”

I’ve also pointed out that masculinity is multifaceted. I wrote two pieces saying we don’t need to redefine masculinity because positive masculinity has always existed.

In the second piece I questioned the agenda of redefining masculinity. I accused academia of having an anti-masculinity bias. Some academics even call for the abolition of men as a social category. But even mainstream academia finds little good in masculinity. I noted that,

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory has some positive descriptions of masculinity, but mostly negatives concerning things men to do other people. According to the Inventory, masculinity is about violence, dominance, being a playboy, having power over women, disdain for homosexuals, emotional control, self–reliance, winning, pursuit of status, making work primary, and risk taking.

The Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory also describes femininity in positive and negative terms. The negatives, however, are the effects of masculinity on women and girls. Femininity is about self as mother, being relational and connected, being silent and dependent, being married, looking young and thin, being ornamental, pleasant, relying on and deferring to men, and being virginal while also being sexy.

In contrast, I quoted Dr. Martin Seager’s nuanced statement that it’s not gender that’s toxic, but “gender influences the way and the pattern that damaged people (of either gender) follow when responding to their damage.”

And I quoted writer Rick Belden who observed that healthy masculinity is often defined as how men treat women. But how would we respond to someone saying that healthy femininity is about how women treat men? Belden concludes that we’d do well to shift our thinking: healthy masculinity starts with how well a man treats himself.

Instead of redefining masculinity I said we should focus on a man’s self-determination to be the man he wants to be so long as he respects the equal rights of others.

Though I had written several pieces for the Good Men Project, they decided not to publish this piece. GMP is a male feminist website, and I realized that feminism is too narrow.

In retrospect, I’m surprised I got away with as much as I did at the Good Men Project. I wrote that men are not second class citizens, but a group need not be oppressed for us to take their concerns seriously. Our failure to sometimes even acknowledge male victims of domestic violence is one example.

Part of the problem, I wrote in another GMP article, is that research shows that society has significant bias for women over men. This bias often manifests as a lack of empathy for men. For example, feminists tell men to show their vulnerability but also mock men with hashtags such as #masculinitysofragile.

In yet another article for for GMP I wrote that telling men to show their vulnerability is problematic when there’s little support offered when men do. I noted that the international concern for the girls Boko Haram kidnapped was matched with silence about the boys they’ve killed or kidnapped.

And I pointed to a Department of Justice study which found that a significant number of boys in juvenile detention are sexually abused—almost entirely by female staff—but the media and sexual assault prevention activists have largely ignored them. A bigger problem than acknowledging male vulnerability is talking about female perpetrators.

In this same piece I questioned

the popular belief that men arranged society to privilege men at women’s expense. But this doesn’t account for the reality that throughout history the common man was used as a beast of burden and as cannon fodder. Or that even today when most world leaders are men, the bottom of society — the chronically homeless, victims of violence, prisoners, combat deaths, etc. — is overwhelmingly male.

Concluding that,

Rather than privileging men over women, patriarchy is more accurately a small group of powerful men exploiting both women and men. An important distinction is that while men have had greater opportunity for power and status, this power and status is not automatic or guaranteed. Instead, it must be earned with correspondingly higher risk. Failed men are disdained while successful men are lauded and rewarded.

On my personal blog I have rejected the claim that believing in gender equality means one must be a feminist. I think feminism is about left-wing women’s self-interest. Mostly that means equality, but not always. But because feminism is a movement of women and for women, a male feminist must take his talking points from women. Otherwise he’s “mansplaining” women’s issues to women. But this limits a male feminist’s ability to speak authentically about gender from his own perspective.

Despite my criticisms of feminist misandry, though, I also think the men’s rights movement is the wrong approach. I’ve criticized the MRM for its right-wing identity politics. While noting that MRAs are angry because they feel dehumanized, I concluded that both the MRM and feminism are focused on self-interest to the point of diminishing the concerns of the opposite sex.

I also criticized MGTOW—male separatists, or “men going their own way”—for playing the victim, promoting misogynistic stereotypes about women, and not really going their own way if they’re still preoccupied with women.

