Man! I feel like a man; Discoursal Tactics in Male
Dating Coaching in a Dutch context
(Hsiao, 2019)
Master Thesis Steven Hoekstra 11038659
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Preface Page 2-3
Chapter 2: Methodology Page 4-7
Chapter 3: Main Question and Sub-questions Page 8-9
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework Page 10-12
Chapter 5: Dating coaches and their conceptualizations Page 13-20 of gender
Chapter 6: Teaching gendered conceptions to the students; Page 21-24 The impact of used methods
Chapter 7: Power structures and the ones who profit from Page 25-28 them; Who gets to be a man?
Chapter 8: Reflections and Recommendations for further research Page 29-30
Chapter 9: Conclusion Page 31
Chapter 10: Postface Page 32
Chapter 1: Preface
Modern masculinity seems to find itself in a period of deep crisis. From videos of
conservative think tanks that call for men to “be men again” (Schwarz, 2018) to articles in style magazines that exude a deep nostalgia for the men of the past, when they still dared to compliment a woman’s appearance and hadn’t been reduced to something “with all the substance and sex appeal of kale juice” (Walden, 2017). In these articles and video’s, modern men are presented as being significantly weaker and more emotional than the generations before them. Women however still need their rugged, tower-of-strength hunk of man at their side, to protect them from the evil world outside of their homes. This crisis is in desperate need of a solution, men of today need saving from their female overlords and rediscover their own masculinity and retake their position as the natural leaders they are. Dating coaches and pick up artists bravely step into the shoes of these heroes, to lead other men into the light.
While the paragraph above may seem exaggerated and ever so slightly cynical, this is the way in which certain dating coaches present themselves online and in the media. No longer is the craft of the dating coach simply a way of teaching people how to approach other people, the very essence of what it means to be a man (and in turn, what it means to be a woman) needs to be explored in order to be the best version of yourself that can be
presented to the world at large. This is not just my personal interpretation of these materials either. In the last few years I have become somewhat obsessed by showing the materials provided by several institutions that focus on the art of picking up women, and a majority of the people I showed this to (most of whom don’t have even a basic knowledge of the work done in gender studies) had similar reactions. The conceptions of gender and the views on society as a whole that are displayed by these institutions are controversial to say the least. This would lead many to believe that these dating coaches only appeal to a fringe group of men that are particularly susceptible to these types of discourses, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Just one of these institutions boasts on their website about having over 40.000 satisfied customers, and having sold over 35.000 copies of their book consisting of the ultimate strategies that can be used in attracting women. (This book, among many other “educational” materials is used as very valuable data later in this research). This being just one of many organisations that aim to teach men on how to be better at dating women, I hope it’s made clear that, while the market for these strategies is hardly mainstream, the
niche in the market that these types of organisations aim to fill is larger than most people would suspect it is.
While it’s important to stress that the consumer base for these types of dating coach seminars and books is quite large, this phenomenon would be far less interesting if the conceptions of gender propagated by these institutions would only exist in their own little bubble, where like-minded men would come together to celebrate their own formulation of what a man should actually be like. This is far from the reality we are currently experiencing right now however. A self proclaimed “Flirtcoach” recently spoke on a political congress hosted by Forum voor Democratie, a Dutch political party that is often accused of flirting with extreme right wing politics (pun intended). The leader of this political party, Thierry Baudet, also makes a habit of integrating his views on the current state of masculinity and femininity into political speeches, not just for members of his own party, but also in the Dutch
parliament. In a notorious interview in DWDD (a Dutch talk show), the FvD foreman defends the infamous American pick up artist Julien Blanc, who argues that men need to be more dominant over women. In the article that prompted the interview, Baudet writes that male dominance over women is something that women want, it’s part of what makes them women, and their romantic reluctance shouldn’t always be taken seriously (Baudet, 2017). Having a politician who openly and unapologetically holds these views makes this subject more relevant than ever in my opinion, especially because he’s not part of some fringe party, but in some polls ties for being the second biggest party in the Netherlands (Ipsos, 2020). This makes visible the extent in which certain conceptions of gender can reach, far from the relative safety of the clubs and bars in which these pick up artists ply their trade, to a political stage on which these gendered conceptions can have serious ramifications for our society as a whole. I will go further into the effects these operationalizations of gender can have in a later stage of this paper.
Chapter 2: Methodology
Initially, this thesis would have contained a mixed method approach in order to answer its main question. This method would consist of participatory observations during several workshops provided by dating coaches, as well as critical discourse analysis on books and online materials provided by these organisations. This plan could not come to fruition
however, as the crisis caused by covid-19 (which still shows no signs of declining at the time of writing this) also meant that workshops and other gatherings were indefinitely postponed. I will reflect further on the exact effects the covid-19 crisis has had on this work later, as I will continue here with describing what sources of data are used in this thesis, as well as the methodology I used in the end, with a heavier focus on the critical discourse analysis.
With the method of participatory observations out of the window, a more extensive search for usable data was in order. There is however no shortage of interesting materials provided by the organisations that facilitate the teachings of dating coaches in the Netherlands. To narrow my search, I focussed on coaches that specialized in teaching men as opposed to women, as the subject of my research links closer to the conceptualization of masculinity than that of femininity. The conceptualization of femininity does have a place in this
research, but the scope of my research drives me to look at femininity through a masculine lense. This choice is also a practical one, as there are simply very few dating coaches that have women as their primary audience. This can be seen as an early example of the way in which our society expects men to be the active party in starting a relationship (or any romantic/sexual encounter for that matter), as where women are seen as more passive in this regard. This is a mighty interesting phenomenon with a lot of theoretical support, which I will go further into in a later part of this thesis. Another interesting phenomenon was the lack of materials that focussed on non-straight relationships and hookups. The invisibility (or distorted visibility) of gay and/or bisexual materials is also a subject that I will go further into at a later stage.
Even when focussed on just the straight male-oriented dating coaches, there is a vast amount of usable data, which forced me to narrow my search even further. Each organisation offered a multitude of workshops, books, and other materials which aim to teach men all about the dating rituals best used in everyday situations. The criteria I used in order to limit this vast amount of data (apart from focussing on data aimed at straight males) were as follows:
1) The materials should focus, at least in some part (implicitly or explicitly) on the role of masculinity in our society today. This doesn’t mean that the word masculinity has to be used per se, but it has to touch on a deeper social problem, instead of just offering tips on using different types of conversational techniques.
