Jessica Wakemen is the epitome of a Princess Feminist.

Feminism for her is whatever provides her the most entitlement.

i agree with kathy k!!

The sad/funny thing was reading the post about their breakup that was linked within the chivalry post. I was thinking the whole time "lady, no wonder he left"

I will start taking feminists seriously when they reject cars made by men, houses,condo's and apartments made by men, food grown by men and will only use, live in, and eat things made by women.
I mean since you hate men so much.
Hey if you're a vegetarian don't eat meat and I will have respect for you.
Otherwise you are a bunch of spoiled westernized women who want entitlements and the right to bitch at the same time!
NO THANK YOU!

Did she pay for her own food at that fancy restaurant in Manhattan?

I read the breakup post. Unbelievable. She was paying $300 (slum level rent in the New York area) to live with a guy and his best friend, and she was shocked and hurt that her life wasn't all Better Homes And Gardens?

My boyfriend and I have been together (and living 13 miles apart) for eight happy years. I have no illusions about human nature. You're nicer to somebody if you can miss them, and I always miss my boyfriend. Last night, because he spent all day Tuesday (heroically) working with my server company to fix the technical issues on my site, he couldn't come over last night. I totally understood -- he finally had to get his own work done! But, I was sad and missed him...eight years in. Preferable to wishing somebody would get the hell out already.

I encourage people to think twice about living together. When my boyfriend comes over, I see that I look cute and I pay attention to him. I don't snap at him. And I don't nag him (the exception is bugging him about his health...has he been taking his krill oil, and will he please remember to lock his car doors in Detroit so he won't get carjacked!) It's really cool, I think, that our relationship eight years in is still really sweet and loving. Of course, I did wait a bunch of years and hold out for a guy who's truly the best person I know. I extend my vast thanks to all the dumb broads who didn't go for him!

JW has a major sense of entitlement. She drives a lot of the commenters at thefrisky crazy because she's such a princess, but is the resident Feminist. Basically she's a self absorbed girl who was raised by affluent indulgent parents and uses Feminism to justify whatever she wants. She's also got a huge chip on her shoulder regarding men.

Feminism for JW is marrying a wealthy guy who'll support her Feminist writing career. No kidding. That's why she won't date teachers or other writers.

I once briefly dated a very pretty woman in Toronto named Mary who, unfortunately, had her brain messed up by feminist propaganda. At one point she told me with absolutely conviction that she was offended by my use of the terms "lady" & "ladies" in any context. She also told me that when I wrote her, I needed to spell "women" as "womyn", because the former spelling was a derivation of "men" and thus offensive.

I'm not kidding about any of this.

I persisted with her though. One day, not too long after, she told me she was breaking up with me. Why? Because she had met a guy at a party who disagreed with her about most everything and she was intrigued by him.

A few years later I related this story to an older male friend of mine. He insisted that the next time I met a "Mary", I look her straight in the eyes and say, "Just because you're an ardent feminist doesn't prevent you from being an asshole!" I never have but it has crossed my mind more than a few times.

This is my favorite part:

"Just like I have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my desire to be with a more dominant, alpha male, I also have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my enjoyment of chivalry. I am now figuring out that the two are not mutually exclusive."

Someone should explain to her the concept of cognitive dissonance.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that she is having a "hard time" reconciling these conflicting philosophical beliefs.

I am left wondering what exactly she figured out that makes these ideologically opposed systems "not mutually exclusive". The "logic" involved must be quite inventive.

"I wasn't just being rude; I thought I was making a point about how I -- and by extension all women -- didn't need to be treated with chivalry."
So, bitches like this are the reason men are afraid to hold the door open for women, because they don't want to be chewed out or lectured. I'm so glad I don't live in New York. As my best friend told me, after staying there for nine months, "Everyone is rude here, and the whole place smells like urine."

"I encourage people to think twice about living together."

Keep doing that. A lot.