MRAs seem to blame feminism for almost every difficulty men face. But feminists didn’t create the modern world (though they have contributed greatly to it). However, we do need a more comprehensive perspective on gender that isn’t biased against particular genders and which takes the concerns of all genders seriously.

The perspective I’ve been promoting hasn’t yet accomplished that. I’ve been writing almost entirely about men and boys in an attempt to articulate a male perspective on gender that takes men’s issues seriously without portraying men as victims, which doesn’t promote sexism against women, and which promotes equality.

I do this because I believe that the well being of men and boys matters to society as a whole. For Arc Digital I wrote that men’s roles are changing in unexpected ways, including record numbers of men dropping out of the workforce. The job market has changed greatly, but expectations of men’s earning power—which relates directly to men’s ability to find love—haven’t changed. So young men are increasingly dropping out. Further, Warren Farrell and John Gray recently wrote The Boy Crisis about boys falling behind on several measures in 63 developed countries, and the role that father deprivation plays.

Our first concern should be to promote men’s well being. And that directly supports concerns about the impact of men and masculinity on society at large, including decreasing violence and supporting economic growth.

Advertisements

How some activists fail to understand equality

Supporting equality means supporting someone’s right to say no, even if you’re offended.

Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. © Dave DuBay

LGBTQ activists booed athlete Jaelene Hinkle during a May 30 soccer game in Portland, Oregon. A member of North Carolina Courage, she passed up a chance last year to play in a national women’s soccer game because she didn’t want to wear a LGBTQ pride jersey.

The Oregonian reports that

The U.S. Women’s National Team has multiple high-profile players that are openly gay and the team has a significant number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender fans. U.S. Soccer has made a concerted effort to reach out to those fans, in part by wearing the LGBTQ Pride Month jerseys last year.

The U.S. Women’s National Team has the right to ask that every player wear a LGBTQ jersey. But the option of regular or LGBTQ jerseys would have respected every individual’s right to make their own choice.

Equality is about living your life as you choose—whether you are LGBTQ, Christian, both, or neither. Equality is also about the equal responsibility to respect other people’s rights—even if you don’t agree with their opinions or lifestyle.

Hinkle, however, didn’t try to stop anyone from wearing a LGBTQ jersey. She only said she wouldn’t wear the jersey, even if that meant not playing for the team.

She demonstrated healthy boundaries. But LGBTQ activists saying Hinkle was wrong to exercise her equal right to not participate in something she doesn’t agree with fails to recognize that her choices belong to no one except her. No LGBTQ person’s rights were violated by Hinkle’s refusal just as no Christian’s rights are violated when a non-Christian refuses to participate in Christian prayer.

Nor were Hinkle’s rights violated when activists booed her. Their freedom of speech is their right. Equality guarantees we will all be offended at some point.

But neo-McCarthyism is a problem on both the left and the right—even to the point of demanding someone be fired just because they disagree on certain political issues.

Writing for the Washington Post, David French opines that we are struggling to define the boundaries of acceptable political speech. And he offers a common sense solution.

The first amendment limits government but allows people, organizations, and corporations to speak—and censor—as they choose. Organizations can and do endorse political viewpoints, and while they are not obligated to tolerate dissenting opinions from their members and employees, tolerance is consistent with American liberty. Further, consumers can walk away from companies that don’t tolerate dissent.

This applies to opinions about issues, however. Personal attacks are categorically different. Publicly insulting someone because they are gay, or Christian, or African-American, or anything else crosses the line. So ABC was right to fire Roseanne Barr, but firing NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem would be wrong.

The U.S. Women’s National Team had the right to insist on LGBTQ jerseys. Hinkle had the right to decline. Activists had the right to boo her. But the activists failed to acknowledge Hinke’s equal rights.

 

The Boy Crisis: a book review

Boys are falling behind in 63 developed nations.

I got a copy of The Boy Crisis at the library, but a tenth of the way into it I decided to buy a copy. It’s that kind of book.

Warren Farrell and John Gray document the toll that father deprivation has taken on our children—especially boys.