2) The materials should be easily accessible. This unfortunately excludes any
educational matters that include an in-person interaction, due to the corona crisis, but for example the cost of this information also factors into it. I ended up spending a considerable amount of money on seminars, but some of these were simply too expensive to fit the budget of a poor student, as I (and this may be seen as controversial) value the necessity of food above that of academic knowledge. 3) And finally, the reach of these materials should be substantial enough to make them
relevant in the field of dating coaches. Being a dating coach is not a protected term, which means anyone could call themselves a dating coach. This means that there are a lot of Youtube videos of amateur dating coaches offering up all kinds of advice. While some of these are definitely interesting, only a few of these videos reach over a few hundred people. I argue that the more people are within the audience of a certain actor within the field, the more influence that actor has on discourses surrounding masculinity, which is important in substantiating the findings of this research.
Adhering to these criteria made me limit my sources of data to two of the largest dating coach organisations in the Netherlands, who provide a multitude of ways in which they provide their services. These include books, in-field excursions, online seminars (which consist of lectures complemented by a series of questions at the end of each seminar to test the listeners retention of the information provided), and providing an email (at least every other day, but often every day) to keep interested parties engaged with the subject and providing success stories (or sometimes stories of failures) by the dating coaches themselves or participants in their courses. For this research, I ended up using two
full-length books, both on the subject of becoming better at approaching women as well as getting them to have sex with you. Additionally I used 3 seminars, each consisting of 5-7 lectures on a range of subjects with colorful titles such as “Making her wet with your words” and “Dominating women in less than 3 minutes”. As a last source of data I subscribed to the mailing lists of both of these organisations, and I ended up using over 30 of their emails in my final batch of data. Additionally, I listened to and analyzed 4 podcasts made by prominent people inside these dating coach agencies. These podcasts ended up being barely relevant
to this thesis, as the subject matter did not really coincide with the final version of this
research, but I wanted to mention them here anyway, as I had a great time listening to them. (If I would have to formulate the relevancy of this last sentence, I would say that academic interest broader than that of the actual research should always be celebrated). I analyzed all of these different types of materials using a feminist critical discourse analysis, the choice for which I will explain here.
A critical discourse analysis on these sources allows me to discern the discoursal tactics used by these organisations, as well as more information as to how these discourses are actually transferred to the students. As I want to lay bare the power relations that form the foundation of gender conceptualization, and power relations are inherently discursive, a critical approach is indispensable (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). As the topic of this research is inherently gendered, a feminist approach to discourse analysis is needed. But why put this “feminist” label on this method of research? The reason for this lies in the inherent political implications of writing a thesis on a topic like this. A feminist discourse analysis allows me to be open and clear about the fact that I’m critical of existing gender relations in the field that I’m researching, as well as being appreciative of the foundation laid out by feminist scholars, both contemporary and in a historical sense (Lazar, 2007). This also frees me from the often donned cloak of objectivity that current social academics often use to legitimize their work. While a solid foundation of theory is absolutely necessary in order to perform good research, neutrality (if possible at all) has the potential to only hurt the objectivity of the research in the end (Harding, 1995). This does mean however that I need to reflect on my own place in the discussion surrounding gendered norms, as a researcher (especially if a critical discourse analysis is being used) should be open and honest about their socio-political stance (van Dijk, 1993). I wholly agree with this sentiment, and I will do so at a later stage in this thesis. The reason I don’t put this reflection right at the beginning is one of personal preference, as I find texts where the writer discloses this information at the end to appear more scientifically sound, as it seems (at least to me), less of an anecdotal account of the writer’s personal views.
The process of coding my data began by organizing the data very broadly and non-specific, as this helped me to take a more inductive approach at first (Holton, 2007). While this doesn’t in any way mean this approach is objective (as some who practice inductive methods claim (Gheondea-Eladi, 2014)), as an individual’s background and beliefs always impact their coding, viewing the data without a clear set plan allows me to see more than
what I want to see. I took inspiration from Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, which is mainly clear through the way I focus not just on what is said and written, but also on what is left undiscussed. A clear example of this is the analysis of the visibility/invisibility of the homosexual in the data. This is one of the ‘good practices’ that shows the value of this particular type of discourse analysis (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). In the second round of coding I distilled these loose ideas and concepts into distinct discourses with the help of relevant theory, and defined the core discourses that became the central focus points of this thesis. These core discourses were chosen because of their prevalence in the data, but also because of the extent in which they act as describing factors of the general discourse
surrounding dating coaches in the Netherlands, and the way in which these discourses need to be challenged in order to create a more healthy gendered discourse, as is the aim of feminist discourse analysis (Lazar, 2007).
Before I conclude this chapter on methodology, I want to justify a choice that took me a long time and some extensive (mostly internal, some interpersonal) debate. The organisations that were used in order to collect data in this research are each linked to a specific individual. The organisations do have multiple coaches and supporting staff working for them, but they each have one person (the founder in all cases) representing the organisation in the media and on their websites. The books written by the dating coaches in this research are all personal accounts, and the emails are written as if the founder is addressing you personally. I also have taken into account that these organisations (and by extension, these individuals) are not solely responsible for spreading certain (sometimes dangerous)
conceptions of gender. Just because an organisation is not included in this research, doesn’t mean they conceptualize gender in a constructive way. For these reasons I have chosen to anonymize the dating coaches and their materials in this research. Instead, I have chosen to cite the quotes I use by the type of data. So instead of (Name, Year), it can be (Podcast, Year). This preservation of anonymity is allowed in the current (7th) edition of the APA guidelines (APA, 2020). This was a hard decision to make, as I don’t want to seem like I’m protecting these dating coaches from their own potentially harmful behavior, but it’s also not my intention to call out these specific individuals, but rather call out the systemic forces that perpetuate these gendered conceptions. In this case, I decided that confidentiality overruled retrievability, and took the necessary steps as set out by scholars before me (Lee &
Chapter 3: Main Question and Sub-questions
The question I want to answer in this thesis is as follows: What discoursal tactics are used by dating coaches in the Netherlands to conceptualize gender? I will answer this question at the end of this piece of research, summarizing and concluding my research up to that point. I am aware that there is no definitive answer to the main question of this thesis due to two distinct factors. First, there is no limit on the number of possible discourses at any point in a society. Many scholars have tried to at least form a limited number of categories in which discourses can be arranged (Fludernik, 2000), but the total can never be counted, mainly because the distinction of different discourses relies heavily on interpretation by both producers and consumers of each discourse. Secondly, discourses are ever-changing entities that, while certainly useful in the substantiation and testing of social theory, need to be interpreted over and over again by not just different researchers, but also in different times and spatial contexts. This leads to the conclusion that a definite, rock-solid answer to the main question posed here is nothing short of impossible. You may ask yourself why I’m undercutting the conclusion of this thesis even before the analysis of my data has properly begun. I do this to make sure the aim of this thesis is clear to all those who read it. I intend to present a small number of distinctly gendered discourses in order to provide a better
understanding of the way in which dating coaches reach a broad spectrum of men with their ideas. I wanted to illustrate in this way that the conclusion of this thesis is neither exhaustive nor universal, but rather a piece in a much larger puzzle that stretches itself across our cultural landscape.
