An Open Letter From Girls Like Me To Guys Like You

As always, I blame the mother. No, not mine. Yours.  All of yours. Apparently Freud was right.  Apparently you do want a girl who feels like home. But I am not your mother. I am not descended of those hungover from the Tupperware Generation. My grandmother was the only woman in her Master’s program; my mom has routinely told insurance companies to go fuck themselves while her children were in intensive care. But your mothers were not the ones burning their bras and making fits of passionate love behind the concert hall. Instead, they were at home, fixing your spaghetti and living off of the bacon your dad brought home.

So the girls you like are the ones who depend on you. The ones who whine when they have to eat alone. The ones who defer to your opinion because to speak up would be to risk you thinking she might one day reason her way out of the banal life you’re building together.

There’s nothing like a hot guy to make a smart girl stupid. Don’t get me wrong; I’ve been the stupid girl, too. And I can’t promise I won’t be her again. But I won’t let her linger. Every now and again I’ll look over my shoulder to see if some hot guy invited her back to the party, and if so, I’ll kick her ass out.

And this is why we never last. Because I don’t defer—not to you, not to your opinions, not to a belief system based on anything but coexistence. Because I won’t tell you I love you so you can clasp that love around my neck and use it to take me for a walk around the block. Because I have opinions, goddamnit, and you’re not always right. Most of the time, I am.

I know it’s ballsy to make such claims to empowerment when you’ve seen me on my knees. You know that I have been the modern day courtesan—more than once—and though I’m not necessarily proud of it, at least I wasn’t the girl on the other side of that toppling pyramid. I won’t be made a fool, and even less, even never, your fool. I am restless, reckless, relentless. I feel more at home with the Adele who’ll lay your shit bare than the one who’ll turn up out of the blue uninvited because, for her, it isn’t over. I’m at peace with over. And though I know it never should have started in the first place, I’ll never regret it. You were what I wanted, and being what you wanted was also what I wanted. But there’s a difference between want and need, and you’re scared of the girl who wants you but doesn’t need you because she may just decide one day that she wants something else.

You like the needy girls because need makes girls bend, acquiesce. And what could be more alluring than a girl who is bent to your will? And though, at heart, I’m still the kind of girl who will whip up a lasagna and answer the door in an apron and stilettos because I want to make you happy, I’ll never be the girl who does any of that because you told me to or have come to expect it.

So, take issue with my unwillingness to acquiesce. Find yourself caught off guard by a girl who knows what she wants and gets it because she works for it. Go on, make fun of my grammatical vigilance. Call me uptight. I don’t care. I’m sure there are things that matter to you for much less rational reasons, like whether or not the Yankees win tonight. I won’t copy edit your love letters, nor will I think less of you for writing “that” instead of “who,” or “who” instead of “whom.” These are my quirks, and if you can’t find them endearing, we really don’t belong together anyway.


P.S. I’m sure your mother is a lovely woman. TC mark

image – Andrew McFarland


More From Thought Catalog

  • Sailor Bob


    Girls like you give hope to guys like me of finding a girl like you.

    • Woyzeck

      I'm sure the writer will be glad to read that her article about female strength and independence pleased a man by making him think he could fuck her.

  • douchegirl

    Love this.

  • NatalieKeshlear

    fuck ya. this is excellent.

  • Jenna

    “You know that I have been the modern day courtesan—more than once—and though I’m not necessarily proud of it, at least I wasn’t the girl on the other side of that toppling pyramid”
    love that

  • El

    this is not feminism. this is boring and it's the same thing that was written ten, even twenty years ago. this is “i'm a feminist cause it's hot to seem independent.” sorry to use the h-word, but can we get something other than this shitty heteronormative straight girl whining? the worst kinds of sexism are much deeper-set and much more hard to pin down than “you want me to wear an apron and I won't do it for you!” what you are engendering is a type of male who pretends to worship you and your “strength and independence” but represses you in much less articulable ways. you will not be happier with one of these girly men than you would be with a straight up asshole.

