Conflict Between Men and Women in the 21st Century | Girls Chase

Conflict Between Men and Women in the 21st Century

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.


Last week, I wrote about what's wrong with dating in America. I wrote it after being troubled when reading about the latest round of pettiness erupting into a media firestorm because of the "battle of the sexes"; at tech convention PyCon, a female employee of email company SendGrid heard a couple of male employees of game developer PlayHaven making juvenile jokes about the words "dongle" and "forking," turned around, took their pictures, excoriated them online, and PlayHaven fired them.

conflict men women

After the resulting firestorm, centering on this individual who had a couple of men with families fired for whispering jokes to one another in a conference, SendGrid attracted a great deal of hostility from the developer community (in other words, its customer base), and consequently fired the picture-taker. (You can read the full article here, if interested.)

That got me thinking a lot about where all the virulence between the sexes in the West has come from recently. You don't see it a lot of other places in the world... just here. Like I talked about in the article on bitter women, I'm not really so certain there are that many truly terrible people out there, as much as it is that the Internet acts as an emotion amplifier and makes it seem so, with its text-only, subtext-free, tonality-free communication making everything seem so cut and dry, black and white, and frequently making everyone sound so certain, absolute, and polarizing.

But as I thought about it, I realized there was something else causing conflict between men and women, too: a product of a mix of the modern unisex workplace and social environment, and the Western ideal of independence, but not at all what any of the women (or men) struggling for women's rights ever expected - that "equality," at least as most people have fought for it for Western women, has really ended up meaning that women are now required not only to fight with other women for what they want, but to fight with men now too - and that men are required to fight them back.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.



Donovan's picture

Interesting quote from Nietzsche that seems very apropos:

"In the three or four civilized European countries, one can in a few centuries educate women to be anything one wants, even men—not in the sexual sense, of course, but certainly in every other sense. At some point, under such an influence, they will have taken on all male virtues and strengths, and of course they will also have to take male weaknesses and vices into the bargain. This much, as I said, one can bring about by force. But how will we endure the intermediate stage it brings with it, which itself can last a few centuries, during which female follies and injustices, their ancient birthright, still claim predominance over everything they will have learned or achieved? This will be the time when anger will constitute the real male emotion, anger over the fact that all the arts and sciences will be overrun and clogged up by shocking dilettantism; bewildering chatter will talk philosophy to death; politics will be more fantastic and partisan than ever."

Chase Amante's picture


Interesting quote indeed. Odd how prescient some people can be about things that are to come... or, perhaps, this trend had already begun in the 19th century, and its roots stretch back to the factory floor rather than only to the cubicle.


Fidelbogen's picture

What, you wish to know, has made things go awry between men and women?

I can tell you in one word: Feminism.

We must run feminism out of town on a very hard rail, and purge the culture of misandry and anti-male bias in all of its insidious forms.

Either that, or we continue on our civilizational path toward a cliff, and a very nasty plunge from it.

Have a fine day.


Chase Amante's picture


There is a lot of hate speech / oppression / shaming coming out of the extreme feminists these days. There's also beginning to emerge a clear a backlash against it, and many of its proponents are realizing this, too, and starting to shift their rhetoric.

But getting tough on feminism feels a lot to me like getting tough on crime, or the war on drugs, or the war on terror - yes, it's good to defend yourself against the things that present an immediate danger, but the big picture question is, "Why is society trending this way in the first place?"

Why are people committing crime? Why are they using, buying, selling, and killing for drugs? Why are they blowing one another up? Where do the bad attitudes and antagonistic approaches come from in today's gender politics?

If you point a finger and say, "It's feminism's fault!" it's every bit as easy for those on the other side to point back and say, "Hey wait a minute - feminism is a reaction! We're reacting to you!"

You don't you get anywhere by pointing fingers at groups of people, unless you're seriously going to go to war with them and eradicate them like the Romans did the Carthaginians (and that'd be sort of impractical and self-destructive when it comes to the battle of the sexes). If individual people do bad things - whether those bad things are actually criminal, or whether they're more a kind of social or legally-sanctioned violence (i.e., divorce law in the U.S. and Sweden) - you do need to push back on them, yes.

