attractive, just means they are feminists. The source of data, means of collecting and analyzing data all should be viewed. This study proves absolutely nothing.

"If the words of some of our more, er, enthusiastic commenters are to be believed, women who identify themselves as feminists must have pretty crappy romantic lives."

"Enthusiastic commenters" made me laugh!

Equality is sexy and that's the crux of feminism. Who would want to sleep with a subordinate, a child, or anyone else who isn't equal?

are they willing to let the man be the man? What I mean is, will they let the man buy the dinner, hold open the door etc?

I remember during my college years when the ERA was just coming out, I opened a door for a feminist and she slammed me over the head with her purse (must have had a brick or something in there).

Now, if things have changed since then and the feminists of today can let the man do what men should do and still be feminists, then whatever they like.

I can guess which posters you are referring. Hey, they keep these threads going!

But thanks for the study--it only confirms what most of us fems know already. That we're pretty happy and have good men in our lives who treat us with respect.

Does not mean they are attractive, just means they are feminists

Attractive enough to be in a relationship. And beyond that, who cares? If you're attractive to the person you're with, that's plenty.

The source of data, means of collecting and analyzing data all should be viewed.

Duh, that's called science. This should always be done.

This study proves absolutely nothing.

You then state without having done exactly what you said should be done. Proves? Probably not. Disposes of some old, trite stereotypes? It certainly provides evidence to cast enormous doubt on those stereotypes.

Interesting question. So who is the authority that determines how men and women "should" act? You? Your grandmother? Dear Abby? You "should" open doors for women is that's what you want to do. If you don't, we women can open the doors for ourselves, no problem. As for paying for dinner, if you want to do so, then you have every right to make the offer. Men have paid for dinner when I've gone out with them in the past. So have women friends. And I've paid for dinner when I wanted to do so. It's all good.

The question as I see it is, what does any of that mean? Chivalry (or the superficial display of mannerisms that has come to replace one particular aspent of real chivalry, which is a path you wouldn't want to pursue, believe me) is all very nice, but it doesn't really mean a whole lot. Real feminism isn't about doors and dinners, it's about people being of the same worth as each other.

Outward displays only count if they match the inward attitude, and if your inward attitude is opening doors because women are fragile things that should be looked after, then you're gonna get some attitude back at times. If you do it because it's good to do things for others despite who they are, then that's a different matter.

There was the time in college I skipped watching a World Series game for a Gloria Steinem lecture, because I knew it would impress the woman I went with and would most likely end in sex. Yep. Worked like a charm.

Wow. That's a helluva topic, Ms. Price. I'm just going to sit back for a few hours and let the trolls go wild with this one. Should make some of the best letters reading in a long time!

For what it's worth, I would not want to be with any woman who did not consider herself my equal.

You mean relationships between people with self-esteem and who value each other work better than others? Wow, I never.

It matches my experience. I even have two friends who are active Radical Feminists, in successful long-term relationships with men. The men certainly are feminists, though neither is particularly radical or active about it. But then there are Republicans who are successfully & happily married to Democrats, so anything is possible I suppose.

And Nick, I rather doubt the, uh, enthusiastic posters, will get too excited by this one. They tend to go for the irrelevant and trivial much harder. Though BS does seem to be in a bad mood lately, more strident than usual (must have had a bad weekend) so perhaps we'll get some action.

One thing I've noticed after doing a very non-scientific study. Women are shitty door holders, especially older women.

Everyday I enter the train station through swinging doors.

Never have I noticed the door not being held open for me by a male. Plenty of times I have been behind women who don't look behind them to see if someone is following them and then the door swings hard enough that if I hadn't been paying attention it would have smacked me in the face.

I don't know what that means, but in my anecdotal experience whether men are taught to hold doors open for women or for everyone(I do it for everyone and so does my husband) plenty of women are sucky door holders and apparently didn't learn their manners. I also discussed this with some of my girlfriends and they agreed that in their anecdotal experience, women are less prone to look behind them and hold the door open.

The only thing that bothers me about the door thing is when I open it because I got there first and it's not a swinging door, so I'll hold it open for the man behind me to enter, but he won't go through first, he'll insist I go through, so I have to duck under his arm and it just seems like an akward procession.

As I'm a feminist, I think my marriage is pretty equal and harmonious. We both cook, clean, work and run errands and have time together and time apart with friends.