    • STaugustine

      “this is not feminism. this is boring and it's the same thing that was written ten, even twenty years ago.”

      Gee, I wonder if that means that things haven't gotten any better in ten, even twenty years…?

      • Ken

        The woman I’m seeing posted this as a reference to her ex-husband.  I read it, and I liked hearing a woman’s point of view on something that could very well have been glossed over.  Truth be told… the reason that you find the same kind of statement dropped again and again every few years is because some women keep making the same mistakes, go through the same realization, and assure themselves, “Never again!” because it’s new to them.  Glad that every few years at least one more woman realizes she’s a worthwhile person without needing a man to validate her existence. :)

      • Ken

        The woman I’m seeing posted this as a reference to her ex-husband.  I read it, and I liked hearing a woman’s point of view on something that could very well have been glossed over.  Truth be told… the reason that you find the same kind of statement dropped again and again every few years is because some women keep making the same mistakes, go through the same realization, and assure themselves, “Never again!” because it’s new to them.  Glad that every few years at least one more woman realizes she’s a worthwhile person without needing a man to validate her existence. :)

      • STaugustine


        I’ve watched as social values shifted; I entered the “game” in the 1970s, when a certain kind of educated, art-inflected, Bohemian assumption about “women and men” was that sex was a healthy side-activity for humans who were essentially the same and equal: the roles of men, women (and all the other genders) were fluid. Again: that was a given only for a pretty small chunk of the populace… and, as it turns out, we were wildly (unrealistically) optimistic about things.

        It only took a little more than a decade before Men were again, across the board, expected to conform to a certain range of behaviors (including Earning Most of the Money) and Women were, too (Sex Object; Baby Factory). This essay of Eliot’s wouldn’t have gotten anything but whistles of approval from me and all of my high school friends in 1977.  But we wouldn’t have considered Strippers and Porn Actresses to be “empowered”; this is a regressive age… War is no longer obscene, most of the cultural Idols are now businessmen, and women who talk too tough inspire anger.  Stupid Epoch.

  • Tayla Dam


  • Amrita Tapadia

    Awesome! you seem to be subtle and strong  in the same breath. Loved your post, and I could so totally relate to it. :)

    • LO

      Subtle? Where do you see that?

  • simón

    Dear god, I am so in love with you.

  • Sarah N. Knutson

    LOVE this too. Well done, Eliot!!

  • Robin

    “Because I have opinions, goddamnit, and you’re not always right. Most of the time, I am.”
    This makes you sound rather bitter, arrogant and one-sided.

    • A Girl

      Maybe she is bitter.  And maybe she's being a little sarcastic.

    • moo

      Agreed. The whole text sounds bitter. If I had written it, it would have been after a bad experience when I need to get my shit back together and convince myself that I'm awesome on my own.

      Not saying it's not well written, and it does strike a chord with me, it just sounds… like you're still working through something. To be perfectly honest, my first thought was “Don't you have a personal blog or something?”

    • STaugustine

      “This makes you sound rather bitter, arrogant and one-sided. “

      This makes you sound rather angry, defensive and humorless.

      • Robin

        That's funny because I'm not angry in the slightest :) Nor do I have any reason to defend myself! It must be your interpretation, just as it's possible the author could be being sarcastic…

      • STaugustine

        “It must be your interpretation…”


      • Robin

        …and we're all entitled to that. Hence the comment section :) However, the author does give plenty of evidence to suggest she is bitter. If you can find anger in my single comment then I wouldn't like to meet you in real life lol.

      • STaugustine

        Dude, rejecting a paradigm does not automatically indicate “bitterness”.  Well, at least you didn't use the term “uppity”.

      • Robin

        I didn't say that it automatically indicated anything and suggesting that it was the reasoning for my comment is ridiculous. It's my interpretation *of that single line*, just as you have yours, and clearly we differ. I could be wrong. So could you. I was happy to leave it at that. I wasn't attacking the whole article. Go take your fight elsewhere jeez.