But, until you figure out the root cause - in this case, women and men competing for the same resources - and address it, you'll be stuck in constant firefighting mode without any real end in sight, because the social structure remains the same, and it just keeps churning out more adherents faster than you can do anything about it.

You can't fight society and win - you can only redirect it by altering the incentives for a society's members at a large enough scale, incentivizing them to think, act, and behave differently, and to strive for and want different things (which is what the modern workforce did with women - it changed the incentives and changed the game, and thus changed women and how they feel about and interact with men).


Anonymous's picture

You make a good point. It should ultimately be about peace, making peace. Bringing things back into balance and such. However ... fighting a thing like feminism sin't fighting society itself. But that does make a solid point about how pervasive it is. ... my key point is peace cannot be made unless all want peace. Since they do not want peace when men are not fighting them .. might they want it if men do? It might work better than doing nothing, placating or trying to improve their lot since none of those have worked. Not all on feminisms side want peace, they want 'man bad, woman good'.

Chase Amante's picture

This is true, there are absolutely people who are hardcore and in it for the fight. There are some women who are just whipped up and see themselves as victims of men and are doing everything in their power to undermine men in society.

In the grand scheme of things, these are trite and meaningless efforts on their part. Society as a whole is realistically never going to make men second-class citizens... and if a society did it'd be absolutely ass-reamed by the societies that don't - men far, far outstrip women in lifetime productive capacity, and a society that discourages its men from producing falls into utter ruin - fortunately, we're nowhere near this in any nation on Earth. Men are frustrated in some countries... but they're a far cry from being disenfranchised. And some men are always frustrated with the state of things, and some women always are too. And some men and some women always are malcontents... this is history. The trends repeat themselves again and again and again in every generation.

When you look back throughout history, if you really dive into things, you can see all manner of fights over how things "should" or "should not" be. Most of these fights are petty and pointless, and a lot of people now long dead spent a lot of time arguing with a lot of other people now long dead on a lot of things that ultimately didn't matter at all. It's easy to get swept up into these emotional arguments - they can quickly feel like a personal attack, and suddenly you feel like it's your responsibility to stand up for what you believe in and defend your sex / race / religion / nationality / freedom to play skee ball on Saturday afternoons / whatever.

But to quote the immortal Sun Tzu, "If a battle cannot be won, do not fight it."

When I look at feminism vs. men vs. whatever it is, I don't see how ANYBODY wins in that mess. What is victory? What's the objective? There is no leader, no set objective, no organization, no end point... just a bunch of angry people standing there hurling insults at each other across the aisle. It's petty.

The other question you have to ask is, how far would feminism get if men shrugged it off as silly women's play? I'm pretty sure you'd have a bunch of women feeling embarrassed they got so emotional and carried away if men just kinda shrugged and said, "Well, hey - that's women!" But instead, men are getting just as riled up and giving it right back to them. That's a recipe for eternal escalation, if there ever was one.

You can very easily say the feminists and everybody who's locking horns with them deserve each other. To quote Spengler's Universal Law of Gender Parity: "In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other."

The more I think about this quote from Spengler, the more I come to agree with it. All the fighting and screaming and finger-pointing and childish behavior... I can't imagine the Greatest Generation treating each other this way, men or women. The pendulum swings both ways, and there's enough blame to spread around to everybody. It might be the feminists who pushed first, but the other side didn't have any qualms about pushing right back, either.

Most fights are over stupid stuff, and this one between the feminists and their opponents is no exception.

On the plus side, sure makes me glad I don't watch TV...


Anonymous's picture

Thanks for the upload Chase.
I have a VERY feminist mother, raised me to be a "nice guy." And because Im introverted THIS SITE HAS BEEN A GODSEND. My mother is a scientist and is pretty ambitious (and apparently) loves taking charge and organizing things.
My mom tells me that feminism means that women should have equal treatment and opportunities as men.
Politically and Economically I agree with this…but socially… Im not so sure.

Do most women in the US actually want to work and be ambitious/providers (like my mom) ?
Or do most women in the US really want to be more traditional "women" ?
Is there even a majority?

Thanks so much for your insights

PS Now that I think about it my mom married my dad, who fits the bill of "gallant" to a T ;)

Alexey S.'s picture

I am not sure what part of Asia you are in, Mr. Chase, but women there can be just as cut throat as everywhere else. And if their big round eyes and batting of their eyelashes at you make you feel like a man who needs to protect them, you are just another sad case of doofus. Being a gallant and to patronize someone is not one and the same, but you make them sound as such. Men and women are different, they have different weaknesses and strengths, but that doesn't mean they can not be equal in their contributions to the world or intimate relationship. If you intend to insist and persist to patronize all women by treating them like silly little girls who require men to protect them, you are in for some nasty surprises in your life and lifetime of bachelor lifestyle. Women don't need men, just as men don't need women. Humanity needs women and men in cooperation, however. Not with one gender dominating the other or them competing with each other. So, you are correct about some things, but you still clinging to old myths and fables. Women are individuals first, and like all individuals they have their strengths and they have their individual flaws, just like men do. So some men will be more domineering and some will be more sensitive, maybe both at the same time.

You are a smart guy, so I am sure all of that makes sense to you and you will remove this article and others similar to it from your blog, if you wish to continue to make positive contribution to the relations between the female and male sexes. Otherwise, you will just keep confusing the hapless folks who come here for guidance, while gender wars will continue. And I for one do not appreciate people who contribute to the latter. You already have some great stuff here, no need to make it worse :-)

Jasmine P.'s picture

To Alexey S., THANK YOU for your comment on this article. I think one of Mr. Chase's biggest problem is not realizing that feminism and misandry are NOT the same things. I'm sure some quick searches would help dispel this myth about feminism. Another thing Mr. Chase doesn't understand is that many (if not most) women do NOT get into male-dominated workplaces and industries to "beat men at their game" and bite their male colleagues' heads off. These women have a passion for the career their working in and just want to be contributing members to the industry as much as men do.

On an unrelated note, I don't think I've ever seen an article that addresses how to date women who have been raped or have experienced sexual assault or harassment of some sort. This sort of advice seems to be severely lacking on this site, and I would greatly appreciate if someone who has experience on the subject wrote an article about it.

Anonymous's picture

My soon-to-be husband and I have had this conversation many times, and I think you've hit on something here that really breaks down what we've been trying to articulate. Both genders have lost a lot of what makes them feel like themselves in the battle for equality. Women are now conditioned to feel a kind of shame if they want to "nest" and be "good wives" and men are thrown into a society where, really, no matter what they do, it will be perceived as wrong by some faction of woman or another. It's hard.

There is a dichotomy that a successful man has to find in himself that you've outlined here that I'm sure is immensely difficult - to be the equal at work and somehow turn it completely around and be the Gallant in relationships. My only problem with this article is where you make the divide so black and white for relationships. My fiancé found a sweet spot between the two in our relationship and it has worked beautifully.

I will admit that I am stubborn as a mule and head-strong in my ideas. I work and commute 11 hours out of each work day. I'm on the go trying to make an income to support my family, because it's next to impossible not to have two incomes in today's US economy. I'm by no means a 1950's era woman. That said, I like having dinner ready when he comes home from work because I know it's a relief to him. I like making coffee for him to help him wake up in the morning. I like when he opens the car door for me or makes the inconsequential decisions like where we are going to go out to eat. BUT, I also like fencing wits with him and supporting each other in our writing endeavors. I love when I've had a bad day and he offers to make dinner and take our daughter to karate so I can have a night off. I love that he can make me feel simultaneously like a strong, capable, intelligent woman but also one that is beautiful (but maybe not soft), a good wife, and worth protecting (because let's face it, spiders aren't killing themselves).

Like most things in life, it's about finding a balance. I think that's what is missing in this situation. We've lost the ability to sit on the seesaw of life, appreciate the times when you need to be more up or more down, and realize that somewhere in the middle is a beautiful balance.