That breakup letter was astonishing. I kept thinking, 'Dear God, what a CHILD'. She was clearly less concerned about the breakup with her boyfriend than she was about the change in lifestyle that would result from having to find a new place to live.

Living together conflates the relationship with playing house. I'm not sure it's possible to accurately assess a person and the relationship you are building with them, if you have to worry about what you will do without a partner to split rent with, and how *inconvenient* it would be to have to move out.

Ms Wakeman's solution was to move back into her childhood room in mommy and daddy's house. Good plan, that. Maybe she will grow up this time before she tries to be a [not so] independent adult.

Wealthy Alpha males don't marry women like Jessica. She's way too much of a PITA, and doesn't have the looks to make up for it .

I've read her stuff and others on the frisky a lot out of curiosity... Eventually the idealism of their 20's will give way to reality checks later... but I'm glad I'm not involved with many of them. Jessica is a woman's studies grad, don'cha know. So there is a whole other thing that goes with that.

but on the upside, at least it's in print... sometimes people don't believe me when I speak of women who have wrenched doors I was holding open for them from my hands. "I don't need ANY man's help." I think I've decided to start saying 'then you are going to have a hard life.' rather than 'stupid, petulant child.' Which would just reconfirm that all men are pigs to them. Smile the whole time, it just makes them madder.

but my regular explanation of this is simple. I'm not holding open a door, opening a jar, or killing spiders, because I don't think a woman can do those things. I am doing that because -I- WISH to do so.

The biggest problem with chivalry is that it is a gendered idea, and so a feminist will get wrapped around the axle about it. Nobody really gets wrapped up by being taken care of by a woman, like the coworker who always brings me chocolate when she asks a question, or just because. Or the one who send me Christmas cards every year, even when I don't. 'Course there are probably feministas that would be unhappy knowing that there were women who go out of their way to be kind to others. It can be a very maternal thing, and you KNOW how gauche THAT is. /sarcasm.

Yup, I'm thinkin the ex-Mr. Jessica should be glad he got free before she owned him through marriage. Even IF she is a nice person, there are things she says that would NEVER be acceptable if a guy said them to a woman.

but then, that's the definition these days, init?

She's not going to marry anyone unless she changes her name. No man in his right mind would marry a woman who's written the things that she has.

The problem with feminism is that no actual "strong independent woman" actually needs it. In fact if anything will make it harder on that hypothetical woman, it is feminist women whose entitlement complex and pain in the ass behavior lower the glass ceiling by reducing the general estimations that men have of women.

If I tell a dirty joke and the office prude/bitch files a lawsuit, am I going to unflinchingly hire another woman? Fuck no.

If the woman I hire gets knocked up and wants to take a year off and come back to the same job with the same seniority as if she had been there the entire time...after and while still consuming company resources, hasn't she just ensured that a prospective employer will think twice about hiring the next woman applicant?

Therein lies the problem. The woman that is actually independent will recognize that she can't have it all, and she will make choices, can she rock out a raunchy limerick before wowing important clients? Will she stick to the job and accelerate through positions of trust and importance? Or will she cry and demand compensation for emotional pain before getting knocked up and demanding benefits?

Feminists are far to often totally disconnected from the reality of the world, that those that can laugh and produce are valuable, and those who cry over entitlement complexes are not.

What a rude and oblivious twit. "I wasn't being rude." Maybe on your planet, Ms Wakeman. Make a scene, when "thank you" would suffice.

Bad manners are the ultimate turnoff. I don't care if she were Jessica Lopez, Jennifer Lopez's good looking sister, she'd still be history.

'"Ladylike", whatever that means' says a lot, I think.

Is chivalry predicated on the quality of a woman towards whom it is directed?

The last person I would be chivalrous to is the Feminist.

If the Princess Feminist wants to pick and choose and have things both ways, so will I.

P.S. I still hold doors for everyone, regardless.