      • STaugustine

        Ha ha. Got called on your passive-aggressive maneuver (you just sound so damn superior with that “This makes you sound rather bitter, arrogant and one-sided”)… and now you're… bitter!

      • Robin

        LOL. Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation. Got it yet? I've already said that I could be wrong and that it was my interpretation, and you have yours. *Could* *be* *wrong*.

        I still think that someone saying “most of the time I'm right” and “god damn it I have opinions too and you're not always right” sounds quite arrogant and bitter. And that is really all there is to it. Don't read into things so much! My comment doesn't hide a hidden misogyny. I'm sorry if you desperately wanted it to. Your moral crusade against oppressors of those who reject the “White Boys Rule” social norm lies elsewhere.

      • STaugustine

        Don't much care for being called “bitter”, do you?

      • Guest

        You are awful. Robin is almost as awful for engaging you.

      • STaugustine

        You are SO wonderful!

  • CUinNYC

    You're uptight.

  • Viktoriya Gaponski

    Fabulous! Bravo! I like this very much.

  • Nljrock08

    Go make me a sandwich. I don't complain when you watch Laguna Beach, so don't complain when i watch the Yankees. Biotch.

    • XX

      Gross.  Also, I don't think the kind of girl who wrote this piece is the kind of girl who watches Laguna Beach.  Just sayin'.

  • STaugustine

    Like it. A lot.

    Re: “Freud was right…”

    …about upper-middle class, Belle Époque males of
    assimilated Jewish Vienna (a very specific milieu with which he was
    familiar).  Proposing that this theory of the  mother-son
    dynamic is “universal” when Freud (traducing Greek dramaturgy) had
    little knowledge or experience of the great majority of the Earth's cultures
    (past and present) was only standard Eurocentric hubris… with some Levantine
    spices sprinkled on top. The only thing that'll kill my erection quicker than *any*
    thought of my mother would be a photo of grandfather on the toilet, prolly. 

    Every relationship has a top or a leader or a CEO at any given moment… but that doesn't mean that person is *always* the leader or is inevitably the male. I know lots of relationship in which the non-penis-haver is in control and the penis-haver is always grumbling or pulling passive-aggressive-adolescent stunts in protest… but you'll find that that's more often the case in over-40s.

    Feminism starts, IMO, with turning off the Television. The Television is the electronic dick that pretends to be a tit and it's full of normative electro-semen.  You have to break the Olde Patterns. No TV in this house (we're raising a daughter, now 5) and because Mama is a gigging classical musician, and I work at home, I was the diaper-changer and bottle-dealer and master of toys. I'm still more in tune with our daughter's hunger/sleepy cycle than Beloved Wife is: ie: I am the De facto Mama. I'm also by far the better housekeeper.

    But my Wife is the hottie and I like how she shake that thang. It's a trade-off.

  • eferf6
  • Ash1975

    Damn, honey, get a dildo or something…it's not that serious.

  • Roby

    Never settle.

  • Alison

    Is this your application to be a Suicide Girl?

  • Duke Holland of Gishmale

    Smart, strong, sassy, and sexy. I like you.

  • Steven Timberman

    Bitter and angry, and I feel like you're ten years too late on this message.

    I like needy girls, but not because I'm a power maniac CEO from WSJ. I like needy girls because I myself am needy. And high maintenance guys don't go well with low maintenance girls.

  • STaugustine

    Since Media is *overwhelmingly* skewed towards pleasuring/flattering white adolescent males, it's interesting to watch the commenters who have been raised within this distortion bubble react to an essay which challenges the presumption of “White Boys Rule”. This essay could probably only score more angry/hissy/dismissive responses if it had been written from the perspective of someone Black who had also tired of the second-class role he or she is always more than welcome to play :  “No, I won't be your big vicarious dream dick or goofy-assed clown or edgy reporter from The Hood any more” etc.

