PC overload, or am I really an oinking pig?
Am I a "wannabe sensitive new age guy" or a "patriarchal asshole?" Within the past 24 hours, I've been called out as both. And I don't identify with either label; they don't really speak to my soul, so I'm hoping a "c" choice comes up soon.

Those remarks, skimmed from the message stream generated by the presence of my "profile" on several online matchmaking boards. Yes, I do list on a few, but this post isn't to explain or defend why I do that. Rather, it's all about my word choices therein.

Typical to these profiles is a query regarding "What type of partner are you looking for?", "Describe your ideal match," or somesuch. My standard response to this portion of the form contains, in part, the following verbiage:

I like women who are self-assured and independent, yet willing to be vulnerable and feminine at the right moments.

My critics assert sexism is just reeking out of every syllable in that sentence. If that's true, how unfortunate for me. But I've yet to decide whether or not there's merit in that assertion. I'm a well-spoken person, I know my intent wasn't sexist, and I don't always react immediately to negative feedback.

Saieth critic #1:

i see you using lots of sensitive male adjectives here, but i can see youre uncomfortable with them. you really betray yourself with the 'vulnerable & feminine.' what the fuck is that? even a wannabe sensitive newage guy like you ought to see the contradiction.

I assume the writer (who really betrays herself as a wannabe dominant personality by eschewing capitalization, dont'cha think?- oops, that slipped out) believes I am indeed equating vulnerability with femininity. For the record, I wasn't; I was holding two separate concepts in my mind when I wrote that, then I lazily spliced them together with perhaps the wrong conjunction. I was using those terms loosely as antonyms to "self-assured and independent," which in theory should not prevent a woman from being "vulnerable and feminine," but in practice often seems to. I want someone who can move between the worlds, fair enough? And, to boot, I say "willing to be," which I think further relates my vision of a woman having the power of this choice.

Critic #2 makes the same distinction, with a further twist:

Who would be deciding which moments are the "right moments?" In the world of the patriarchal asshole, I suppose this means whenever you have a hard-on.

There's the problem with suppositions, right there. And wow, what an aggressively sexist response to boot. In fact, this is the comment that makes me want to leave my profile alone. If my statements are repellent to women who have such ill-conceived perceptions of men, they're working just fine. Still, is there merit to what she says? I envisioned "right moments" as a muturally nirvanic, privately shared state of romantic bliss, that perhaps eludes a description of greater specificity or brevity. Ya know you're in it when you're there, I guess. Or maybe not, depending. Could I state it better, or more neutrally?

On second thought, I could always revise my profile to read "ISO outgoing, fun chick (at least 15 years younger than me, of highly uncommon and unrealistic physical attributes) who likes to party," and avoid this mess altogether. That's what other guys my age seem to be doing on these sites, and I doubt they're wrestling with these issues. 2:04:07 PM    comment []trackback []