In order to answer my main question, I divided this research in three smaller, more easily answered questions. These sub-questions also aid in showing how I arrived at my final conclusion.
1) How do these dating coaches conceptualize gender?
What is their conception of masculinity and femininity, and how do factors such as sexuality, but also race and class fit into this? Intersectional scholars have argued that, in studying inequality and the social world in general, there shouldn’t be a focus on just one factor (such as gender), but a multiplicity of factors that interact with each other in different ways (Collins & Bilge, 2016). In this sub-question, I want to make clear how other dimensions of being can have an effect on the teaching materials of
dating coaches, and if groups with a non-straight or non-white identity are even made visible in these materials.
2) How do these dating coaches transfer their conceptions of gender on their
“students”? I will mainly research this trough Butler’s concept of performativity (which I will go further into in a later section of this thesis), but I will also look at they way these dating coaches speak to their students on a more general level. The sources of data that speak directly to the students tend to use a very aggressive tone, in which the spoken-to subject is often talked down to. Aggressiveness in the teaching methods can be linked to the overall aggressiveness used in the methods they use to talk to women, which is often seen as inherently masculine (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006). These and other ways in which the perception of their audience and the general tone play a role in the transferral of gendered ideas will come to pass in answering this sub-question.
3) How does this conception of gender link to current systems of oppression and privilege? This question can be simplified into a shorter question, namely; “Who profits?”. Looking further into the power structures at play in our current society, who exactly gains something by propagating these types of behavior, or rather, these types of masculinity? An easy hypothesis to formulate if we look at theories on hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy would simply be; the white male profits from this cultural layout. While this is undoubtedly true for some members belonging to this group, I do expect this answer to be lacking nuance. Do heterosexual males actually benefit from these conceptions of masculinity? And if they don’t, what makes these cultural conceptions so imperishable as to keep existing even without benefit to the people it dominates? This, (among other questions) is what I aim to answer in this thesis.
Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework
In this section, I will introduce some concepts that will be essential in grounding my analysis in a broader sociological context. These introductions serve as a foundation, as I will build upon them further in the corresponding sections of the analysis.
A core concept of this research is hegemonic masculinity, a concept that describes the way in which the dominance of the male in society is justified (Connel, 2005). Because the dominator always needs a subject to dominate, this is also the justification of the
subordination of the female. Apart from dominating the female, it also constructs a hierarchy among different expressions of masculinity. Through the lense of hegemonic masculinity, a “perfect” way of displaying masculinity is fabricated for a specific situation. This concept was coined by the Australian sociologist R.W. Connell (2005), who did groundbreaking work in understanding masculinity, not as a static measure of “maleness”, but as a concept that evolves over time and differs in cultural contexts, but also differs in situational contexts within the same broad culture. The example that always sticks with me is that of the army general, who affirms his masculinity at work by shouting at his inferiors and feats of physical strength, but while he is at home, needs to act out a different form of masculinity while interacting with his young son. Shouting at your children is (in general) not perceived as a positive masculine trait. Connel’s work has had some criticism in the past, especially for being too focussed on white and heterosexual masculinity (Demetriou, 2001), and I will incorporate these criticisms in the analysis of my data, in order to form a more comprehensive conceptualization of hegemonic masculinity. The inclusion of these criticisms will show that the social reality of gendered discourses is more complicated than the sometimes presented “male dominating female” model.
The current discourses that can be discerned when it comes to dating coaches show a disappointment in current expressions of masculinity, and the effort that is being made to craft a “better” kind of masculine representation. This hierarchization directly links to the theory of masculinities, and it seems to call for a return to form, a nostalgia for the times when “men were still men”. Further research in my thesis is needed to confirm this feeling of nostalgia, but earlier academic work seems to indicate that, in times of crisis, a call for “gender nostalgia” (a longing for the reinstatement of traditional gender roles) is common (MacKenzie & Foster, 2017).
In doing research on gender, one cannot take into account gender alone. To better
understand the concept of gender and how it is used to create a relationship of dominance and subordination, an intersectional approach is needed. Categories such as sexuality and race can have a significant impact on the way gender is constructed, as is shown by a myriad of feminist scholars over the years. When it comes to sexuality, the dominance of the heterosexual matrix is expected to have an effect on the discourses used by dating coaches. This concept is coined by Judith Butler (2006) in her book Gender Trouble, and it describes the way in which heterosexuality is presented as the universal norm, while every type of sexuality that does not fit this description is thereby reduced to the other, and often seen as unnatural or made invisible. Looking further into the role heterosexuality and its matrix plays in the current culture of dating coaching is interesting in my opinion, as sexuality influences the way we construct gender in multiple ways according to Butler. For example, is the homosexual completely invisible, or does he play a role in their conceptualization of masculinity? I could imagine that the current state of masculinity, often portrayed by the dating coach culture as soft and weak, is tightly linked with current preconceptions of gay men. This hypothesis regarding the role of sexuality in gendered discourses turned out to play an even larger role than I initially expected, as my analysis will show.
To be able to do research on gendered topics, a personal conception of gender was needed. After all, I can’t very well say anything about the conception of gender by dating coaches if my own conceptualizations are not made clear beforehand. My conception of gender comes from a well-built base of a school of thought within sociology and philosophy commonly referred to as gender constructivism. More specifically, I will use Butler’s theory of gender performativity as it is laid out in her (what some may consider to be) magnum opus ‘Gender Trouble’. In this conception of gender, the concept is treated not as a static phenomenon or simply as a set role people play to let the world around them know about their gender
identity. Rather, gender is born before the individual, and shapes the individual far more than the individual shapes the form of their gender. As she states in her book, “the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed - the deed is everything” (p.25). It’s not like the dating coaches I write about have control over the things that are seen as manly. They are born into a world where these conceptions of gender already exist, and the structures these conceptions are built into already exert their power over the people living in this society. This does present a problem however. If these preconceptions of gender are as pervasive as is being claimed, how does agency and resistance to the norms come into play? Butler denies the existence of agency in its common form, and instead introduces (although it was coined by Derrida)
the concept of iterability in her book ‘Bodies that Matter’ (1993). Iterability describes the way in which gender is produced, and how instead of choosing our own expressions of gender, we imitate the individuals around us who share the same societal labels as us. This process is ongoing and repeated many times, which is how we internalize these gendered cultural norms into our very being. While this process happens in a subconscious way, one of the things I want to research in this thesis is how the norms of hegemonic masculinity are taught to the people taking part in certain dating courses. How exactly does this iteration take place? I argue that these courses on dating and “being a man” provide a unique insight in this process, as these processes are often very subtle and subconscious, while the subject of these course is very direct and visible.