A former board member of the National Organization for Women’s New York chapter, Farrell was ostracized from the feminist movement when he began promoting evidence that fathers play a unique and essential role that mothers can’t replicate.

Rather than the simple narrative of the patriarchy benefiting men at women’s expense, Farrell claims that the men who ruled societies in centuries past exploited men too, but in a different way: men were beasts of burden and cannon fodder.

Until recently society focused on survival needs. People today often fail to understand how disease, famine, and warfare meant that even a couple hundred years ago every day was a struggle for life. Men were disposable as providers and protectors because women, via pregnancy, are the key to maintaining a population. Women were disposable in the service of childbirth, but that was a biological reality that our ancestors could do little about.

Twentieth century science, technology, and capitalism changed all that. Obesity is now the problem in developed countries, not starvation. Contraception gives women reproductive choices, and death in childbirth and infant morality are rare relative to the past.

The movement for women’s equality and freedom from traditional gender roles was a natural outcome of technological and economic progress. And feminism has been a resounding success. Women today earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees. And women are almost half of medical school graduates and more than half of law school graduates. Further, domestic violence against women and sexual assault have plummeted in the past quarter century.

Farrell and Gray say that empowering girls is important. But “let’s not throw out the boy with the bathwater.” High rates of divorce and society’s treatment of fathers as second class parents has created father deprivation for millions of children.

Farrell and Gray focus on father deprivation as the leading cause of the boy crisis because it’s the single largest indicator of male maladjustment. In appendix B they list 55 factors that are far more common for fatherless boys. These include reduced life expectancy, being more likely to commit suicide or commit a mass shooting, being more likely to join a gang (or even ISIS), becoming addicted to drugs or alcohol, ending up in prison, dropping out of school, facing unemployment, and being victimized by a sexual predator.

Dads make a unique contribution to children’s well-being, including boundary enforcement, improved social skills, healthy risk taking, improved emotional resilience, and more.

But too often dad is valued mainly as a wallet. We’ve accepted the claim that career men are privileged. Yet, women have options—work full-time, work part-time, or stay home with the kids—while men’s option are work full-time, or work full-time, or work full-time. And many men give up their passions for high earning but soul crushing careers. Historically, mom made “a sacrifice of her career.” But even today dad often makes “sacrifices in his career.”

We’ve ignored challenges that boys and men face in other ways, and this can have a huge impact. Males commit suicide almost four times more often than females. Yet, Farrell and Gray point out that the media often focus only on girls and women. And social worker Tom Golden claims that the National Association for Social Workers studies only female suicide because there’s no funding to study male suicide. In addition, white males—especially if they’re from higher income families—are especially at risk. Why? High expectations for them to prove themselves.

Females attempt suicide more often, but a cry for help shows they think someone will listen. But if you don’t believe anyone will listen you don’t attempt suicide, you commit suicide. The authors point out that Lois Lane is only interested in Clark Kent after she finds out he’s Superman. He must prove his strength first to earn the privilege of showing his vulnerability.

Farrell and Gray warn us, however, that “boys who hurt, hurt us.” They claim most mass shooters come from father deprived families. And almost 90% of mass shooters have had serious suicidal thoughts. But while Obamacare provides for free well-woman checkups (which include mental health screening), no such benefit exists for men. In fact, there are seven U.S. government agencies focusing on women’s health but zero for men. Yet, addressing the male suicide crisis won’t only save male lives—it’ll save the lives of others.

Though “toxic masculinity” is a popular topic, the term “hyper-masculinity” is a better description. Reading The Boy Crisis I realized that father deprivation is a significant cause of hyper-masculinity due to the lack of a mature male role model who can teach boundaries to a young man who is too eager to prove himself.

In an age where women don’t need men to earn a living (but still value a man’s ability to provide), and where the warrior role is no longer as valued as it was, young men face a crisis of purpose. And being involved fathers—or a positive role model if a man doesn’t have children—can become that purpose.