Thanks for the insight ;)

340Breeze's picture

Feminism is part of the problem in the dating arena (causing vitriol, flawed mental models) but it's not the only problem.

Another problem is that some people don't really know themselves all that well nor do they really have a firm grasp on a superior sense of purpose and vigor about life. How is another human being supposed to be wowed and impressed by you, if you aren't even impressed by yourself or know your deepest needs, wants, desires, and ultimate purpose? You cannot communicate to other people things about yourself that you simply do not know.

Another problem as I see it is the simple lack of passion. Some people are jaded by past encounters and don't even realize that their fear of being hurt again (lack of confidence) leads to them being tepid in their romantic encounters. But passion is infectious. It is beautiful. It is exciting. Once you experience 1 or 2 passionate lovers, tepid people just don't appeal to you as much. Again confidence from knowing what to do (and accepting a certain lack of control over other human beings) is necessary.

There are more problems of course, I only touched on a few.

Relationships should be a boon to your existence, icing on the cake. There is nothing to be gained from cutthroat competition with your significant other, or treating the relationship like it's some mostly platonic endeavor. Even if you and your lover are apart for much of the day, it's always good to have a few minutes together where you can be passionate. The man can be the man, and the woman can be the woman. Role play. Tease. Play. Bond. It's good to be able to make others feel strong feelings, and to feel strong feelings yourself resulting from being in the presence of someone who is amazing. This obviously takes a level of selflessness to be able to focus on the welfare of another human being besides yourself.

To me, real love is when another person's needs become equivalent to your own. And I think this is the ultimate problem with dating in the West, period.



lucifer's picture

Hey Chase,

Not sure I quoted you right in the subject but that article definitely gave me a couple of laughs and I still remember it :).

What I wanted to ask you on that subject is:
in this article you suggest and advise to be a gallant and then say a gallant man would do things like "opening the door".

So what's the difference between a gallant man opening the door, paying for the date and holding the purse (OK, holding the pursue goes way too far I guess, but what about paying for the date)?

Alexis's picture

I have a question similar to what lucifer posted above.

It seemed like this article is going against the majority of the article that is written on this website. The content here tells us not to be overly helpful, not to put women on a pedestal, see women as independent individual etc

Articles like "the sad tale of shoppping guy", "how to be a gentleman" tell us that we should be warm, thoughtful but not overly supplicating and should respect the "law of least effort", doing things that make her life comfortable if it only requires minimum effort as opposed to bending over backwards to please her.

And we are also told not to act as a white knight.

Yet somehow this article seem to throw all those stuff into the garbage bin.

You have written some fantastic stuff on this website but honestly this article seemed to go against everything that has been said here. I hope somewhere along I misunderstood the intention of this written piece.

but this article is starting to sound like a mainstream advocate for chivalry telling us that we should treat women like princesses.

lucifer's picture

Hey Chase,

In this article you mention that a gallant man treat women more traditionally as the fairer sex and pays for meals.

And famously you advise not to pay for dates.

Conundrum.. ?

reader 's picture

ths article contradicts all other articles ie not paying for dates or opening doors

Mike's picture

Chase I think you're conflating work and social life too much. They don't have to intersect. That's like saying women trade sex for money. Saying women should not compete for resources is just limiting their independence. I agree that feminism is really just women espousing partisan favoritism nowadays, and that traditional gender roles are more attractive to heterosexuals, but that's just social conservative policing to say that women shouldn't enter the work place.

crocket's picture

Feminism is women's survival and reproductive instincts given a political tag.

When people are blinded by survival and reproduction, they can easily be delusional.

Nazi men thought killing all jews would solve most of their problems. Feminists are delusional in that they think a woman who used to be a nanny and produced almost nothing of value deserves 750 million dollar when she divorces Tiger Woods, one of the greatest contemporary golfers. Just because Tiger Woods cheated repetitively, she doesn't deserve 750 million dollars. Maybe, 5 million dollars at most for a rich man like Tiger Woods.

It's stupid for society to allow feminists to go rampant.

Add new comment

The Latest from