"That breakup letter was astonishing. I kept thinking, 'Dear God, what a CHILD'. "

Yes, that was really astonishing. It sounds as if she tried to take over the whole house. They were renting a room from a friend but she talks about redecorating, she sounds like a nag, with no sense of boundaries to boot.

Pardon the weird punctuation, that last should be two separate sentences...

What a self-centered, grandiose nitwit.

I sat next to one of these types who is a friend of some friends. She started in on women who wear tight skirts because its all about male oppression. There are a lot of things I let slide, A LOT, being in a very liberal part of the country...but this was way too much.

I started questioning her (and not whispering) about what ever gave her that impression and she couldn't come up with anything uncanned the entire time. My response was: "Look, no one is *making* anyone wear these skirts and men like to look T&A - I hardly see that as oppressive, its more of a unspoken mutual arrangement that seems to be working out quite well for most people, especially if they care to date". That was a jab. (I've heard this woman bitching over the last several months about not getting laid in the last few years - wow, that couldn't POSSIBLY be because of her, OR the overuse of patchouli OR wardrobe full of unflattering Muumuus!)

A few of the guys in our general vicinity giggled nervously at my response.

These "feminist" types are absolutely insufferable - and they screw EVERYTHING up for the rest of us who don't find it the least bit threatening that other women wear skirts or that men open doors. It's all about them.

If there was a penalty for these offenses, it would be a retreat crammed full of mandatory courses on self-care (beauty) and personal introspection.

This is just my experience (and I live in the South, where the chivalry described here is highly culturally encouraged), but I have noticed that there is a huge crossover between the men who insist on opening doors and carrying heavy things for me, and the men who treat my acomplishments and intelligence with respect and dignity and seem to expect me to reach high levels of achievement in my career (I'm a recent law school grad) and not be held back by my sex.

And I've noticed the reverse seems to be true as well.

She can say she thought she was acting as a feminist. I say she was just acting immature.

"Just like I have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my desire to be with a more dominant, alpha male, I also have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my enjoyment of chivalry."

Is this a subtle joke, or is she sincere? I am actually unable to tell.

Very bad things happen when feminists are in charge....

http://www.realmencrochet.com/

Re: http://www.realmencrochet.com/ Do they do ball-sack cozies?

Is this a subtle joke, or is she sincere? I am actually unable to tell.

she's totally sincere.

Jessica is what you get when you cross a PC Studies major with a Connecticut JAP.

I think that one of the reasons that readers at TheFrisky get so upset with her is because much of her writing comes off like a parody.

Has it not occurred to her (or those with similar opinions) that the sort of man who holds open a door for her is also the sort of man who will hold the door open for a child, or a man with packages, or the elderly or handicapped, or simply because the geometry of the situation makes it more convenient for him to go second?

Of course it never occurred to her, because she is a self centered child who needs to grow up.

I guess to me it isn't even about history and politics. If I shave my legs, wax my brows, paint my nails, spend a billion dollars on my gym membership and at the Clinique counter, I expect that HE (my husband, a friend, random guy) will open a door or give up a seat in reciprocation. For all those fugly, fat WOMYN who think that men hate them - uh.....

And Amy, thank you for your earlier comment that people who are all over animal rights shouldn't accept any medical treatment that was developed using animals. I love animals. However, as a nurse, I know how much we all benefit from medicines and procedures first tested on animals. Transfusions, skin grafts, anti-siezure meds...all from animal research.
So suck it, Pam Anderson. The reason you didn't die from Hepatitis, you skank, is because of an anti-viral called Virazole, which was tested on animals!

I am now figuring out that the two [chivalry and feminism] are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are.

Chivalry is the idea that women need to be shielded and protected.

The chivalrous man stands between the attacker and the woman. He walks on the street side of the sidewalk so she won't be splashed by a passing car. He offers her his seat to her on a train or a bus. He picks up the tab for a meal. He takes the hit so she won't have to. He does these things knowing other men will do the same for the women in his life.

But now, the woman the chivalrous man is protecting is competing with him for a job, a raise, acceptance to a college, and other precious economic resources. And the competition is rigged against him.

Why is chivalry dead? Feminism killed it. And, in some ways, that's a good thing. Women now have the vote, equal legal and property rights, and are not stuck in the economic ghetto of "women's work."

But with those new-found rights and freedoms comes responsibility - and consequences. Childish proto-feminists (like JW) often forget to read the fine print.

Mind you, chivalry and manners are not the same thing and there's no good reason why manners are dying.

Amy,

I really like your comical translation of what she is saying.

At the risk of boring some people with my thoughts on this topic I'll expand a bit on why I think this entire way of thinking is ridiculous and needs to be squashed:

"I have a hard time reconciling my feminist beliefs with my desire to be with a more dominant, alpha male"

The reason that it is difficult to “reconcile” these two things is that according to feminist thought, men and women are equal and should be equal within the context of a romantic relationship. This is logically incompatible with any relationship where one member is “more dominant” and the other is more submissive.

By definition a relationship between a dominant partner and a submissive partner is NOT a relationship between equals. There is an inherent power structure within such a relationship that cannot be ignored. One of those people is more in charge than the other one.

For her to suggest that a relationship between equals and a relationship between a dominant and submissive member are not “mutually exclusive” concepts is flat out nonsense.

Where I think she probably goes totally wrong is that she thinks that an equal relationship can exist where one can “give permission” to the other person for them to act more dominant. However, in such relationships, the person giving permission is always in control and can adjust the power structure at their whim.

No one would suggest that an aggressive dog is the “dominant” one when it’s owner can tell it to “sit” and it immediately drops it’s behind to the floor.

I think she simply likes being in control of men she deems to be aggressive and then calls them the “dominant, alpha male” within the relationship. My guess is that she probably called the shots when it really came down to it.

Amy said: "My boyfriend takes care of me and I take care of him. If we're at a party, I'll get up, go to the kitchen and get him a cup of coffee. On a Monday night (when I'm tired from writing all day), if I go on John Phillips' show on KABC, he'll drive all the way over to my house and take me there, and bring me home. When he had to stay in the hospital overnight but wasn't in danger, I still refused to leave him and ended up sleeping on his floor (even though both the final manuscript for my book and my column were due the next day). These things are just what you do if you love somebody and want to make them feel good and be happy."

Amy, I just wanted you to know that this paragraph, to me, is one of the finest things I have ever seen written on your website in 3 years of reading it. Thank you. If more people acted like this in relationships there truly would be more love in the world.

"Re: http://www.realmencrochet.com/ Do they do ball-sack cozies?"

Hilarious.

Regarding equality vs. chivalry AND crudity in the workplace, I hope you'll all enjoy this recent column:

Dear Miss Manners,
I am a young, female, professional who is currently on the board of a national non-profit organization. The board consists of 10 members, and the composition changes on a yearly basis. This year, our board is composed of four women and six men all ranging from age 22 to mid-50s.

I was recently having a conversation with two of the men my own age and one of the middle-aged men where the older fellow used a few expletives. After doing so, he proceeded to single me out and apologize to me as the female in the conversation. I gave a slight smile and ignored the situation. I have become very close to all of the men and women on this board, including the man in question. I feel like this apology was mildly discriminatory, but I also understand that it most likely was a result of upbringing. Our organization's membership is primarily made up of college students where this kind of singling out genders is not common practice.

Where is the line between chivalry and discrimination, and how do I let him know that his apology was not welcome and made me very uncomfortable?

Gentle Reader,
And yet you do not want to make him feel comfortable with using foul language at board meetings. At least Miss Manners hopes not.

She agrees that the signal of "Oops, there are ladies present" is detrimental to the professionalism that ought to prevail. But the usual reaction, of the targeted lady protesting that she doesn't mind, and often illustrating this by using expletives herself, is also discriminatory. It signals "Oh, no, I understand that this is boys' territory. Think of me as an honorary male."

