The dating racket and its "heartless robbers"

Diana Davison’s recent article on A Voice for Men, “Slavery 101, dating as taught to girls” puts the spotlight on the message of a major, and lucrative,  “relationship” literature industry, focusing on the overt message of woman as slave owner / man as slave.
Dorothy Dix, the world’s most successful female columnist of the first half of the 20th century, whose columns were syndicated internationally, had more than a few words to say about the matter of female predatoriness and the gullibility of their chivalrous targets. In fact, Dix’s writings throughout the fifty years or so tenure as the most prominent female voice  in popular media, are a goldmine of insight into the real public discussion of the relations between the sexes in the pre-1960s era (a time period which has been mangled and censored mercilessly by the hoaxers of the official narrative “herstory,” which is presented today as fact rather than what it is: ideologically distorted mythology).

The following 1938 discussion of the dating game as deployed by what we might call “militarized” girls of the dating scene of the day describes a state of affairs which had been already for decades a long-standing matter of public concern, namely young men’s aversion to matrimony in light of their awareness of the laws which set them up for alimony — or, less frequently, for “breach of promise” lawsuit scams.
Taking a look at an earlier Dix item reprinted on A Voice for Men as “MGTOW in 1929,” and whose original title was “Why Can’t The Modern Woman See That She Is Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs When She Places a Commercial Value on Every Endearment a Man Utters, Cries Dorothy Dix,” show just how long the seed of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement has been germinating in the United States.
Dix was never afraid to “tell it like it is.” While quite ready to put the blame on the female in the dating scenario when justified, she was equally ready to lambaste to males for their passive willingness to go along with their feminine companions’ self-centered machinations. It takes two parties to play the age-old game of chivalric co-dependence.

My take on the message Dorothy Dix is putting across can be summed up in these words: “Boys and girls: both of you — cut the crap!”

DEAR MISS DIX – Do you think the girl who is always trying to save a boy’s pocketbook, even though she may not be going to marry him, is appreciated as much as the gold-digger who is out for all she can get? I have always in mind the fact that a boy may not have a great deal of money and try to keep him from spending money upon me, but my friends say I am foolish not to take all I can get, and certainly, as far as I can see, I get no thanks from the boys. So where am I? — Mabel.
Answer – from the way boys complain about how the girls hold them up, and what it costs to take a Jane out for an evening’s diversion, I should think that all the young men of your neighborhood would fall on your neck with loud cries of gratitude.
For the gold-diggers certainly are heartless robbers. They go on the assumption that every youth is a millionaire, although they work right at the next desk to him and are perfectly aware that his pay envelope has no more in it than theirs. [AVfM Editor’s Note: The “pay gap” theory, a fairly recent concoction, is a fraud. The idea that women could not support themselves before Marxian gender feminists took over universities and promoted government policies based on their fake data is also a hoax.]
They may know that one dinner-dance will send him to a cheap lunch counter for a month; that a taxi takes the shoes off his feet, and a theater strips the coat from his back, but so long as they are given a good time they should worry over what happens to the poor simp who lets them hold him up with a pair of blue eyes and who hasn’t enough backbone to say “No” to a female grafter if she has a peaches-and-cream complexion.
So one would think that the boys would simply mob the girl for dates who had enough heart and conscience to spare their pocketbooks; who would eat enough at home to stay her stomach until she got back and was willing to dance to a radio instead of demanding to be taken to a club where there was a 20 piece jazz band.
But men are funny things and there is no understanding them when it comes to the question of women and money. Somehow, they always want to make the grand flourish, anyway, as if they had the whole United States treasury behind them.
The poorest boy is nearly always the one who grabs up the check and pays it, who sends a girl the longest-stemmed roses, who buys the most expensive seats at the theater and who gives a dollar tip when a dime was all that was needed.
There are very few men who ever have the courage to tell a girl they can’t afford a thing, and it offends most of them for a girl to show that she knows that they can’t afford it by suggesting doing something cheaper. So it is difficult for women to know what line to take with men. Perhaps the best way is never to suggest anything yourself but to fall in with the man’s plan. Then if he spends more than he can afford the crime is at least on his own head. Though that won’t save him from blaming the girl. But that is the chief pleasure men get out of women – making scapegoats of them.
[Dorothy Dix, “Gold Diggers Classed As Heartless Robbers – Girl Who Tries to Keep Boy From Spending Money These Days Is Exception,” syndicated, Milwaukee Sentinel (Wi.), Sep. 24, 1938, p. 11]

Note: The original text has an additional letter/reply on a different topic which we have excluded here.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: