A-holes

So here's a fun story. And a true one. This morning I was walking into work, which I generally do with headphones in, this morning listening to an audio-book of "Game Change," which is about the 2008 elections (lots of fun, btw), so I was particularly engrossed, and as I'm about to turn into the building, these two dudes point behind me, like I've dropped something. So I look behind me, nothing there. I turn back to them and they're insistently pointing. I take out my earbud and ask what they're talking about. One of them says they lost their heart right there (where they're pointing). At which point I roll my eyes and purse my lips, continue walking and feel like an idiot. Has New York taught me nothing??! Haha.

But, really, I've had a couple incidents recently of guys really dumbly hitting on me, this being one of them, and the other with a woman I'm doing economic surveys with. We were in Queens last weekend, and this group of guys was taking advantage of our openness to communication because of the survey. And so we talked a bit about why men in Latino countries (particularly, though really this could apply anywhere, in any culture) when they know it won't get them anything tangible (specifically, they won't get laid because they call me "Mami" or mention how sexy I am on the street). And I mentioned to her that I thought it was actually way more about intimidation and control. And I realized that's so true. (I agree with myself!!) but really. True and upsetting. There's no real advantage to cat-calling, except for the very real boost of feeling momentarily more powerful than the woman you've just (hopefully?) intimidated. And this is when I realize that (I know I'm about to walk off a feminist cliff, but bare with me) this is a component of rape culture. Because, as anyone who knows anything about rape knows, rape is about power and control, not sex. Sounding familiar??

I am super disturbed by this, and also frustrated about how to react. If I ignore these dumb people, I feel like maybe that helps a little. If I have any real kind of reaction, that seems to just reinforce the behavior, even if the reaction is rude or mean. Part of me wants to intimidate THEM, but really that, too, isn't helpful, because the whole thing comes from a place of feeling powerless (I think) themselves, so I actually don't want to do anything to exacerbate that feeling.

Maybe there's nothing I can do. Maybe I should talk to them like normal human beings, so that they can see that I, too, am a normal human being. That I can have a conversation and am not merely an object in their game to halt their own insecurity. Anyway. Ranty, yes. But something that's been on my mind.

Sleepless Ranting

I am trying to get to sleep, which I've been a bit better about recently, but I am kept awake by the ranting going on in my head, so I'll type it out and hopefully this will allow me some peaceful sleep.

This is, in fact, an addendum to my most recent post, The REAL Rules, in which I discuss some of the more ridiculous things people say in online personals. But this is just seriously incredible; awesomely ridiculous. This guy wrote me a nice little message, saying I'd caught his eye and whatever. So I wrote him back requesting that he write a bit more, as his profile essays are blank (this should have been red flag number 1; ignored). I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. Evidently this is a mistake. So this dude writes me back a very nice, extensive message that was pretty interesting, mostly grammatically sound, etc etc. He sounded thoughtful, intelligent, and aside from his being born in a certain country that will not be named from which I have known 3 men, 2 of whom ripped my heart to shreds, there seemed to be no more red flags. Until at the very end of this long and decent message falls this line:

oh and i have to say it makes me a little nervous that you work with HIV patients, does it make me a bad person? i think my preoccupation is reasonable.

BOOM. WHAT. THE. EFF?? There are several things wrong with this. I'm going to go with the simple first--preoccupation: an extreme or excessive concern with something. Really? As in, you are preoccupied by the fact that I work with HIV positive patients, meaning that you are concerned about how this could impact our nonexistent relationship? I suppose it is a valid use of the word, but it seems excessive. Which is why I'm upset about the rest of it. Here are some potential responses:

• Not sure I would consider entering into a sexual relationship with someone so incredibly uninformed about how STIs are transmitted.
• Actually, I work with HIV positive patients because I am HIV positive...JK, but that sinking, disgusted feeling you just got? Yeah, that's why I'd never date you.
• Um, well considering that I neither share needles nor have unprotected sex with anyone, much less my patients, my risk of contracting HIV is pretty low.

Please feel free to add more.

