Local man Adrian Bell attempted to recover from a disastrous dinner conversation Thursday by explaining that his opposition to women’s rights reflected a deeper commitment to supporting women’s wrongs.
“Anybody can stand beside a woman when she’s correct,” Bell told a table that had stopped eating. “I’m talking about loyalty.”
Bell clarified that he supported voting, equal pay, and bodily autonomy, but felt those positions did little to distinguish him in a competitive dating environment.
He said he had briefly considered adding “feminist” to his dating profile before noticing that several other men had also discovered the word.
“She already has people supporting her right to own property. Who’s supporting her right to say ‘interesting’ and ruin everybody’s evening?”
According to Bell, his advocacy began when a female friend recounted an argument in which she had clearly been at fault.
“I asked her what happened. She told me. I said, ‘That’s crazy, he shouldn’t have done that.’”
Asked what the man had done, Bell admitted he was still reviewing the details.
“My support is not conditional on discovery.”
Bell said he now begins offering support before an account of the dispute is complete, occasionally condemning a man who turns out to be the friend’s dentist, landlord, or eight-year-old nephew.
“The relationship can be complicated,” he explained. “The opening statement is very simple.”
Bell’s proposed platform includes defending a woman’s decision to leave a party she insisted on attending, buying something immediately after declaring she was saving money, and saying “I’m five minutes away” from a location that is visibly her bedroom.
His three-step guide to allyship instructs men to listen, validate, and delete the draft message beginning “To be fair.”
Critics noted that men also did all these things.
“Exactly,” Bell replied. “Why should we monopolize being full of shit?”
“There are men out there who think women can’t handle criticism,” he said. “I think they can. I just think it should happen somewhere I’m not.”
A spokesperson for a local women’s organization said nobody had requested Bell’s services.
He described the statement as hurtful but pledged to defend it.
“That’s her position. I stand with her.”
Friends say his commitment has already created logistical difficulties. Last week, Bell supported two women on opposite sides of the same dispute, telling each that the other had “a lot of growing to do.”
When their screenshots were compared, he called for a ceasefire.
“I’m not going to let facts divide this community.”
He later offered to moderate the dispute, but both women objected because he had already promised them separately that he would remain impartial by taking their side.
Bell has since begun maintaining a spreadsheet to keep track of his commitments. Its columns include “Person,” “Enemy,” “What We’re Mad About,” and “Things I Must Not Remember Saying.”
The system failed Tuesday when one friend apologized to another, requiring Bell to retract four condemnations and congratulate both women on reaching a conclusion he said he had supported from the beginning.
“Growth is rarely linear,” he said, while deleting a voice note.
One woman who briefly dated Bell said his unconditional agreement became exhausting.
“I told him I was probably overreacting, and he said I wasn’t. I said I knew my own feelings, and he immediately agreed that he shouldn’t question me.”
Bell described the exchange as productive listening.
“I asked where he wanted to eat,” she said. “He asked which answer would make me feel heard.”
Bell acknowledged that his approach could occasionally appear insincere, adding that he fully supported anyone who felt that way.
“I’m happy to take accountability,” he said. “Just tell me what I did, and whether we’re angry at me yet.”
At press time, a woman informed him that she never wanted to see him again.
For the first time, he asked whether she might be wrong.