# R.E.S.P.E.C.T.



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

There is an incalculable amount of advice in this world instructing women on how to get what they want from men. Scarcely is there and issue of COSMO or a host of other women’s magazines that doesn’t have and article on how to find the right man, how to get and keep the right man; how to make that man love you, how to drive that man wild with desire, or how to get him to listen to you and help around the house.

There are a variety of books on the subject as well. One notable effort is Lori Uscher-Pines’ “The Get-Your-Man-to-Marry-You Plan: Buying the Cow in the Age of Free Milk,” which helps women corral that guy who is not sure he wants to tie the knot. 

Once she gets her prince charming, she may want to smooth out a few of his kinks. For this she can turn to the classic, “How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers,” by Karen Salmansohn and Allison Seiffer.

While I am sure that the laudable work of these ladies will help you find the partnership and intimacy that is the foundation of true love, I’d also like to offer my two-cents worth, as a man, with a little self-help magic.

Let’s call it, “How to Get a Man to Respect You.”

I can’t imagine why, but Uscher-Pines and the Trainer Twins didn’t address this in their books. And being that respect might actually have something to do with a relationships quality and longevity, I’ll try to pull up the slack.

I am tempted to apologize in advance to the many women who this advice does not apply to, but then again, those that really don’t need to hear this are unlikely to be offended.

Let us begin, ladies, with a definition of respect. I don’t know what it says in the dictionary, but I would define it as a feeling of admiration, and a tendency toward thoughtful treatment, based on the observed qualities in a human being. 

That is to say that respect is not a given. Respectful treatment is, but the actual feeling of respect is a product of what another person shows you to be their make up as a human being. I am sure you want to be treated with respect, but I am also sure that you would prefer that respect is genuine and not something that your man has to feign because he doesn’t really feel that way.

Now that we have a definition for respect, let’s proceed with how to get it, starting with communication.

I have heard many women say that one of their problems with men is that they are not very good listeners. I have to agree that at times they are not. So let’s look at how to improve on that problem.

The first thing that many women can do to make their man a better listener is to realize that all human beings are limited by their attention span. With that in mind, let me point out that “How was your day?” does not require a ninety minute answer. In fact, in most cases, anything more than about three minutes is too long. 

Now, you may find it fascinating that Myrtle in accounting has restless leg syndrome, but I assure you that your man doesn’t. Anything more than a passing mention of Myrtles twitching thighs will have him scanning the room for the remote control. 

He will likely never say so, but at a certain point he will to want to point that remote at you and frantically push the “mute” button in hopes of a reprieve.

The same is true regarding comprehensive descriptions of your shopping trips, disputes with family members and co-workers, and exhaustive detailing of all his mistakes and shortcomings.

Talk about whatever you want or need to within reason and your man will likely pay meticulous attention. But treat him like it is his duty to pay painstaking attention to rambling, circular diatribes that have nothing to with his life any you will find his attention waning.

Exactly as it should.

Once you practice talking with a reasonable expectation of how much your man, or anyone, should remain interested in listening to you, you will actually feel listened to.

You will respect him for listening, and he will respect you for respecting him.

Another area in which I have heard men criticized is with respecting, or “validating,” as therapists like to say, your feelings. 

And again there is some truth to this. For men, feelings have their place on the ladder, but not above reason or intellect. Men are problem solvers by nature, and the reality is that how they feel about something might identify a problem, but it does nothing to help solve it. So once feelings have served their purpose, men generally like to dispense with them and move on to solutions.

That doesn’t mean men don’t care how you feel. They just care more about fixing things. They should. Resolving problems has the peculiar effect of also addressing the feelings those problems create. Expecting men to listen to feelings at the expense of resolving the precipitating problem puts them right back on the search for that remote. It may seem unfair, maybe it is, but it isn't going to chenge.

So tell your man how you feel, but again, keep it within reason. If you do that, and then allow the conversation to focus on solutions, you will not only find that your feelings have been validated, but you will see that he is actually interested in what caused the feelings to begin with and in what he can do about it to help.

Again, you feel respected, and so does your man.

There is also one caveat about feelings that must be addressed.

They are not always reliable. Intellect and reason are far from empirical; emotions even less so.

Just because you feel a particular way doesn’t establish any fact except that you feel something. It doesn’t prove your man made a mistake, that he was insensitive about something or that he is hiding something from you. 

Feelings, whatever they are, are almost always transient. They change and vacillate and come back to square one about as often as they wane off into obscurity. Putting your partner on the “validate these as we go” program is not a formula for good communication or a roadmap to respect.

It is a splendidly good idea to run a check or two, or ten if need be, on your heart with your head before expecting him to take your feelings so seriously. Doing that check will reduce conflict, solve more problems, prevent more problems and free the relationship to be enjoyed more by both. 

I’ll assume you agree that is a worthwhile goal.

Another, very important thing you can do to gain a mans respect is to carry your financial weight. Now, if you are a woman that takes care of a home and raises children, that IS carrying your weight. 

But if you are like many women in these times who work and support themselves, then it will garner you a lot more respect if you reach for your purse to take care of your half of whatever you do together. Most men want you to, but will not bring it up for fear of running you off. If what you want is free dinners, then forget this part. But if you want real respect, don’t just offer to pay your way, insist on it. 

Thinking you are entitled to a mans money simply because you are a woman doesn’t command respect. And frankly, in this day and age it doesn’t show much self respect, either. Self importance, maybe, but that is not the same thing. Everyone likes to feel special, but that feeling doesn’t have to be gathered from another persons wallet.

There will always be men who take the old school, macho stance of “No woman is going to pay her way around me!” They are usually the same guys that think you owe them something when the check is paid. And the rest are just so insecure that they think this is their only way to companionship. I’ll wager that neither kind of man will ultimately respect you.

Most men won’t admit it, but many often wonder if the women they are with would even be around if it weren’t for financial perks. And some women won’t admit it, but the answer is often “no.”

Respect and security are bolstered by equality and undermined by a lack of it.

The thrust of this is that if you want respect, it really gets the ball rolling to start off by giving it. Every man and woman deserves respect, but we don’t get there by requiring partners to assume the role of a captive audience, personal therapist or an ATM on legs.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 2, 2009)

If you really buy into this, I'd suggest you start evaluating women as individuals and lay off the sweeping generalizations. Although it's well written, there's is an underlying contempt in this piece that is a little disturbing.


----------



## edropus (Jan 2, 2009)

There are already many tried and true methods women use to earn the respect of their men.  For example, in the words of Mystikal:

"Shake ya ass, but watch yaself,

Shake ya ass, show me whatcha workin with"


----------



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

JosephB said:


> If you really buy into this, I'd suggest you start evaluating women as individuals and lay off the sweeping generalizations. Although it's well written, there's is an underlying contempt in this piece that is a little disturbing.


 
LOL! I am shocked you feel that way.

I appreciate the nod to the writing, but I actually can't take the critique on generalizing too seriously.  One, I clearly acknowledged up front that this doesn't apply to many women.  That should speak for itself.

Two, after spending three decades in pretty close observation of relationships with men and women I can tell you with certainty that many men report frustration with the points in the piece with regularity.   I won't gag myself from saying the obvious (to me) just because some people get "disturbed" over the idea of a generalization.  No offense, man, but that is plain silly.

You should step back and take another look, Joseph.  I am not using generalizations to express contemt for anyone, but rather at certain types of thinking.  You might notice I took shots at a couple of types of men as well.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 2, 2009)

> I am tempted to apologize in advance to the many women who this advice does not apply to...


  Nice. No, seriously, you do an admirable job of disclaiming and mitigating your views, but you fall short. You’re just not seeing that statements like the above come off as a calculated preemption of the kind of criticism I’ve made.

 I’m giving you my perspective as reader, and it’s not convincing. If I don’t see the declaimers as sincere, then I’m left with the impression that these are just tired “us versus them” generalizations, a more literate version of the stand-up comedy routines about raising and lowering the toilet seat or excessive shoe shopping.