This is a particular challenge for divorced or unmarried dads. The authors say there are four essentials when dealing with this:

  • Equal time for each parent.
  • No bad-mouthing.
  • Parents living within 20 minutes of each other.
  • Counseling as co-parents.

They detail research showing how this benefits mom as well.

We need a shift in the way we think about the male role, the authors advocate. The hero sacrifices himself to take of others. Today’s man needs the “health intelligence” to know that he must take care of himself in order to take care of others—”healed people heal people.”

 

Stoic & Epicurean rivalry

Both can agree that a virtuous life is usually more pleasurable.

78F428B9-492F-41F8-A723-307FA972603C
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona © Dave DuBay

Stoics and Epicureans were ancient rivals. And some modern followers of these philosophies may feel inclined to perpetuate that rivalry. But it’s unnecessary.

Stoics and Epicureans have different answers to what it means to live a good life. There’s no objective answer to this question, of course. Your chosen path is your responsibility.

Stoics believe that virtue—justice, courage, practical wisdom, and temperance—is the greatest good. And not letting negative emotions overwhelm us is essential in this endeavor. As such, it’s crucial to distinguish between what is up to us—our choices; and what is not up to us—external events. We must regard external events as indifferent, not because they don’t matter, but because good or bad is about how we choose to respond to them.

Both philosophies warn against anger and fear—especially fear of death.

Epicureans believe pleasure is the greatest good. But that doesn’t mean sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. Epicurus taught that maximizing pleasure requires moderation and limiting our desires. Drinking a glass of wine is pleasurable but getting drunk causes pain in the long run. So avoiding pain is a greater pleasure than a desirable but fleeting physical sensation.

Stoics, however, point out that sometimes doing the right thing means doing something painful. And seeking pleasure or avoiding pain can at times cause pain to others.

Epicureans counter that virtue for virtue’s sake makes no sense—we seek to be virtuous because we find it pleasurable in the long run even if there are some bumps in the road.

But modernism clearly favors one philosophy’s ancient physics. Epicureans were and are atomists. Even in ancient times they believed we live in a material universe in which the gods do not interfere. Ancient Stoics, on the other hand, were pantheists. They believed the universe is God and that divine providence plays a central role.

While there are traditional Stoics who adhere to ancient Stoic theology, most modern Stoics have adopted a position similar to Epicurean cosmology. This doesn’t necessarily mean atheism or agnosticism, but it often does. Some modern Stoics are monotheists in the usual sense of the word, and a few are even practicing Christians.

Modern science means philosophical revisions for Stoicism far more than Epicureanism. The Stoic injunction to live according to Nature raises the question, What is Nature? Ancient Stoics said Nature is divine reason—the Logos. But that answer won’t work for a deist, an atheist, or an agnostic.

Nontheist Stoics reject the idea of providence and see fate as synonymous with blind cause and effect. Though Nature is still synonymous with reason, its basis is redefined as the best that evolution has endowed humanity with.

But despite their differences on how to live a good life, there is a common point for both Stoicism and Epicureanism: from a big picture perspective a virtuous life is usually more pleasurable than a life of vice. Individual moments are more problematic, but as a Stoic I hope if I’m tested I will choose to do the right thing even if it’s painful. Of course, I hope I’m never tested in that way.

MS-13 are animals. We all are.

726D89E5-7690-413A-B32F-D0D391E8C227
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. © Dave DuBay

President Donald Trump called MS-13 gang members “animals.”

E.J. Dionne from the Washington Post disagreed, saying that “It’s never right to call other human beings ‘animals.’”

And writing for the National Review, Dennis Prager responded that Dionne reveals “the moral sickness at the heart of leftism.”

Dionne thinks his position is beyond debate: “No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group…dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path.”

Worse, “Dehumanizing those he and his core constituents see as radically different is central to Trump’s project.”

Prager, however, writes that dehumanizing some people actually protects the rest of us. He continues, “By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.”

Prager means human in the moral, not biological sense. Otherwise, what meaning does the word “inhumane” have? Would Dionne not see the Nazis as inhuman?

Prager clarifies that inhumanity should be based on behavior and not “directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other immutable physical characteristic.”