    • Steven Timberman

      I'm fairly sure damn near every “alternative” piece of art since 1946 has been against the idea of “white boys rule”. It is not new to anger against that particular class.

      And as a member of that select group of people (ironic high five!), I'm getting rather tired of our name getting pilloried day in and day out.  Women have their challenges, men have their challenges, and race similarly cuts a billion way from sunday.

      • Woyzeck

        I'm a white boy too, but seriously Steve: there is no way that we have it as bad as women.

      • inflammatorywrit

        I think I love you.

      • Steven Timberman

        I'd argue that the burden to perform, to capture, to entertain is similarly limiting as any “modern” woman's burden you could throw my way.

      • Woyzeck

        We're possibly talking past each other here, in that I feel no such burden (if I perform or entertain it's because I enjoy doing so); but in recent months women I know have had to deal with issues like abortion (which does have an effect on the man involved too, but not as serious and direct), rape and a constant series of men trying to “capture” them. To that we can add HPV (about which an article appeared on TC yesterday) and the issues raised by the recent Slutwalk movement. I really don't think our experiences compare. I mean, we all have problems; very few of my problems, personally, have been caused by the fact that I'm male however and I don't think I'm alone in that.

        Excuse the excessive use of parentheses.

      • ClarenceDW

        If you are male and not of the upper middle class or above,  many problems in your life will be caused by the fact that feminism never fully emancipated females. It gave them rights without any responsibilities, socially most of them can play the Empowered Woman or Damsel in Distress as it suits them. If you really believe men have it so good perhaps you should check into family law in your state, if you want to see how “equality” is conducted on the ground in terms of parental rights and responsibilities perhaps you should consider that pregnant females have the options to:
        A. Have baby
        B. Abort
        C. put the little sucker out for adoption. In some states if you don't list yourself as a “putative father” you will have no say whatsoever in this case.
        D. Abandon the baby  at a hospital. Most states have “safe haven” laws.

        Meanwhile your reproductive rights consist of the following:
        Exactly zero. You don't even have to have vaginal intercourse with a woman to be assessed child support (read all about the case of the stolen condom!) and no one gives a crap whether you were raped or statutorily raped or not.


         Here's from The Straight Dope:
        “This isn't the only case in which a sperm donor has
        been ordered to pay support, nor is it the only case involving
        nontraditional ways of getting pregnant. First, there are the stolen
        sperm cases. For example, in a New York case, Deon Francois banked some
        frozen sperm at an NYU lab while he and his wife were trying to get
        pregnant. They broke up; he moved out, stopped paying the storage fee to
        NYU, and assumed NYU would discard the sperm. Instead, his estranged
        wife forged his signature on a release and notarized it with a stolen
        notary stamp. She used the release to get the sperm from NYU, which
        hadn't discarded it; got pregnant; and then sought child support in her
        divorce case. The judge awarded her $150 per week.
        In other cases women have inseminated themselves with
        sperm from fellatio or from a condom (or so their male acquaintances
        alleged), then sought child support — and won”

        As you can see from the above links in some cases it literally doesn't matter whether you were passed out drunk, underage, or didn't even have vaginal intercourse or sexual intercourse of ANY KIND!!?! to have some woman decide she wants to have your baby.

        Yet if you are dying to have a child and offer to take it off her hands entirely if she doesn't want it so it won't bother her – well, she still gets to abort.

      • Woyzeck

        Stealing sperm, extorting child support etc. – yes, I agree with you that these are uniquely male problems. I believe that the law errs on the side of caution in this case, however – in most cases, there is no ambiguity about the nature of the child's paternal descent nor doubt about how it came to pass. We do not have the problem of walking down the street one dark night and being accosted by a jizz-crazed witch. Semen theft is not a major social problem. We could I suppose do away with child support entirely; this would necessitate raising wages and being able to provide employment for every single mother out there, or for child support to be shifted to the government in which case taxes would have to be raised quite dramatically.