Therefore, Miss Manners would prefer you to say good-naturedly, "On behalf of all the ladies AND gentlemen present, I accept your apology." There will be a slight titter throughout the room, after which you can milk it by saying, "I'm so glad to be raising the tone here."

And, I forgot to say, Miss Manners calls herself a feminist.

Though in all fairness, any woman born before 1950 should be free to call herself that without people's assuming she means anything other than what is in the dictionary. After all, women of that generation were quite likely involved, in one way or another, with the revolutionary changes that happened from 1960 to 1980, whether it was the Equal Pay Act (1963), Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), Title IX, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Roe v. Wade, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, or following in the footsteps of Iris Rivera. (She was a Chicago legal secretary who got fired from her job in 1977 for refusing to make her boss coffee. She struck back - and, with the help of Women Employed, got her job back.)

Nowadays, of course, middle-class women born after 1970 who openly call themselves feminists are subject to scrutiny, not just because they clearly never really had to struggle more than men do, and others can't immediately tell whether such women want equality or supremacy, but because there's no word that clearly means "a woman who currently benefits from equality but also works to help those who don't."

"Feminist" means different things to different people. When I call myself a feminist, it's only around people whose common understanding of the word is "someone who thinks women should get to vote and earn equal pay for equal work" not "a man-hating lesbian." Similar to calling myself a Republican--if I know you're the type of person who defines that as "racist redneck bible-thumper" then I'm not going to even introduce that label into the conversation.

Also, Jessica sounds obnoxious as fuck. Isn't it, like, the maitre d's job to pull out chairs for people?

"If I tell a dirty joke and the office prude/bitch files a lawsuit, am I going to unflinchingly hire another woman? Fuck no.

If the woman I hire gets knocked up and wants to take a year off and come back to the same job with the same seniority as if she had been there the entire time...after and while still consuming company resources, hasn't she just ensured that a prospective employer will think twice about hiring the next woman applicant?"

Well then how do you feel about:

If I see a man on TV getting arrested for pedophilia, I'm going to think twice about hiring male workers at my daycare center.

or

If a man rapes a woman, hasn't he just insured that all men are going to be viewed as rapists?

Seriously though, if you're judging an entire group of people off the behavior of a few, then YOU'RE the one with the problem. Your attitude here is comparable to the feminists who claim that all men are rapists, or minorities who claim that all white people are racist. If you want to be judged as an individual rather than stereotyped as a member of a group, then you should grant others the same courtesy.

When I was young, I didn't think chivalry was all that important. That sure changed when I had a baby. When you are carrying a child in a carrier, a purse, and a diaper bag, it sure is nice to have someone hold the door open for you. Second best is no-one being around so you can scoot backwards through the door. The worst is when your partner actually lets the door go so that it takes quick manuevering to avoid getting hit or having your child struck.

except shannon, the first set of questions is a purely economic one, the second set is purely moral, and there is a universe' difference there. It is you who are failing to see the difference.

The set of questions about hiring have to do with women who DON'T accept being held equal, they want special accommodation.

How does that equate to your assertions about making a whole group pay for the failure of one? When we see a married mother of 2 get arrested for screwing one of her students in a parkinglot should we assume that ALL WOMEN ARE PEDOPHILES? Or is that a demonstrably false assumption?

Meanwhile it isn't very hard to find lawsuits of the nature listed. In fact I have to take a yearly class on harassment that makes it clear that only the person feeling harassed gets to make her mind up if she has been. Which means when my co-worker changes her hairstyle, I don't complement her on it. You never know how something will be perceived. It's better to be coldly professional.

And we have lost 3 women in our section to maternity leave, and 2 took their leave, while we held their jobs, and then decided not to come back. My ex-wife did that also, and informed me about it afterwords.

You are comparing apples to oranges, and not well.