I strive to evaluate people on an individual basis. That includes women, of course. I know I come up short, but I do my best. In short, I have no problem with women whatsoever, and see no need to engage in some flawed, somewhat pointless analysis of women as some amorphous group -- all disclaimers aside. Nor do I see the need to give them some condescending lecture on what they need to do to get it right.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

JosephB said:


> Nice. No, seriously, you do an admirable job of disclaiming and mitigating your views, but you fall short. You’re just not seeing that statements like the above come off as a calculated preemption of the kind of criticism I’ve made.
> 
> I’m giving you my perspective as reader, and it’s not convincing. If I don’t see the declaimers as sincere, then I’m left with the impression that these are just tired “us versus them” generalizations, a more literate version of the stand-up comedy routines about raising and lowering the toilet seat or excessive shoe shopping.
> 
> I strive to evaluate people on an individual basis. That includes women, of course. I know I come up short, but I do my best. In short, I have no problem with women whatsoever, and see no need to engage in some flawed, somewhat pointless analysis of women as some amorphous group -- all disclaimers aside. Nor do I see the need to give them some condescending lecture on what they need to do to get it right.


 
Ok, then, that is at least a lot more clear. It's just a matter of preference in one way, interpretation in the other. I evaluate all individuals as individuals, and I don't even struggle to do it. It is actually pretty easy. But I write on matters from my own male experience and perspective. I don't toss all that out because I want to appear open minded. The truth is that I am open minded and quite fair.

And while I am sure you will find it difficult to believe, I have no problem with women either. I do have a problem with many of the rules and expectations we have developed and assigned to one sex or the other, as I think they are destructive.

I can't deny that I write a lot in terms of reaction and response to what I see. (see the two books I referenced in the piece) 

And you are right, the premeption of the criticism is calcualted. But not in the way you think. The "criticism" you offer is off target, as much as the criticism I get is. There is a knee jerk assumption in this culture that any honest criticism of some women, or of social rules and contracts that favor them is somehow unfair, reductivist or hateful. That criticism is rooted in thoughtlessness and sexism, Joseph. My website is "The Happy Misogynist" as a tongue-in-cheek play on the very reaction you posted.

You have proven yourself to be a very bright guy, IMO, but I just don't think you are "getting" this. That's OK, though. My subscriber list is growing daily (80% female from what I can tell) and traffic is picking up with each essay I release. I get a lot of email from men and women. Of the negative stuff, one simply read "Fuck you, Jew," which is funny since I am not jewish, and another was from a woman so illiterate and vulger that I wouldn't post it to the site. The last one was off base but cogent enough that I posted it for other readers. I have stopped posting the positive responses (almost all from women) because it creates an imbalance to have more of one than the other.

Again, I refer to the two books that I used for examples for the piece. One of them directly asserts training men like dogs. Now, you have not even mentioned that book so I can only assume it did not generate any kind of reaction in you. (perhaps a chuckle?)

There is a growing number of women, Joseph, that recognize that we practice really stupid rules with them, and I hear from them all the time. They are not losers or obsequious seekers of attention, but highly intelligent and usually very independant women. Many of them agree with most of what I write.  In that I find that they are real women, not little girls in women's bodies, which is mostly what this culture produces.

I know you hold strong to your convictions, but I maintain, as I did the last time we went round about this, that I think your thinking is much more outmoded than mine. Feminism created the need to give women EQUAL treatment, that holds true when it comes to hiring time or when, as a writer, I am challenged to assault the complacency of the world around me.

I hope you have a happy and prosperous new year.

Paul


----------



## JosephB (Jan 2, 2009)

This isn't the debate section, so it really should be more about how your views are presented. I think you do a good job in that respect, although I disagree with most, but not all them. They seem more divisive to me than anything else. 

I may not have thirty years of observation under my belt, but I’d say my views and attitudes regarding women have served me well. I have a good marriage and have had a few solid long term relationships prior. I have lots of women friends and women colleagues that I admire and with whom I enjoy working. 



> I do have a problem with many of the rules and expectations we have developed and assigned to one sex or the other, as I think they are destructive.


I think this is the heart of your message, and I agree with it. But why put the onus so heavenly on women? Both sides suffer (or benefit) from the perpetuation of these rules and expectations. And both men and women perpetuate them. After all, what does a man expect for picking up the dinner tab?

I have some experience and move in pretty wide circles. I just don't come across all these women who are little girls trapped in women's bodies. I see women who are effective in the workplace. I see hard working mothers and wives -- equal contributers in their marriages, if not financially, then by running the household and taking care of children  -- a  24 hour job. 

That's how I view most women. Otherwise, I will form my opinions on an individual basis.

Cheers.

EDIT: I forgot to return you New Year sentiment. Best to you in the new year too.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

JosephB said:


> This isn't the debate section, so it really should be more about how your views are presented. I think you do a good job in that respect, although I disagree with most, but not all them. They seem more divisive to me than anything else.
> 
> I may not have thirty years of observation under my belt, but I’d say my views and attitudes regarding women have served me well. I have a good marriage and have had a few solid long term relationships prior. I have lots of women friends and women colleagues that I admire and with whom I enjoy working.
> 
> ...


 
I see many of the same women the same way Joseph, but I also see the women who write books about training men like dogs (men write 'em too, bastards like McGraw) and I know that misandry sells. I don't even see that you are aware of this, and it makes me think that you may be more insulated than you are aware, It is just that simple.

But you are right, this is not the debate section. Here is a link to the first essay I posted on my site. It explains to women, and to you if you like, what I do. And it totally answers your question about why in my writing I put the onus on women so much. BTW, I have plenty to say about men, and do thoughout my work.

A Letter to Women


And by the way, I got the following email from a reader while we were having this discussion. I checked out her site, and it turns out she is a housewife and mother with a masters degree in history. I am really curious about your reaction to what she has to say. Why do you think she would feel this way about my work? I am not asking you to be a mind reader here, but I also think you capable of some sort of educated guess.

Out of respect I altered her personal information.

Flag this message
*The Happy Misogynist: This is soooo NOT hate mail!*

Friday, January 2, 2009 12:25 PM



From: 
"Cxxxx xxxxx" <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Add sender to Contact



To: 
thehappymisogynist@yahoo.com




This is an enquiry e-mail via http://thehappymisogynist.com/ from:
Cxxxx xxxxx <xxxxia9@gmail.com>

I love your definition of a misogynist. I love your essays. I love your response to the one hate mail - "Yes, women were chattel. And men were cannon fodder. Should we have traded?" 
YOU ROCK. And I'm posting a link to your site on my blog (xxxxxx.blogspot.com/). 
Personally, I'm thinking "chattel" means ALIVE, soooo - no, I wouldn't have traded!
Happy New Year!
Cxxxxx


----------



## Tiamat (Jan 2, 2009)

> I am tempted to apologize in advance to the many women who this advice does not apply to


_To whom_ this advice does not apply.  There's my only technical nit.  I've done my job.

As to everything else presented here, this is what I got out of it:

1.  Self-help books are a load of bull.

2.  Respect your man and you will be respected in turn.

Did I miss anything?  Because if not, then I agree.  However, despite trying to be unbiased even though men have bought me dinner before, I have some issues with your presentation.

See, you give generalized examples of why men don't listen to their women.  Most men don't care about restless leg syndrome.  Hey, neither do I, and I probably wouldn't be sitting on the edge of my seat hearing about it either.  But do you know what I don't give a rat's ass about?  I don't care what team won whatever sporting event took place most recently.  I don't care who scored how many points/goals/runs or who fucked up.  I just don't, and I'd wager that there are numerous women (and men) who agree with me.  My ex, however, cared about these things.