        If you're arguing that men should have the same rights to decide about a woman's reproductive choices as the woman does then you've lost me, I'm afraid. It is utterly insane to suggest that men should have the legal right to force a woman to have a baby. And again, I don't feel that anything you listed comes close to the problems I listed. Being forced to give up part of your paycheck to raise a child is a terrible thing under those circumstances, but it is not comparable to the struggle to raise a child without help from anyone.

        This isn't a question of equality. It would be if men could carry babies, but alas we can't.

      • ClarenceDW

        I'll have you know that:
        A. Child support is one of very few debts that can't be discharged by bankruptcy
        B. Set arbitrarily state to state. There are two main “models”  that are used to determine it, but the amount needed to raise a child  has never been investigated by a panel of economists; indeed in some states they've let private collection agencies set the amounts
        C.  You can go to jail if you don't pay it, even though “debtors prisons” are specifically outlawed in the Constitution, they've gotten around that.  While there and not working (although  often it was lack of a job that put you there) some states will charge you interest on your debt.
        D. Modifications are not always easy to get, especially if you are “inputed” income. You might want to google the term “inputed” income.
        E. Until recently in most states if you were declared the father of a child by either marriage or by proclamation of the woman who was pregnant you would legally BE the father of the child unless you contested it within a period of time usually ranging from 90 days to a year. Since often the mother had the wrong name and it wasn't required that you actually be SERVED this notice,   ten of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of men nationwide were paying support of various levels under threat of jail as above for kids that weren't even theirs. In the past five to ten years there's been SOME reformation of the laws , but some states still haven't changed, and some men are SOL even with the new laws. It's even worse if you are married; due to ancient common law policy a husband is the presumed father of any kids born in a marriage (because back in the day they couldn't perform paternity tests) and thus there are guys that have had their wives divorce them, tell them the kid wasn't theirs, move in with the guy who made the kid, and former hubby has to pay.
        F. They have many more enforcement tools now then they used to. They can take your license, your passport, garnish your wages, take your income tax, ruin your credit scores, and reposses property.
        G. Child support is taken off your “pre tax” income and you cannot claim it as a deduction on your taxes. The person RECEIVING the child support doesn't have to declare it as income. Sweet, huh?

        Now, partly the reason for all this is that in the past enforcing CS was a crapshoot. It depended on the judge as to whether the woman (or in rare cases man) would get any whatsoever, and it was very hard to enforce esp if the payer moved to another state.  While the Fed government started to get involved in this in the early 70's (Bradley Amendment), inconsistent enforcement was very much a big deal even up to the early 90's though some of the reforms started in the mid 80's.  But they've gone too far in the other direction. Now the men who “win”  despite child support are of three types:

        A. Very poor men sometimes get little or no assesment
        B. Wealthy men can pay it and laugh ..and yes, it will be adjusted to reflect that the child of a wealthy man should have a wealthy lifestyle but even so, wealth is wealth and you can pay.
        C. Men who are used to “working off the books”. Often the criminal class or someone with a specialized skill that people are willing to pay him for in cash.

        The losers are the working poor and the vast amount of middle class men who can't escape their debts no matter how unfair.

        Now why did I bring this up? Because child support can ruin a man's life and health if he has the misfortune to get stuck with an unfair amount that he cannot pay. You know what can happen to someone  in jail, and often to try to pay it means taking two or three crappy jobs (most lower level jobs these days pay less than 10 per hour) It's even worse if its for a kid that isn't his ,  or in some of these weird cases where he didn't even have sex (or at least consensual sex) with the mom.  And then there's the visitation that the state finds it hard to enforce , but just you try substituting food or clothing  for cold, hard, cash…

        I think you are taking this stuff way too lightly.

