Why isn't "Sadie Hawkins" feminism a thing?

The #metoo movement has me thinking: why is there no such thing as “Sadie Hawkins” feminism? Some single women will wear a fake wedding ring if they do not want to be hit on. How about if women start wearing a ring on a different finger indicating that if they are interested in dating a guy they will ask him out? On a date it would mean: do not make any physical advances; if she wants physical activity, then she will make the first move. Would this help? Does it go too much against heterosexual female psychology?

I was thinking of something similar, only using different symbols. If a woman is interested in acting a guy out, she could maybe indicate this by using the signal of opening her mouth and saying, “Hey, Chris, do you wanna catch a movie this weekend?” If she’s not interested in a guy making physical advances, she can say, “Hey, I’m not interested in making out, thanks.” If she wants physical activity, she opens her mouth to say, “Hey, wanna make out?”

I see some real advantages to my proposal over new ring symbolism. Rings are expensive!

The ring is meant to ward off unwanted advances, like a fake wedding ring is actually used. She cannot go around making verbal disclaimers to get the same effect, like you seem to suggest.

Because women saying “No” hasn’t worked very well, putting on a ring will surely put those males who harass and assault on notice. The problem isn’t women’s preferences being unknown, it’s having males abide by those preferences.

Symbols need to be subtle because a guy with a pin that reads I’m available! Probably isn’t going to get a whole lot of takers unless he’s really good looking, and then why would he need the PIN?

Maybe they could carry a horga’hn.

And once it becomes general knowledge that this method is being used(and it will) then they will hit on everyone: “How was I supposed to know she was really married?”

The answers so far seem to be: against heterosexual female psychology (and perhaps against some males’ psychology - not mine though). No one seems to be looking at aspects like an attractive woman just trying to get some grocery shopping done and getting guys approaching her to strike up a conversation. Everyone thinks this is an ok infringement on her time? Obviously some women find it enough of a problem to put on a fake wedding ring. Perhaps mentioning the #metoo movement restricted the debate too much. We aren’t just trying to fix clear rule violations. But also thing which fit the rules but are too agressive or time infringing. And also it might contribute to a climate in which things which break the rules are less likely to occur.

Correct. If a male wants to be cast in that particular role / participate on that basis, he’s better off learning how to find and recognize the women who prefer to be Sadie Hawkins and then being alert for signals. He could perhaps do subtle things but they need to be non-intrusive subtle things.

No one appears to be saying that. What people seem to be saying is that it won’t work since overt rejection doesn’t seem to stop advances, why would subtle clues work?

For why this won’t work, watch this documentary from 1992: I Got A Man

So no man has ever hit on a woman wearing a wedding ring? If ever there was a universally understood signal of female unavailability, that would have to be it. And yet, it gets ignored, disrespected, or seen as part of the challenge of conquest. Somehow I don’t think another ring on a different finger is going to be more effective at deterring unwanted advances, except perhaps, if it’s worn on one’s middle finger and can be shown to the offender while making the remaining fingers less visible.

Do you mean the Dance? Sadie Hawkins dance - Wikipedia

Because that’s not feminism. The Inversion of social rules for one Dance/ one evening doesn’t Change the System, it even strengthens it by providing an Alibi to shut up those who complain about it.

There’s your Problem already. Stop men hitting on women. That solves the Problem. Once women don’t have to protect themselves, because Society at large sees “hitting on women/ I have a right to women” as unacceptable, women can decide who they want to talk to.

No, it wouldn’t. In my culture, it’s no longer acceptable for men to hit on women (a hundred years ago, a man couldn’t be alone with a woman in the same room, they needed a chaperone, because men were wild beasts who would inflame at the sight of a Young woman and rape her, they just couldn’t help themselves. Today, we think man are humans and able to behave themselves).
Because it’s not acceptable to hit on women, women can say what they want, including “no” without being afraid that the man might flip out and kill her.

Also, men no longer possess women by marrying them: many couples live together without marrying. Sociologists regularly ask women if they are married, planing to marry or not, and if not, why not? There’s a steady trend of a rising % of women who aren’t/ don’t want to marry, and the largest answer is “Because I earn Money myself, I don’t Need a Provider”

So if most women don’t wear a ring, men talk to them.

Women are not really from Venus. There’s nothing mysterious about their “psychology” Apart from the crap that Society installs into them, or that they learn to protect themselves.

Here’s a hint: treat women like humans. As individual People.

If you want to try a thought Experiment,

from Privilege: A user manual halfway down

A pussy hat ring might work better.

Question 1: So single women would not wear rings at all unless they’re Initiators (women who don’t want others to hit on them)?

Question 2: Any woman who doesn’t want to be an Initiator would be fair game for supermarket stalkers and the like? In other words, the choices are Initiator or Come One, Come All (so to speak)?

Thank you @Constanze, for saying everything needful.

I’ll say that. It’s totally fine for people to chat up strangers–once, briefly. If you’re at the grocery store and you want to say to someone nearby, “Hey, I see you’re buying kale, I’ve never cooked kale before, what do you do with it?” I don’t think that’s unacceptable. If the person you say that to brightens up and smiles and holds forth on kale recipes and asks you about the cat food in your cart, great. If they give a short noncommittal answer, or none at all, you take the goddamn hint and move on.

Dealing with friendly strangers is a price of living in society. If you don’t like that, wear earbuds, or a shirt that says, “Fuck off,” or something else. Inventing a whole new ring language is not the answer.

Edit: and based on the Orc Scenario, of course you don’t do the chatting up in a dangerous place.

Even doing that has not worked for me:(

Well, I guess if a woman gets the big Version, Clubs the guy she likes over the head and drags him off …?:stuck_out_tongue:

I think the underlying issue is The Stable Marriage Problem. This has been studied extensively from a mathematical point of view. In a population where half do the asking and half merely say yes or no, you end up with all the power being in the hands of the ones doing the asking. The system maximizes happiness for those who do the asking and minimizes happiness for those who do the answering. In our society, men do the asking, so their happiness is maximized, while women’s happiness is minimized. Gee, what a shock. But my point is, why would the ones who hold the power give it up voluntarily?