Did you catch the key word there?  Ex.  Which brings me to my point.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'It takes two to tango'?  I'm sure you have, and I'm sure you know what it means.  I've never seen a relationship fall apart that wasn't the direct result of the actions of both parties combined.  Sure, my ex ignored me and didn't do a goddamn thing, but then again, I was a condescending bitch that ignored him just as much as he ignored me.  See that?  Not his fault, not my fault.  _Our_ fault.

The way you present your ideas here, you make it sound like women are the only ones that take advantage of men.  I happen to believe that there are worthless twats on both sides of the gender spectrum, and I think, in terms of this article here, you would reach a much broader audience (and ruffle a lot less feathers) if you tried a more objective approach.  Just my opinion.

And about those self-help books you mentioned, two things:

1.  I have never known a self-help book to actually produce the results it promises.  (Have you ever met any of the fuckers that write these?  I have...)

2.  I'd be willing to bet my last dime that there are books out there like "10 Ways to Get into Her Pants on the First Night", so again, there aren't just retarded books for pathetic, desperate women.

Lastly, and completely off topic, _Anger Management _is the story you had published in _Oddville_, right?  I had you pegged for that one even before I found out your name was Paul.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

Tiamat10 said:


> _To whom_ this advice does not apply. There's my only technical nit. I've done my job.
> 
> As to everything else presented here, this is what I got out of it:
> 
> ...


 
You raise interesting points and pose valid quesions. I'll do my best to answer them. And BTW, yes on Anger Management. Gee, how'd ya know?:smile:

I caught the key word indeed. That was pretty much the point of what I was writing as well. I have a friend that is a sports nut. I could give a shit, and if we were married I would have booted his ass a long time ago. So I do understand. 

But that is NOT what I was writing about in the most important sense. Did you miss anything? Yes, I think.

What you missed is that this is not an attempt to adress anything but what I hear from many men when it comes to their experience with women. It is also a rebuttal to forty years of writings that purported to do this from the womans side and that NO ONE seemed to notice until recently when a few men started saying "Wait a fucking minute, maybe I got something to say, too." And your mention of sports is also lacking in one other key element.

Men have been told to just shut up and listen to women for a long time now. Google "men don't listen" and "women don't listen" and see the difference in the results. I haven't even done that, and I can pretty much predict the disparity.

To expand on that, here is an excerpt from my letter to women.

"There is no such rule regarding men. For better or worse, accurate or not, the darker side of men has been dissected, analyzed, documented and disseminated ad nauseam. Pointing out male deficiencies has become its own industry. Countless books, magazines and television and radio shows have exploited it for three-plus decades. Academia has ridden that wave, and often pushed it, all the way. The dark side of men has been so thoroughly infused into our collective consciousness that many have come to believe that the dark side is the only side men have. How else can one explain that the public proclamation that “men are pigs” scarcely even raises an eyebrow?"


My work, I believe, is part of an unavoidable trend to correct the pendulum that you will see more and more in the future. Personally, and no offense to you, I don't give a rats ass that there are also men that take advantage of women as it relates to my work. From the first print of "Women Who Love Too Much," the shelves have been filled with books about male scoundrels. It's a genre' so overdone that you can put a fork in it and turn it over. 

But I live in a culture where most people recognize the "misogyny" as a coined constant of the lexicon, but never even heard of the word "misandry."


It is not about payback, it is about balance. Most people still aren't ready for it, but hey, I never thought writiing would make me the life of the party. As to ruffeling feathers, I'll stick with Cyril Connelly's spot on moral ideal of writing.

"It is better to write for yourself and have no public, that to write for the public and have no self."


----------



## Tiamat (Jan 2, 2009)

> Personally, and no offense to you, I don't give a rats ass that there are also men that take advantage of women as it relates to my work.


I would say that's your work's biggest problem.  

But clearly you know what you're aiming for, so have at it and best of luck.


----------



## Lester Burnham (Jan 2, 2009)

Tiamat10 said:


> I would say that's your work's biggest problem.
> 
> But clearly you know what you're aiming for, so have at it and best of luck.


 

I am sure MANY would agree with you, but thank you for the good wishes just the same.


----------