I am so upset by this, partly on behalf of the really interesting, amazing folks I've met who happen to be HIV positive. For one thing, it is not a death sentence. Period. The patients I know who take care of themselves are healthy and many have lived 10, 15 years with the diagnosis. It is a chronic health issue, just as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol are. It just happens to be transmitted, sexually. I'm disgusted (and also a little confused) about why this guy is worried--does he honestly not know how HIV is transmitted? And if he does, does he really think I'm at risk because I'm around people who are HIV positive?! For one thing, HIV is actually a pretty difficult virus to catch, if you're taking precautions (read: not using IV drugs and using condoms when having sex). The only reason it is still an issue is because people refuse to take condoms seriously and because they have the attitude (and knowledge) of this guy, coupled with the idea that you can tell someone is positive. Which, I can tell you from meetings many dozens of people who are positive, you cannot. They come in all shapes, sizes, socio-economic class, ethnicity. Which is why EVERYONE should protect themselves! It ain't difficult. Testing + condoms = HIV negative. People are so scared of this virus that they plug their ears when learning about it. But education is key. Like I say, it is not an easy virus to catch. I'd be a lot more worried about Hep B if I hadn't been vaccinated. Which since this guy grew up in the unnamed country, he may not have been vaccinated against. And likelihood he's heard of that? Quite low.

I'm totally split in this case between writing a little education STI transmission lesson, bitching him out, or ignoring it (this is like a fuschia flag though, right??). Who am I to judge? Perhaps he has never been interested in STIs and health. Maybe he just doesn't care. I guess that's the problem I have--people think they can ignore this stuff, just float through life without their ignorance being a problem. But it is. This is something that affects us all. And in my opinion (because you asked), no one who doesn't generally understand the basics of STI transmission has any business having sex. Unfortunately that isn't my call.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Maybe he's worried about me? Like, he thinks it is a stressful environment and it is emotionally draining? He is nervous that in our perhaps relationship he will have to emotionally support me through tough times dealing with difficult patients? But he does say he's nervous. I'm just still confused about what he is nervous about--that I will have HIV because I'm around people with it? That is just so...ignorant and sad. As I say, on behalf of my patients, I am livid. And he questions whether he is a bad person. To that, I answer, dude--you are not a bad person, you are uninformed. And I would like you to be informed. I would not like you to be my sex partner, due to your uninformedness. kthxbai!

The REAL Rules

So I have been on several dating websites over the past 2 years. I've met some interesting people, most of whom I never interacted with again, but a couple with whom I've stayed in touch, and I do still believe it might be possible to meet someone on one that I would actually want to date. I've never been particularly aggressive about it, but rather seen it as a way to expand my horizon in terms of meeting new interesting people who I would never meet under other circumstances. Firstly, I'd like to say that I think I have vastly overestimated the number of awesome people in the world. Probably because I'm from Chapel Hill. There is just a much smaller percentage of awesomeness everywhere else. I'm a little biased, perhaps, but I do think that there's something about CH...something that attracts interesting, intelligent, fun, funny, talented people. It's probably UNC. But other places have universities, and lots of lame people go to UNC, so I don't know.

Anyway, none of this is the point and I'm getting really rant-y (excited about my interview tomorrow!!!). I just came across a profile one one of said dating websites where someone posted a picture with the caption, "Me and my girlfriend in 2006." Now, it's fine that you had a girlfriend in 2006. But let's be serious, rule number 1 of dating websites is NOT to post pictures of you with a girlfriend. That's just stupid. Right? I kind of can't believe it. But it also made me think about some of the other weird things people have said in their profiles/messages to me. The other day, I received a message entitled "I'm confused..." and containing the message "are you shy or something?" I have no idea WTF this guy was talking about. I think I'm pretty upbeat/open/not shy in my profile essays. And pictures. It's weird. And then this other guy recently sent me a message entitled "Hi":

hey whats up my name is [insert name] im 26 just got out the military looking for cool new friends i believe everything starts with a friendship. I seen ur profile i think ur a fun outgoing person and would like to get to know you better i love to dance and enjoy the outdoors what are some things you like to do for fun ?well hope to here from you bye P.S cute pics whats ur nationality?

Seriously?? I mean, I admit it's kinda sweet, but PROOFREAD, people! It's like a 6 year old could have written this. And his profile was lots of caps (though not entirely, which is just...weirder) and similarly mis-spelled (I have this special place on my hate list for "u" instead of "you" or "ur" instead of "your" or "you're." Additionally, this young man is unfamiliar with correct conjugation, and likes to point out the obvious--"I seen ur profile" is the most offensive line to me. Of course you HAVE seen my profile. Also can you not add two letters to "ur" to make it correct?? Is it that much trouble? Maybe some periods and capitalization while you're at it. The nationality think is kind of a cool question, but I said I was white...I'm just kind of wondering what nationality he suspects I am, and also if he knows the definition of nationality, instead of perhaps heritage. But I'll let that one slide). Also, we're 33% of a match, based on how we've answered a bunch of questions about what we want in relationships and our values. What makes you think I would like you, or even respond?? Just as that dude who wrote me the previous message, I'm confused.

I could go on about the 20 or so guys I've met in person, too, but overall, they were not so bad, there was just no connection. Or they seemed...scared? of me.