      • Woyzeck

        You'll notice that I didn't contest anything in that lengthy screed of yours but the very final point, and even then in a manner almost entirely relative to opinion. I still don't think the great evil of child support is worse than rape, experiencing an abortion or raising a child alone. I never said that I think the child support system is perfect (or anywhere near it). I won't play strawman for your moral crusade, for the simple reason that I don't disagree with you on this matter. What I do disagree with is the suggestion that men have a harder time of things than women; if all this information you've provided about child support is to argue this point then that is where we disagree and that is worthy of discussion, but I'm not disputing the facts behind it.

        I'm sure this would have been an admirable response in another context; but unless you can provide evidence that jizz-larceny and father-slavery are genuine social problems affecting a majority of the male sex in our society then I'm afraid it's not apropos to the topic at hand.

      • ClarenceDW


        Child support affects millions of men in part because so many marriages with children end in divorce.
        And you are playing what is called “Oppression Olympics”. I really have no desire to argue this with you but you might consider that while the majority of those at the top are men, so are those at the bottom in terms of power and economic class, and white and black bums on the street far outnumber  white and black male CEOS. So this isn't some one way street. Heck, just getting you to see how things are in terms of reproductive and child support laws is enough for me.

        Now I'm going to explain a few terms:

        Andrarchy: Rule by men “as a class” meaning that not only the leaders but the common men are privileged for sexist reasons in political or economic (or both) power over women. A society by, for, and about men and their needs.
        Patriarchy: Rule by the Fathers.
        Quoting Wikipedia: Patriarchy literally means “rule of fathers”,[2][3] from πατριάρχης (patriarkhēs), “father” or “chief of a race, patriarch”.[4][5] Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic
        rule by the male head of a family. However, in modern times, it more
        generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by
        adult men.[6][7][8][9]

        You'll note that it's generally bastardized to mean “Andrarchy” as above, when in fact, in many  ancient and modern societies men who weren't fathers had no particular power over women or children.

        Gynocracy: Same as Andrarchy , above, “rule by women”:  A society in which average women have more political or economic or both power than average men, female needs priortized.

        It's arguable whether there's ever been a gynocracy or andrarchy (in the pure meaning of the terms, basically it would be like a sex war with one side gaining total victory) in history.

        Matriarchy: Rule by mother; often misrepresented as “gynocracy” but in fact, all it really would take to form a matriarchy is that the role of mothers would have higher social and legal status than the role of the father.

        Most societies throughout history have been more or less patriarchal with a smattering of matriarchal elements in their cultures or laws. None to my knowledge have ever unilaterally privileged males over females in all social or economic contexts. If you know your history of the USA for instance, you will note that there was never a time where some males or all males could vote and no females could, despite that fact that we did arrange a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing female voting rights about approx 150 years after the USA was founded.

        Now, given the reproductive and child support laws I've linked to and discussed above, do you want to tell me which one of these four terms best fits “family law” in the United States?

        If you are honest, you will admit we are no longer in any meaningful sense a “Patriarchy”, indeed we have a strong Matriarchal element present in our reproductive laws. Now you may argue there are other laws or customs that “andrarchic” in nature, and that's fine , but I trust you can see that this society is certainly not built only for or to privilege men any more.

      • STaugustine

        “If you are honest, you will admit we are no longer in any meaningful sense a “Patriarchy”…”

        The logical fallacy you're indulging in here is:  A) Powerful men are pushing less powerful men around B) the result of “A” yields collateral benefits for “women” C) therefore, “women” are in charge. What you don't understand is that the point of “A” is not to “empower” women but to (among other things) relieve the State of certain related expenditures, while supporting reproduction: despite the populist meme of “over population”, birth rates are falling for many demographics (read: “not enough whiteys getting hatched”).  Society is demonstrably a Patriarchy. Your initial comment is a non-sequitur in general and incorrect, specifically, on that point.

      • ClarenceDW

        St Augustine:

        You might want to consider that my first link is to a website run by a woman who helped push for and WRITE many of these laws.  You are pretending that feminist family law groups do not exist and did not specifically PUSH for many of these policies. You seem to think there are no powerful women, and that, even though women make up the majority of voters they neither push for their interests nor do the powerful people at top ever listen to them.