Butler’s work is focussed on structure (or rather, the deconstruction of certain structures). As shown earlier (and this will be examined further in the analysis), conceptualization of gender as it is done by dating coaches in the Netherlands is influenced by a certain nostalgia for bygone days. The knowledge we have or think we have about these earlier gender roles and expressions is far from neutral, as knowledge production (including the way in which we come to know our own history) is always influenced by the actors and methods with which history is written. (I could quote the whole field of critical historiography here, but I was especially inspired by the works of Glenn (2000) in which she uncovers the often hidden roles of women in history, and Raedts (2009) in which the medieval history we think we know is beautifully shown to be false.) It’s also important to use Butler’s work to expose the hegemonic forms of gender expressions for the fiction that they are. It is an excellent tool to take away the curtain of self-evidentness from current power structures, and be able to ask the necessary question of “Who benefits here?”.
Chapter 5: Dating coaches and their conceptualizations of gender
To start off this first chapter of the analysis, I want to shine a spotlight on one of the most pervasive and visible types of discourse that runs like a thread through almost every piece of data I ended up using for this research; the Traditional conception of gender. Below I want to give an overview of what this discourse actually entails, after which I will show how this particular discourse manifests itself in the educational materials. This is important, as it has a significant impact on one of the focal parts of the conclusion of this research; Gender
Nostalgia.
While giving a complete overview of every single aspect of traditional gender role discourse would be almost impossible due to the sheer multitude of facets, some clear characteristics can be formulated in order to mark a certain discourse as traditional. Central to this
discourse is the clear distinction between men and women, who have oppositional roles that don’t overlap (Jackson, 2012). Men should provide for their families and protect them, while women take it upon themselves to care for their families in a different way, mainly through homely tasks such as cooking and cleaning. From this need for men to protect the people close to them also comes the near-monopoly of men to commit violent acts. Women are seen as too caring or “soft” to be able to commit violence, which makes violence an inherently male trait (Tomsen, 2010). This factors into the way in which men are perceived as inherently dominant, which means (due to the fact that men and women have
oppositional roles) women are viewed as inherently subservient. The use of the word “inherent” is of importance here. Traditional gender norms can’t be examined properly without the aspect of self-evidentness. Gendered behavior is seen as something that is already present in society, often influenced by physiological factors that lead to a conclusion about what a man and a woman are “meant to be” (Crompton & Lyonette, 2005). This dismisses the notion that gender and its many forms are a product of cultural and social development of a society. Arguments for this are legion, but some examples include the gendering of certain workplaces (women are simply not strong enough to build houses, that’s why they shouldn’t work in construction) and other realms of the social world (women are biologically wired to take care of children, because of the way their bodies are able to conceive children). In sociology, this way of looking at gendered concepts in the social world is called ‘gender essentialism’ (Witt, 2010). This worldview, in most people, summons some immediate questions (What about physically weak men? What about women who can’t conceive children? Are they even men/women?). I will let these questions rest for now, as
the intention of this part of the thesis is not challenging this social outlook, but merely providing insight.
To summarize, in this research the most important facets of the discourse on traditional gender roles are the promotion of self-evidentness, a clear distinction between male and female roles, where men are tasked with being dominant, protecting and providing for those around them, as women have the task of care-work which makes them (at least in some capacity) subservient to men. So how does this conception of gender manifest itself in the data? Below I will present three quotes that do exactly that, after which I will contextualize these in the larger frame of the data.
(Note: The quotes I use here (as well as further on in this thesis) are translated by me from Dutch to English. They are technically not quotes but paraphrases, and will be cited as such (Lee, 2014).)
Women are way more likely to come with you if you target their emotions. While men respond better to rational arguments, don’t forget that women are emotional creatures. (Seminar, 2014)
My friend started talking about how his new girlfriend is the on the board of directors of some big-shot company. He lists all her academic accomplishments, and can’t stop going on about the countries she travelled to and so forth. The only question going through my mind was: “Is that what you look for in a woman?”. How is a woman with a good career attractive to so many men? Do you really want to be a stay-at-home dad while your wife is out working all day? (Book, 2019)
In my experience, women who think they are smart are not worth the effort, except if you can make them see they are not as smart as they think they are in the first 5 minutes. (Book, 2019)
Especially in the second and third quote, the prevalence of traditional gender norms becomes visible, mainly through the idea that being smart or career-driven is simply not feminine enough for the writers of this material. It promotes the idea that women should stay at home (with the hypothetical kids presumably) and men should be out working. The first quote highlights another aspect of traditional gender conceptions. While it does factor into
the idea that was discussed before, about men and women having clearly distinct traits that don’t overlap, the dichotomy of emotional versus rational is also prevalent in traditional discourses on gender. In this mode of thinking, men are supposed to think with their brains, making calculated decisions based on risk and reward, while women take decisions with their hearts (or in some medicalized discourses, their “hormones”) based on emotion and attachment. While this discourse has been widely refuted (Parkins, 2012; Brody, 1985; Ahmad et al., 2009) due to the fact that, among other things, clear lines can’t be drawn between the sexes to demonstrably classify their behavior as either rational or emotional, this view still persists in today’s society, far from being limited to fringe communities or vanishing discourses.
Now that the prevalence of traditional gender roles in the data is clear, the next part of the analysis will make a link between gender and sexuality, as these two dimensions are heavily reliant on one another. This will be done to illustrate the pervasiveness of hegemonic
masculinity and gender nostalgia in the used discourses. The visibility of the homosexual
Going into this research, I had a fairly certain hypothesis about the existence of the
homosexual (male) in the teaching materials provided by dating coaches in the Netherlands. I reasoned that, since the homosexual is often seen as undesirable by those adhering to a traditional (Western) conception of gender, this identity would be invisible in the data used for this thesis. I could imagine some offhand remarks about the supposed femininity of gay men, but apart from that the focus would lay solely on the heterosexual (white) male. After analyzing my data (even before the analysis actually, during the casual reading of the materials), this hypothesis turned out to be false. This last sentence can be interpreted as an understatement, as a better description would be that the hypothesis was dead wrong. The sheer number of pages and fragments from the seminars dealing with homosexual men was overwhelming, and as I will show here, says a lot about the interwovenness of concepts surrounding sex and gender.