I will say, on the plus side, I've gotten to meet lots of people who are in their own ways, quite interesting and as I said, I never would have met. Maybe for the best, but I think it's been a good way to spend some time. And I don't actually feel like my online dating luck has been any worse than my in-life dating luck. In fact, I think in some ways it's been more worthwhile. In real life, I've had some weird dating shit happen to me as well. I guess my point in all of this is to give a shout-out to internet dating. At some point, I'll probably write a bit more. As for now, I just wanted to mostly share about that guy and his girlfriend picture, just as an example of how naive people can be about what "works," just in life in general. I'm consistently astonished at peoples' idiocy. But whatever. I'm learning to deal.

This Progress

I went to see an exhibit on Valentine's Day (yesterday) at the behest of my sister, who was in town and wanted to go to this exhibit at the Guggenheim. I knew pretty much zero about it when I arrived to find a long line winding down Central Park West between 89th and 88th. My sister Delacey and her friends, a coworker and his partner, arrived and we waited in the line (I guess I should say "on" the line, since it was in New York. I just can't bring myself to do it...!). Delacey said it was somewhat...strange, but that it was perhaps better that I didn't know what to expect. An older woman came out while we were waiting "on" line and said we would be disappointed because "There's nothing in the rotunda. It's an experience, but disappointing." Wellll, let me just say, in some delicious irony, this piece has been put on a list for me that is really short of life-changing art. I haven't really discussed it in any tangible way up unto this point, but now's as good a time as any, no? I would write more about the piece(s), This Progress and The Kiss, but there is plenty written about the actual pieces, which I'll link to. Alas, this is MY blog. So it's personal, but disappointed is not what I'd say. Hardly.

"The End of the Weekend" by Anthony Hecht This is a poem that my High School Senior English teacher gave us to read. The whole year was actually pretty influential for me in terms of actually appreciating literature, but this poem has stuck with me, even nearly six years later. I'm not sure exactly what it was about the poem--it's a fairly simple poem. I think it really was the way my teacher had us examine the symbolism. I suppose I should explain that until this point, I was extremely cynical about interpretation in literature or poetry, I just thought people wrote things and that it was sort of bullshit to read into them. But this poem is beautiful and haunting, both in its surface reading, and also when it is dissected a bit. The words Hecht chooses are clearly well-thought out. Intentional. For the first time in my life, I began to believe that some symbolism was truly intentional and thought-out. I realized that more than anything, the reason I did not believe this about poetry previously was because I hadn't had the right coaching, and wasn't reading the right poems. And I still think a lot of reading into things is useless. But this was step one in appreciating those that are really meant to be pulled apart, enjoyed like a some kind of very messy, juicy fruit instead of sterile in a glass.


Singer by Jump, Little Children This I can't link to, but if you want to listen to, I'd be happy to share my music directly. Just ask. This song is amazing. Raw, beautiful, sexy, dark. Jump, Little Children, for those who know me well, is a group who I feel sort of defines who I am. If you like their music, I'll probably like you. At least kind of. But this song, more than any of the others, I find enchanting. It's really sad, and about impermanence, more than anything. Living in the moment. And while their music and concerts have filled a part of my emotional life that have inspired me to liken them to "my religion" on many occasions, this song is one meant to be listened to, felt. Meant to be present to. Their other music can be background music, but Singer is an experience. The last line is "This song will be over and so will you and me/this song will be over and so will you and me/this song--" and then the music just ends. Powerful.

Tristes Tropiques by Claude Levi-Strauss I read this book as a part of a class Senior year of undergrad called Rituals and Rhetoric by the previous dean of the Religious Studies Department, who was a funny and delightful gentleman, Ruel Tyson. Like that English class in high school with the End of the Weekend, I do give quite a bit of credit to the manner in which this incredible book was taught. Still, it was an experience to read this book, much unlike any other I've had reading a book. It's basically about Claude Levi-Strauss, one of the pioneering anthropologists in the Twentieth Century, and his journey to Brazil, the Caribbean and India. But it is not primarily about the places, but his internal struggle over how to be an anthropologist, and what that means. He was way before his time in terms of thinking of culture as a construct, not something definitive. And part of what struck me about the book (which I don't even think I've read all of--we just read excerpts for class) was how it defied categorization. Though it is "about" his travels, there is an entire chapter about the difficulty of capturing a sunset, which serves as a fantastic metaphor for anthropology. I still intend to read the whole thing from start to finish, but even having only read what I have, it just struck me as so true.