Dionne deals in absolutes: never and no debate. But the problem with absolutes is a lack of nuance. However, Prager doesn’t add enough nuance to this discussion. He still imputes inhumanity to individuals based on group membership. Certainly joining the Nazi party or MS-13 involves a serious moral compromise. But some Nazis and gang members commit worse atrocities than others.

We have all harmed others. A key question is: At what degree of harm do we lose our moral status as human? And what must we do to gain it back? Too often the answer is self-serving and lacking in self-awareness.

We are all animals. Biologically and morally.

Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years. And like our chimpanzee cousins, we can be vicious. Even bonobos may not deserve their peaceful reputation. And we still carry this evolutionary heritage with us. But we also evolved frontal lobes capable of inhibiting violent behavior—capable even of reason when we are at our best.

We are all animals. But we can do better.

Prager’s statement about the sickness at the heart of leftism highlights the problem. His us-vs.-them attitude seems to assume that progressives are sick and conservatives are morally elevated.

Does Prager recognize that he too is an animal?

The animal within can too easily escape if we fail to admit we too are capable, under certain circumstances, of inhumanity. Those who fail to understand this are in danger of becoming the monster they seek to destroy.

Is classical liberalism the same as libertarianism?

Classical liberalism is a big tent with many entrances. Libertarianism is but one.

9197C72F-EE9B-48DF-BC15-94C879640DF5
© Dave DuBay

YouTube talk show host Dave Rubin likes to ask what, if any, is the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism. The most common answer is that there is none.

Classical liberalism used to be called just plain old liberalism. But while modern American liberals favor individual freedom in the social sphere, they are often anti-capitalist. Besides, the left today seems to increasingly favor the term “progressive,” which is more straightforward. Meanwhile, conservatives are stronger on economic freedom but weak on civil liberties. But libertarians favor both laissez-faire capitalism and a high degree of personal freedom.

Classical liberalism, like democracy, human rights, and capitalism, resulted from the Enlightenment’s focus on individuality, science, and reason. At its core, classical liberalism is the belief that individual rights are the basis of universal human rights.

After all, if I don’t support human rights for others then I have no reason to expect others to support my human rights. From this it follows that everyone—regardless of identity group or demographic profile—must be equal under the law.

Further, the things I have a right to are things that inherently belong to me. My life, my identity, my speech, my religion and beliefs, my innocence, and so on. Rights, then, restrict government from telling us that we can’t say certain things, that we can’t worship a certain god (or that we must worship a god), that we’re guilty without due process or a fair trial, and so on. But of course, government can restrict us from doing things that deprive others of their rights.

In other words, rights are about what government can’t do, not what government must provide. But this doesn’t prohibit government from providing certain things.

Checks and balances—mechanisms for each branch of government to override the others—also limit governmental power. And decentralization is important. Something should be up to the individual if it’s best handled by the individual. If a municipality can best handle something then the state or province should step back. And the national government shouldn’t intervene if the state or province can handle it.

This freedom extends to free enterprise. But how limited should government involvement in the economy be? Short of anarcho-capitalism most would agree that some government involvement is necessary. Libertarians limit this to property protection. But I think some government regulation of externalities—such as environmental protection; and the provision of a social safety net for the most vulnerable—such as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities—is ideal.

This is not a libertarian position. But it’s still within the framework of classical liberalism.

Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer writes for Quillette that “the prevailing emphasis on the group over the individual” departs from classical liberalism. The left categorizes people as oppressed or oppressors based on the intersection of identity groups they belong to. And the right “sort[s] people into collectivities according to religion and national origin.” This “self-factionalizing into groups” encourages “increasingly militant political and ideological movements rooted in personal identity.” Because they are so entrenched in identity politics, neither Democrats nor Republicans are liberals in the classical sense.

Shermer lists the essentials of classical liberalism as:

  • Democracy with voting rights for all adult citizens
  • Rule of law
  • Protection of civil rights and civil liberties
  • Police and military protection
  • Property rights and a secure monetary system
  • Free internal movement for all
  • Freedom of the press, speech, and association
  • Education available to all

To this he adds “adequate public spending to help the needy,” noting that he didn’t support this in his younger, libertarian days. But with a middle-age perspective he sees this as essential to a society that enables the individual to flourish.