Before I start talking about blatant homophobia in the data (of which there are many
examples), I first want to show a phenomenon that returned in many different data sources; the useful homosexual. To illustrate this, I present some quotes from these sources in order to explain what I mean by this concept:
“If you’re going out with a gay man, they will wonder if you are gay too. This will incite them to test that by flirting with you.” (Book, 2017)
“Homosexuals know a lot of women. Among women it’s even hip to be associated with them. They hang around them much more easily because of the lack of tension.” (Book, 2019)
“Gay men don’t present a threat to you. They won’t steal a woman right from under your nose, which makes it less likely that you leave the club with a hurt ego.” (Seminar, 2019)
These examples present a picture of the homosexual male as a tool in order to get close to women. The individuality of these men is not discussed, but rather explicitly ignored as they serve a purpose for which only their sexuality is needed in order to be useful. Butler’s (1999) work on the heterosexual matrix comes into play here, as this is an example of the way in which heteronormativity is normalized further. The heterosexual matrix can be defined as the system of normalizing discourses that aim to reinforce the self-evidence of heterosexuality as the pinnacle of normalcy in a social context (Fairclough, 2004). In some (or even most) contexts, homosexuality is seen as a challenge towards this heterosexual supremacy, especially when taking into account queer interpretations of gay-being from non-western contexts (Frei, 2012; Newmanxy, 2002). This is not the case in this example however. Here, the homosexual male is incorporated into the heterosexual matrix in order to make the man seeking female courtship more trustworthy and respectable. This goes even further when the writer of one of the books on dating goes on to explain how to “scout” gay men for his dating plans:
“In the last few years I learned to scout gay men by making them doubt my sexuality. If I meet a gay man, I try to hang out with him as soon as possible. I tell him I’m straight, but they never believe me. I don’t mind this, the more he doubts me, the better. (...) They will tell their female friends I’m still in the closet, which makes me irresistible to them, they will do anything to test me.” (E-mail, 2020)
I did say a couple of paragraphs back that this first discoursal example of the way gay men are made visible was not blatantly homophobic. That was not entirely fair, I admit. An argument can be made that using homosexual men for your own personal gain is about as homophobic as it gets, and I agree fully with that. The problem here is that the writers don’t see it this way at all. While the insistence of the writers of dating coach materials that they
are well loved by gay people could simply be a sign of self-aggrandizement (of which there are more than a few examples to be named in the materials), I argue that it comes from a complete ignorance of their own homophobic practices. I hope this becomes clear when I present here another way in which homosexual men are made visible; The half-woman:
“The way in which gay men act is similar to how a woman would act in most situations. They try to imitate women in their behavior (...) this makes them easy to manipulate.” (Seminar, 2014)
“Homosexual men really know how to make friends with women, as they are not as
masculine as men. This is not the way you should act towards women though, because they would see you more as a friend instead of as a potential sexual partner.” (Book, 2017)
These quotes, as well as a more general condescending tone towards homosexual men in the used materials, show how these men are portrayed as being less than full males. This observation is supported by the theoretical idea that male-being is tightly bound to
straight-being (Blasshill & Powlishta, 2009). This has a significant impact on the behavior of straight men, especially those who revel in their straightness, building their whole personality and their ideal of success around the idea that hooking up with women is the highest
attainable goal, as is arguably the case with (some of) the dating coaches discussed in this research. The reason for this disdain towards the homosexual other comes from the impulse of heterosexual people to “correct” the behavior of others around them, making sure they act as manly (and consequently, as straight) as possible (Theodore & Basow, 2000). This homophobic demeanor is a direct effect of the propagation of this traditional conception of gender discussed earlier in this chapter. This is a self perpetuating process, as men who fear the accusation of being gay tend to lash out and accuse others of being gay with even more fervour. This hierarchization of sexuality, with heterosexuality at the top and all other forms deep down below, tends to hurt straight people as well. The constant fear of being called gay is an oppressive force used to dominate gay people into hiding, and limits straight people into a straitjacket (or straight-jacket if you will) of behavioral norms (Bosia, 2014).
Hegemonic masculinity and gender nostalgia
The aim of the previous paragraphs was to show how the dating coaches in the data conceptualize gender, and I tried to present this in a practical way. This paragraph will be slightly different, as I will aim to use slightly more complex concepts to frame the way in
which gendered norms are created by the people in charge of the courses on picking up women most effectively.
I introduced the concept of hegemonic masculinity shortly in the chapter on the theoretical framework of this work, but this needs a more in-depth look when it comes to linking it to the data. You won’t catch Dutch dating coaches using concepts such as this one in their own work, which means a thorough analysis is needed. One way this can be done is through examining the cases where the need for masculinity is emphasized. These instances are far from rare, as literal calls for masculinity such as “Why can’t he act like a man?” (Book, 2019) or “Come on, be a man!” (Book, 2019) are counted no less than 17 times in the data. Keep in mind that this number doesn’t incorporate calls for masculinity that are not as literal as the two examples listed here. Being masculine, not even being personally masculine but the men in your direct surroundings as well, is extremely important to the dating coaches in this research. They are calling for themselves and others to embody their idea of the perfect man, as this perfect man would be able to get every woman to sleep with him. This idea of the perfect man (and the discourses justifying his dominance over women and other men) is the perfect example of the unattainable goal of hegemonic masculinity.
Hegemonic masculinity as it is conceptualized by Connel (2005) presupposes that the current group of men that is in power in a certain context (which will be most often white, heterosexual, cis men) get to “decide” which form of masculinity is seen as the optimal form in that context. While this does take into account the power structures at play on a more global level, critics such as Demetriou (2001) have stated that, especially on a smaller scale, the concept is much more complex than Connel presents it. Demetriou argues that
hegemonic masculinity is formed through a process of hybridity that allows for other races and sexualities to influence it, as long as the masculine is still dominant over femininity in every way. In my opinion this is a better conceptualization, as this directly links to my earlier analysis on the role of homosexual men in dating coach discourses. The homosexual is not just seen as lesser or invisible (which would substantiate the theory of Connel), but as useful to the heterosexual. The masculinity displayed by homosexual men is non-threatening to women, which lends itself perfectly in order to be utilized by the heterosexual man to get close to them. As I have stated in the theoretical framework, a more comprehensive view of masculinity is used here, to show that these masculinities that differ from the hegemonic ideal do not challenge the status quo or just disappear, but form a supporting structure surrounding the patriarchal ideal that is presented.
Now that the concept and prevalence of calling for hegemonic masculinity is clear, a specific question on the use of this tactic can be asked: What kind of masculinity are they calling for? The repeated lamenting of dating coaches on how the modern man needs to be more
“manly” is interesting in itself, but who exactly is the man everyone should aspire to be? Analysis of the data showed that the statement “We should be men” is incomplete. Rather, the statement that these dating coaches propagate is “We should be men AGAIN”. This implies that men in current times “lost” something, that men in earlier times had in
abundance. I will present here two quotes (translated by me from Dutch to English, which again, makes them paraphrases) that show how this call for masculinity is almost always backed up by a call for a return of masculinity:
“Men have always been simple creatures. The whole movement that wants to let men show their emotions is moving away from that, and they do it just because they can’t be the simple thing women want: a Man” (Book, 2017).
“Do you...Do you know...how men used to do things? It’s nothing...nothing like we know now, and that’s not what women want. Men just took things, because they wanted to...for
thousands of years they just took it. Do you think women don’t want that anymore? It’s evolution...basic evolution” (Podcast, 2019).
I don’t think anyone would disagree if I called the statements above horribly sexist and reductionist, but what does this tell us about the material provided by these dating coaches? They long for a time where men were dominant, and women had no power to resist them doing anything they did not like. A time where female agency basically did not exist, irregardless of if such a time actually existed as they picture it. With this in mind, it’s important to stress a point that I illustrated in the preface of this thesis. These dating coaches fully believe in the idea that modern masculinity is under attack. The modern zeitgeist (and feminism in particular) is an attack on the core of what these men perceive to be the essence of being a man, as they simply don’t acknowledge the male superiority. Or, as is written so elegantly in the data: “Feminists are mostly just women who hate their dads, if you don’t pay any attention to them, they will quiet down soon enough” (E-mail, 2020). The notion that masculinity is under attack is an important one, as it (partly) explains why there is such a need to return to a traditional form of masculinity. In beautiful work done by Foster & Mackenzie (2017), it is shown how, in times of crisis, a call for traditional gender roles is
uttered in order to form the present into a more safe and stable place, a version of the present that is molded by an idealistic viewing of the past. This also means that, in order to substantiate this call for traditionality, the idea of “being under attack” needs to be
perpetuated. In the next chapter I will show how this violent discourse is used for other reasons as well.
The topic of the next chapter may seem completely different from this chapter, but they actually form a cohesive line. In focussing on the way in which methods of teaching can have an effect on the students of dating coaches in the Netherlands, I want to show how their conceptions of gender and teaching methods complement each other. The next chapter will show how not just the content, but also the way in which these discourses are taught can affect real change. The chapter after the next one will focus on the societal impact these two dimensions (content and form) can have when they are combined in this way.
Chapter 6: Teaching gendered conceptions to the students; The impact of used methods
Now that we know how these dating coaches conceptualize gender, we can look further into the way in which these conceptions are taught to the people paying for these (online)
seminars and books. This chapter will be a bit shorter than originally intended, as the actual face-to-face approach of research by participating observations was hindered by the current corona crisis. It is clear to me that this is brought up a lot in this thesis, but the fact is that the outbreak of the virus and subsequent “smart lockdown” in the Netherlands has had a
significant impact on this research in more ways than one. Being honest about the influence of outside sources on research is (apart from a moral obligation and a way of bonding with the reader) a good way to preserve intellectual integrity (Hillman, 1995). This does not mean that the sub-question on the ways of transferring gendered norms used by Dutch dating coaches becomes irrelevant or unanswerable. Even plain text or audio files present a multitude in techniques in which gendered conceptions can be taught.
As I have presented in the chapter on the theoretical framework of this thesis, I want to explore the transferral of gendered norms through the concept of iterability. This means that certain behavior and ways of thinking are learned through constant repetition by the actor themselves and the people they see as similar to them. The phenomenon of copying the actions of those close to you (be it physically, mentally, or emotionally) is recognized not just in sociology and philosophy, but in academic dimensions such as economics and
psychology as well (Suter et al., 2016; Douglas Greer et al, 2006). This “closeness” is important to our research, as it explains an anomaly in the data that only makes sense once you take the “social distance” concept into account.
Most of the seminars and books used in this data follow the same pattern at the beginning. While they diverge wildly in subjects and tone later on in the matter, the beginning is mostly the same; they all start with downplaying themselves. This is remarkable, as most of the writers of these dating courses praise themselves into high heaven later on in their work. Here are some examples (all of them from the beginning/preface of their respective forms) of dating coaches being overtly negative about themselves:
“I jumped off the climbing frame and peed my pants, I did this a lot when I was young” (Book, 2019) (This is literally one of the first sentences after the preface of this book.)
“By doing absolutely nothing I got into huge financial trouble. I lied to my parents and stole hundreds of euros from them. (...) I barely fucked any women, and the ones I fucked were fat anyway.” (Book, 2017)
“(...), I was far from a real man back then” (Seminar, 2019)
Now why would they do this? Why would a dating coach want their students to know how they failed miserably at everything in the past? I argue that the reason is because they want to bond with their students, showing them how close they are to them socially in order to trigger in them the copying behavior that the concept of iterability describes. This is substantiated by the fact that, in later parts of the books and the seminars, this negativity about their own behavior has completely vanished. Calling themselves “the one thing women want most” (Book, 2019) and “more handsome than George Clooney” (E-mail, 2019) (no joke) are just some of the examples of the vain self-loving rhetoric that comes to light in later stages of the materials. Here, the objective of social closeness is already achieved, and they can start convincing their students that they are someone to look up to, someone every man should aspire to be.
The discoursal tactic laid out above is a way in which dating coaches in the Netherlands ingratiate themselves towards their audience on a personal level. Now I want to focus on a method that is used often to convey their message in a not-so-subtle way; violence. It can be argued that the propagation of traditional gender norms (which inherently carry trans- and homophobic elements as they heavily regulate sexuality and the borders between male and female (Buck, 2016)) is violent in and of itself. While I don’t disagree with this argument, as homophobia and transphobia can lead to physical violence (as I will touch on in the next chapter), this is not the type of violence I want to focus on here. The way in which violence manifests itself in the materials used for this research is far less subtle than the symbolic violence alluded to in the previous argument.
Violent discourses are far from rare in our contemporary ways of talking about romantic adventures.The use of words like “conquering” to describe the act of dating or having sex with women is not a new phenomenon. As feminist historian Karen Vieira Powers (2002) writes in her work on the colonization of Latin America: “(...) the Spanish Conquest was mainly a “conquest” of indigenous women”. While this is presented as a joke commonly told
by other historians, Powers shows how this statement holds more true than is often thought. In the materials provided by dating coaches in the Netherlands, this distinctive way of using violence in discourse is also prevalent, as shown by (but far from limited to) the following examples:
“Why chicks who are members of a sorority all need to die” (E-mail, 2020).
“During dinner, I use my last weapon that is available to me in this battle and guarantees me a spot in her bed tonight” (Book, 2019).
“It can occur that you have to fight with a man who knows these techniques while you don’t, that makes him more attractive, more appealing to women. This means you are already fighting a battle with half the means” (Book, 2019) (Quick reminder that this is a sentence from a book on dating, not self-defence).
The same as with the previous subject of dating coaches talking negatively about
themselves, we have to ask the question; why would they do this? Why the extreme focus on aggressiveness and violence? This question can be answered by an earlier part of this research, where I laid out how traditional gender norms influence the creators of these works in many ways. Violence is viewed as a typically male trait (Tomsen, 2010), which reinforces the idea that, in order to be attractive to women (who are looking for a “real man”), violence is needed to express yourself. This is only part of the answer I want to give in this research however, as it focuses mainly on the male in this discourse. The female part in this
interpersonal exchange is invisible here, and I want to show how this is intentional, rather than a mere oversight.
The disappearance of the woman as a social actor with their own agency has a solid base in literature as it is a common phenomenon, especially in male-centered discourses
(Hawkesworth, 1988). In this instance specifically, the man presented as the only one with true agency, while the woman is assigned the role of the passive spectator who is in essence nothing more than a goal to be reached, a possession to be claimed by the man. This viewpoint links directly to the traditional gender norms as laid out in the previous chapter (men are supposed to be the active protecting actors while women tend to be or should be the passive, caring subjects) but the addition of violence in this discourse
materials provided by dating coaches, they are presented as being easily manipulated, as long as the rules laid out in the books and seminars are followed. Consequently, women are demonstrated to be nothing more than a puzzle to solve, without taking their actual wants and needs into account. This leads to a view on women that can often be summarized as “she wants to sleep with you, she just doesn’t know it”, a view that’s not presented this clear and literal in the data, but alluded to several times throughout the different materials. This just further proves that, in the discoursal tactics used by Dutch dating coaches, the actual needs of women are irrelevant, at least compared to those of men.
Chapter 7: Power structures and the ones who profit from them; Who gets to be a man?
In this chapter I want to show how the gendered conceptualizations (analyzed in the first sub-question) and the way they are transferred and internalized (analyzed in the previous chapter) fit into power structures that exist in our society today. When discussing power structures, one can’t ignore the necessity of an intersectional approach. In an earlier chapter I used this approach to show which groups of people were made visible, and how this factored into the perception of gender by dating coaches. This chapter will take it a step further and focus on the effects the perpetuation of these perceptions (can) have for people identifying with these visible and invisible identities.While all these types of identities can be influenced by the propagation of these (traditional) gender norms, I want to divide this chapter in three distinct categories of oppression; namely those of women, non-straight people, and men (more specifically, the men directly spoken to in the dating courses). While there are many more intersections of identity that would be very interesting to highlight such as race, disability, and age, the scope of this research simply doesn’t allow for every
category to receive the attention it deserves. Keep in mind while reading this research that this is far from a complete view, and many other factors influence the power structures at play here.
As stated above, the first group of people affected by the gendered conceptions laid out in the previous chapters are women. This is a good place to start from, as they are the most visibly influenced by the presented ideal types. A problem that surfaces here is that women who incorporate these traditional gender roles into their own behavior, they end up
reinforcing these ideas even more. An example of this comes from research on women in the labor market. Women who ascribe to a number of markers associated with traditional gender roles tend to devalue their own value on the labor market, which leads to a number of undesirable outcomes such as applying for jobs far below their capabilities and not asking for (earned) promotions (Vella, 1994). This in turn fuels the wage gap, a disparity between the mean incomes of men and women, and also weakens the social and economic position of women in the process. The opposite is also true, as women who take an active role in the workforce tend to see a more egalitarian household than women who stay at home and do (unpaid) carework (Zuo & Tang, 2000). This economic dependency is important, as it allows women the freedom to make their own decisions, even when their situation at home is becoming unsafe for them (Singer, 1988). Here we see the self-reinforcing effect of these
gendered discourses come to light. Women who devalue themselves on the workfloor tend to make less money, which makes them more dependant on men in their lives to support them. This in turn leads to a strengthening of the belief that women are simply inherently dependant on men, which lead men to believe they need to protect the women around them (with violence if deemed necessary), and women to believe they need protection at any cost. Unfortunately, violence doesn’t stay confined to the protection of women however. Research shows that men who ascribe to a traditional view of masculinity are far more likely to be perpetrators in domestic violence than men who don’t (Santana et al., 2016). It would seem that ascribing to a form of masculinity where violence is deemed justified in many instances, Intimate Partner Violence is more common. This shows the dangers of the violent discourses used by these dating coaches as I presented them in the previous chapter. Even when these discourses are explained to be “just jokes” or as hyperbole, the immense frequency of the use of violence in the materials is at risk of desensitizing the students, as well as other men who come into contact with these methods of teaching gendered conceptions (Cole, 2013). Some studies show that this desensitization can lead to actual violence and domestic abuse (Linz et al., 1989), although the science surrounding this subject is far from a consensus on the real-life effects of being exposed to violent discourses (Funk et al., 2004).
The second group affected by the traditional gendered discourses consists of non-straight people. As stated in an earlier chapter, the homosexual male is both visible and invisible, but for example bisexual people or lesbian women are completely left out. There is one exception I found on the topic of bisexual women though, and it turned out to be exactly what you expect from men following the preconceptions that are thought in these courses:
“Bisexual women are awesome, as long as they are willing to share. Some of them don’t, and that’s...that’s just a shame. (laughing) We are all taught… when we were young we were all taught to share right? You can’t be hiding that from us” (Podcast, 2019)
Bisexual women are presented here as nothing more than a way to get a threesome (let it be clear that when they say a threesome, they mean having sex with two women, as this is “the only way you should ever have a threesome” (Book, 2017)). Here the earlier talked-about trope of the “useful homosexual” comes back into view. The integration of non-straight people in the heterosexual matrix as “tools” is far from the only effect these discourses have on this group however. Traditional thinking on the subject of gender has been harmful to gay people in many instances. Being viewed as a deviant sexuality, the people who feel
attraction to other people of the same sex face exclusion and even prosecution, which is often embedded deeply in our language (Brown & Alderson, 2010). This can be observed when taking into account that many of the most common insults used in our society today are based on deviant sexualities (Brown & Alderson, 2010), of which I can give many example, but I’m sure this won’t be necessary as they are used frequently enough to be common knowledge. While I could find no definitive proof that these insults are used more by people who believe in traditionally structured gender roles (which is hard, not only
because they have become such a common part of our language that the use of it no longer definitively shows that person’s own preconceptions), it is proven that people who hold these beliefs are more likely to show homophobic behavior (Basow & Johnson, 2000). The effects of homophobia don’t stop at simple utterances of insults however, as homophobic attitudes can have negative effects for gay people even on a governmental level. Button et al. (1997) shows how homophobic attitudes in the US congress caused several laws that would have protected gay people from hate crimes (or at least provided them legal visibility in order to better prosecute the perpetrators) were stopped by traditionally Christian congressmen who believed homosexuality to be an “immoral lifestyle”. This is also shown in my own research from the thesis I wrote for my bachelor in sociology (Hoekstra, 2019). Protestants pastors, when interviewed on their views on homosexuality in the Church, all believed there to be no homosexuals in their own church (while I knew some homosexual people in these churches personally), and most were hesitant or even hostile to the idea of including these people in a way that their sexuality was accepted. They were all very enthusiastic about including homosexual people as long as no one knew about their sexuality, which again shows the invisibility of this group in certain conservative, traditional groups.