        You've failed miserably to disprove my point.

      • STaugustine

        “You seem to think there are no powerful women”

        I think there are quite a few powerful women operating within the context of  Patriarchy.  All over the world.

        “You've failed miserably to disprove my point.”

        I certainly failed to disprove it for *you*, but I never expected to. Carry on.

      • ClarenceDW

        Actually you made assertions and failed to back them up.
        Apparently you believe in some nutty conspiracy to increase the birth rate even though some of these policies and court rulings go back to the mid 1980's. I think you fit in rather well with the people that believe in the New World Order. Replace the Illuminati with the imaginary Patriarchy, and you are all set!

      • Woyzeck

        Sigh. Yeah, because if you read my posts, you can clearly see that I'm arguing that men are “unilaterally priviliged” over women. That's really the discussion we're having. And I've totally been saying that America is a patriarchy.

        To take a detour away from sarcasm for a moment just to clarify another point: I'm not trying to suggest that society is deliberately set up to oppress women. I haven't said that and I don't think it. As a matter of fact, nobody was discussing oppression until you came along and started talking about the great social tragedy of our time, the rape of men and the harvesting of their seed. You are, by the way, yet to demonstrate how many men this affects, and yes in the context this is an important point to establish.

        I'll admit I'm no expert in American law. Part of the reason for that is that I'm not American and have never lived in the USA. But I honestly can't accept your suggestion that laws regarding reproductive rights are matriarchal in nature (in terms of the common definition), or if they are (accepting the broad definition you included above) that this is inherently a bad thing. You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a difference between choosing to carry and give birth to a child and choosing to tell someone else to do so.

      • ClarenceDW


        If you don't find tens and more likely HUNDREDS of thousands of men paying CS for children that are not theirs at the point of a gun and the threat of jail and other life ruining policies to be something important you have a screwed up set of priorities.  It also should outrage and shock any sane person that our laws are so screwed up that even if the absolute numbers are small that male victims of RAPE can be forced to pay child support.

      • STaugustine

        A woman writes assertively about (among other thing) the heterosexual sex-dynamic and this is the response she gets: you throw everything and the kitchen sink at her. This has no relevance to the essay under discussion. Wait until there's a Thought Catalog article about… oh… hmmm… child support? And go nuts with it.

      • ClarenceDW

        Well SA, I see you are rather dense:

        I replied to Woyzeck who brought up how hard women have it.  We've both been off-topic, but you only complain about me.  I think I see an ideologue.

        Anyway from your other blatherings on this thread I think I see someone who took a “gender studies” 101 course and read a few books on Queer Theory and thinks that they are hotstuff.

      • Woyzeck

        Clarence mate, can you read? When did I ever say that I don't think it's important? You seem unable to grasp the fact that I'm not disagreeing with you on that. It's not relevant to the discussion we're having. I refuse to be your windmill.

      • Woyzeck

        One day we shall elope.

      • ClarenceDW

        Could you possibly kiss any more butt?

      • Woyzeck

        Whatever floats your boat, but for that I charge £5.

      • inflammatorywrit

        Way to ruin my first romantic moment online, jerk.

  • Viktoriya Gaponski

    It's not a matter of being a feminist, but rather being your own person. There is nothing wrong with a smart, independent woman who knows who she is and has boundaries. The author made a very good point that men who were (and still may be) spoon fed by their mothers can only feel manly with a girl who has daddy issues.

  • Eliot Rose

    Thank you for all of the support and all of the challenges.  There is a great dialogue brewing here.  Just wanted to say that I am now officially making a concerted effort to tweet.  Follow me here:!/Eliot_R


  • lillylilacs

    I love this. Especially “And though, at heart, I’m still the kind of girl who will whip up a lasagna and answer the door in an apron and stilettos because I want to make you happy, I’ll never be the girl who does any of that because you told me to or have come to expect it.”

  • casey

    i loved this.

blog comments powered by Disqus