Another example of a non-libertarian classical liberal is New York Times columnist David Brooks. A former Republican, he lends his support to the centrist Modern Whig Party. Brooks writes, “If progressives generally believe in expanding government to enhance equality, and libertarians try to reduce government to expand freedom, Whigs seek to use limited but energetic government to enhance social mobility.”

The original Whig Party collapsed in the early 1800s over the abolition of slavery. Whether Modern Whigs will become a political force remains to be seen (but I doubt it).

Whether the classical liberalism of Democrats like Bill Maher will prevail over progressive identity politics remains to be seen (but I doubt it).

But perhaps the biggest question of all is the future of the Republican Party. Young people avoid the GOP. But the large majority of millennials who remain don’t support President Donald Trump—the exact opposite of their elders. Millennial Republicans are also more supportive of marriage equality and legalizing marijuana. Will millennials root out right-wing identity politics? Maybe.

 

Let women make the first move: what Mel Magazine gets wrong

The passive voice is inconsistent with initiating.

© Dave DuBay

Will women asking men out on dates further the goals of #MeToo? Mel Magazine thinks so. And while Tracy Moore may be on to something, the way she frames it is problematic.

Moore begins with a conditional statement: “If men took a sabbatical from making the first move…” But why men must take a sabbatical in order for women to initiate dating is unclear. A social norm where a person—regardless of gender—initiates a date if they’re attracted to someone makes more sense.

But Moore’s suggestion that men, by taking a sabbatical, initiate women’s initiation of asking for dates means women aren’t really taking the initiative.

If women want to take the initiative then the onus is on women to do so. To initiate is to take responsibility, but the very title of her piece is ambivalent toward women doing this. “Let women make the first move” presupposes that men are actors and women are acted upon.

This is a common feminist theme. In 2011 the Fatal Feminist wrote, “Get me off this damn pedestal.” One blogger pointed out the author’s passive voice: she appears to be a damsel in distress waiting for a white knight to rescue her. To say women need to take responsibility if they want to be the ones to initiate dates is to not put women on a pedestal. It treats women as equals. But to say men need to let women initiate is benevolent sexism.

Moore goes on to explain the benefits of women initiating dates. I’m in agreement here. When I was single I got asked out on average once a year. It’s flattering. But that some women have always chosen to ask men out shows that men are not preventing women from doing this. Women who don’t ask men out are preventing themselves from doing it.

Moore also points out that the experience of being asked out will enlighten men to women’s experiences and likely increase men’s empathy for women. This would be a good thing.

But while she notes that women also will experience rejection is a new way, her piece remains mostly female-centric with little awareness of the male gender role.

Women often think men have more power in the dating world. Feminism in general is reticent to acknowledge women’s power over men because it muddies the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. In reality, both men and women have power and powerlessness when dating, but usually in different ways.

Twenty some odd years ago I was a recent college graduate who got a job working with people with AIDS. Gay bars often did fundraisers for us.

Being a twenty-three year old man in a gay bar is an enlightening experience. I’d walk into a gay bar and men would turn to look. It’s very ego boosting.

I didn’t think of myself as attractive before that mainly because as a shy guy I was mostly invisible to women. Both sexes experience invisibility, but I don’t think feminists have any clue that invisibility is far more common for men compared to women in the dating scene.

In a gay bar men would initiate conversations. Being shy, initiating conversations has always been a challenge, but I realized that if I were gay I’d have no problem finding a date. Yes, there were a few creeps. But most gay men were fine with me not playing for their team.

With asking for dates, however, women often have greater privilege than men. Asking women out on dates is not a choice for men—it’s an obligation. A man who doesn’t ask doesn’t date. Asking men out on dates is a choice for women, though. She’ll still date even if she doesn’t ask, though she might date more if she does ask. Going against social norms means she’ll face disparagement time to time. But having more options is better than having fewer options.