I always like my father's response when a woman asked him if he was holding the door for her because she was a woman. He said "No, I am holding the door for you because I am a gentleman." btw he holds the door for anyone, male-female, oyung-old, etc.

"and even a little bit "ladylike," whatever that means."

Indeed, "Princess Feminist" fits well. I'm sure she could easily define what a gentleman "means".

I call it PES- Princess Entitlement Syndrome also known as "her personality is writing checks her body can't cash".

Anyone notice how similar her name is to Jessica Wakefield?

... yes, I grew up on those books...

If I see a man on TV getting arrested for pedophilia, I'm going to think twice about hiring male workers at my daycare center.

If a man rapes a woman, hasn't he just insured that all men are going to be viewed as rapists?

Thank you. You just described the male experience.

Story related to me: A pastor (not priest) was at a party of mixed ages and he called a little girl to sit in his lap.

The mother, women who were MARRIED to men, had sons and fathers, all did a collective inward breath. And that pastor said that he was saddened because he'd never put a child on his lap again.

Today at a hotel breakfast, a mother of was trying to feed her infant yogurt but was having difficulty. I made wide mouthed faces to the little girl and she opened her mouth to eat. Mommie dearest gives me a sideways dirty look for DARING to interact with a child not his own. Not touch. Not talk to. Make a face to help her! (I have three kids of my own)

Yes it's women driving men away from the children with their incredible hypervigilance, and Yes, they are painting with an incredibly broad brush despite having dads, and husbands and sons.

Sorry for the derail, Amy

And additionally, TRY and find a man who works in a daycare center? Hell, try to find a male teacher these days.

Why do you think that is, Shannon?

This is the same Jessica Wakeman who wrote that she feels it perfectly appropriate to plan to marry a man who makes enough money to keep her in the manner which she wants to stay accustomed. Not make it herself, but determine that he needs to submit his W-2 with the marriage license.

Now her plans are in disarray. I truly hope that her ex boyfriend makes a gazillion dollars and marries someone who is a partner, not a tax assessor.

It's Karma.

Just check out Jessica's bio:

http://www.thefrisky.com/profile/info/4623/?UID=4623&plckUserId=4623&plckPersonaPage=PersonaProfile

Seriously, this is the bio of a 14-year-old girl pretending to be a woman.

Oh, and Jessica, J. Crew is not a fashion designer.

This is the same Jessica Wakeman who wrote that she feels it perfectly appropriate to plan to marry a man who makes enough money to keep her in the manner which she wants to stay accustomed.

Yes. In her defense, she's young, about 25 or so IIRC. That's why I tend to cut her some slack. A lot of what she writes is very adolescent. It's apparent that she doesn't have much experience in the world, and seems a little neurotic to boot.

Many of the writers at The Frisky have the same attitude. They're all young, and are probably accustomed to having an endless supply of men available to them in NYC. Their demands are endless, capricious, and often totally unrealistic. It's a little frightening to realize how self absorbed and materialistic many young women are.

@Sharon: "Many of the writers at The Frisky have the same attitude. ... It's a little frightening to realize how self absorbed and materialistic many young women are."

Yeah, but as you said, they're young, and most of them will learn. Reading Jessica Wakeman is a little like listening to my twenty-something daughter or her friends. But we were that age, too, way back when. I'd hate to hear any of my rants from that age played back to me now!

That said, I wonder if the people who take offense to chivalrous behavior are the same type who are keeping score, thinking somehow that someone who holds the door for you somehow has a marker against you.

"Yeah, but as you said, they're young, and most of them will learn. "

True, but then a lot of them will turn bitter. Wakeman just reminds us, once again, that utopianism and nihilism are two sides of the same coin.

Here is the problem with sexual harrasemnt laws, the woman sitting in a cubucile 15 feet away can file a harrasment claim becuase a guy hit on a differnt woman at the water cooler and it made her 'feel' harrased