While bisexual people and homosexual people are definitely affected by these discourses, I can’t leave out the effect these conceptions of gender can have on transsexual people. These people are invisible in the data, and no mention of them is made in any of the materials, but the concrete border between femininity and masculinity, with traits that can only belong to one of those categories, can be called transphobic in its own right. Traditional gender beliefs have definitely caused harm to this group in the past, for example through exclusion or downright violence (Blyth & McRae, 2018). Trans people have
disproportionately been the victim of violence for many years now, be it symbolic violence through discourse or physical violence, which leads to the number of murders of transsexual people (notably in the category of sex workers) being significantly higher than those not belonging to this group (Fletcher, 2013).
During the course of this research, I have been clearly critical of the practices of dating coaches in the Netherlands. I have also been critical of the way in which gendered conceptions are integrated in certain discourses in order to promote a sense of male and white superiority. There is a question that rises from this criticism however; do the men who participate in these dating seminars actually profit from them? Unfortunately, there is no data available where the successfulness of the dating strategies is explored. I could mention that the people in my direct social surroundings (identifying as both male and female) have laughed heartily and expressed their disgust about multiple strategies presented by the dating coaches in this research, but that would be far from usable scientific data. However, there is research substantiating the claim that, at least for most men who fall into the
categories of intended audience, there are some dire consequences for further propagating these gendered conceptions.
An example of this comes from research exploring the quality of relationships between people with traditional gendered values (Ickes, 1993). This research seems to indicate that people with traditional gender beliefs have less successful relationships, mainly attributed to the stark contrast between male and female roles that can’t always be fulfilled by individuals. Here we see the concept of hegemonic masculinity rear its head again, as the ideal picture that is painted of the man who takes care of his family fall apart quickly due to everyday occurrences such as the man losing his job. Gendered expectations like this can have serious effects on relationships, as men who lose their jobs tend to divorce more often than those with a stable job (Del Boca et al., 2000). This, among other arguments made in this thesis, shows that the men profiting from the traditional conception of gender are only those who can come close to attaining the ideal of hegemonic masculinity. Even those who are capable of this are vulnerable to change, as something simple as losing a job (something that can happen to all of us, even without our own actions influencing it) can mean that manliness suddenly becomes an unattainable trait. It’s not my intention to argue that heterosexual man is the “real” victim here, and that we should feel sorry for them. I do however want to show that even the people perceived to be in power here don’t really benefit from this system in the end. All the more reason to rethink the way we construct our own gendered perspectives.
Chapter 8: Reflections and Recommendations for further research
I want to start off this reflection by fulfilling a promise I made in the methodology section of this thesis. I argued there that a researcher should be open and honest about their own ideas and identity in order to provide some context to the reader, a decision that is based in literature on this subject (van Dijk, 1993). This section of the research is also an
acknowledgement of the work done on ‘Situated Knowledges’ by the feminist and sociologist Donna Haraway (1988). This concept describes the way in which every form of knowledge is shaped by the circumstances in which it is produced. This research you are reading is influenced by my perspective (as is every piece of research ever done), which means it’s only fair to give some insight in the aspects that may have influenced this perspective. This reflection will not be a complete autobiography, but a short summary of some facets of my identity that may be important here.
I am a white, bisexual (straight-passing), 25 year old man, and I would say I’m middle-upper class when it comes to the socio-economic level. I grew up in a small village surrounded by mostly conservative views on gender, which I held for most years of my life at the point of writing. Choosing to study gender and sexuality specifically allowed me to broaden my views when it comes to issues like gay and trans rights, as well as adopt a more progressive view (or at least a more complete view) on gender than I had growing up. I feel like many of these facets of identity lead me to the subject of this thesis. While I don’t fully support the idea that one cannot research groups that they themselves do not belong to, I believe that belonging to a certain group can provide insights that are overlooked when studied by an outsider. In many ways, I am alike to the people who are responsible for the data used in this research. Had it not been for certain circumstances (meeting the right people at the right time, which can be attributed to either pure luck or divine intervention, whichever you prefer), I could have been one of the students purchasing these seminars for a whole other reason than I the one I have now. This realization made the writing of this thesis a bit surreal at times, as if I was having a conversation with a younger version of myself instead of with the data. This sometimes made it hard to be overly critical on certain ideas about gender which, as I argue in the third chapter, can actually cause harm. I took great care in being explicitly critical of these ideas, as I feel this is my duty as a critical researcher, and I hope this critical voice has come out on top in this work.
As for recommendations for further research, my first recommendation has to do with the current situation surrounding the Covid-19 epidemic. As I have stated multiple times in this work, I could not perform research in the field under the current circumstances, while this was one of the reasons I was most excited to do this research. This is definitely a dimension of research that should be explored further, as I believe being able to interact with the dating coaches face to face, as well as being in direct contact with other people taking these classes provides a significantly new (I would even say better) insight into the teaching methods of dating coaches in the Netherlands. I am aware that it can be hard for some/most scholars to acquire information this way, be it because of the possible emotional impact of the used discourses in these courses or the simple fact that they don’t fit the mould of expectations for people attending these courses. Because the focus of these courses is on heterosexual men, a researcher who desires to blend in needs to be at least male-passing as well as straight-passing. This can be a real challenge, as most of my fellow students during my academic career have been women, but I believe the scientific merits outweigh the possible challenges in this case. Another recommendation for further research would be the inclusion of more and different types of identity to better examine the intersectional effects of the gendered conceptions in this research. I touched upon this earlier in this work, but I do want to stress the importance of this intersectional approach, but also the
importance of researching this from a whole other perspective. I do want to invite scholars from across the spectrum of academia to engage with this work (and of course, other works like this) in order to gain a more complete understanding of our social world.