And now we have come to my most recent brilliant discovery. Tino Sehgal. I've read a few of the articles about his philosophy on art since going to the exhibit. Basically, he feels like there's enough stuff in the world, and he wants to create things that are impermanent. Which is, more than anything, honest. The reality is, going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and looking at the pots and statues and rugs and etcetera is only seeing it in its context, at the time. The color is maybe a little different than when people were actually using these items. Paintings are different when they are all together. Context and time are inescapable. Sehgal just admits that, and doesn't try to run away from it, even embracing it. Some of it is that experiencing the exhibit kind of caught me off guard. I was going like I went to the Tim Burton exhibit at MoMA (which is cool, just not mind-blowing or even really particularly thought-provoking).

What these things have in common is, I think, pushing me to realize the capabilities of each medium--poetry, songs, books, art. They are all capable of achieving this connection, this rare moment of truth. And I have seen so many other poems, songs, books or art exhibits that have been cool, interesting, maybe even made me think a bit. But these are the ones that stick with me. The ones where I feel a real connection with the person who created each piece of art, like I'm somehow seeing into their souls, just for a moment. And one thing said in one of the articles by Sehgal about what his point was, more or less, is taking a world that is full of STUFF, which is what artwork generally is, and bringing it back to being about relationships.

Real, raw, haunting, inescapable, enchanting truth.



Making Art Out of An Encounter [New York Times]
You Can't Hold It, But You Can Own It [New York Times]
In the Naked Museum: Talking, Thinking, Encountering [New York Times]
Art World Drama! Tino Sehgal Calls the New York Times "Crass" [W Magazine]
Tino Sehgal [W Magazine]
How I Made an Artwork Cry [New York Magazine]

The Princess and the Frog Review

I was super excited to see The Princess and the Frog, and knowing I was gonna be in Chapel Hill, where my little sister, Ellie, is, my father and Patricia, Ellie's mom, and I decided to go. So we went this afternoon, and my overall review is "YES!" it was actually a decent movie--funny, good songs, beautiful classic Disney drawings, an empowered female lead, variety in races (and inter-racial/cultural dating) but not a lot of outward focus on it and loving fathers who support their daughters emotionally. 

Tiana is the main character. A lot of focus has been put on her race (she's black, if you hadn't heard), but the film doesn't outright address this, which I actually think is quite progressive. She is clearly lower class, and it is evident that her neighborhood is black and poor; the family her mother sews fo is white and rich. But there are others who are both white and black who populate the New Orleans landscape and who are not obviously poor nor rich, which I think is somewhat accurate/realistic. So race-wise, I actually found it appropriate (it is set in the past). Also, the father of Charlotte, the rich white girl for whom Tiana's mother sews sparkly princess dresses, is respectful towards Tiana's mother. I also like that Charlotte, despite being white and rich, while sometimes oblivious to the woes of Tiana's life, is at her core supportive and not out to get her--she is a decent person, unlike, say, the evil stepsisters in Cinderella. So in terms of how the film portrays and deals with both class and race, I actually am quite impressed. 

The main relationship, between Tiana and Prince Naveen, is one that is both inter-racial and inter-cultural (he's the prince of Macedavia or something?), which isn't even spoken addressed as a problem to deal with. Prince Naveen is also a potential suitor for Charlotte, which is interesting--that this man of unidentified race could marry either a black or white woman I think is great. 

In terms of strong female leads, I definitely think this film ranks #1 of Disney films. Tiana is sure of herself, has dreams that she's working hard to fulfill (and which she was encouraged to work hard to obtain by her father), but still is open to romance. I love all of this. There's also a point when Prince Naveen realizes he loves Tiana but he is willing to let her go if he can help her acheive her dream of opening a resaurant. Brilliant! I actually think this is my favorite component of the movie, precisely because the biggest issue I had with a story like the Little Mermaid is that Ariel had to give up her voice, family and species to fulfill her romantic destiny, which is just disturbing. Tiana gets a man who supports her in getting what she wants. 

I am really relieved by seeing the movie--it gives me hope for this generation of young people both in terms of race/class and also romantic relationships, and I am delighted to have a fun children's movie that I wouldn't feel bad about showing my kids, with a message that luck and hard work are what it takes to get ahead in life. So, I find myself saying, well done, Disney. I admit I'm a little surprised. But pleasantly.    

Let's All Be Human(e)!

I want to first give a little disclaimer--this is really long and kind of rant-y. Maybe at some point I'll clean it up. Who knows. But I would love to hear feedback.

I've done a lot of thinking about gender roles, relationships, how we should related to one another; all of that stuff. Firstly, I want to express my outrage at this crazy woman, Kay Hymowitz, who thinks that we should all go back to men and women behaving as though we were trying to win some prize--marriage--instead of just relate and form partnerships with one another. I'm confused by this. I have read He's Just Not That Into You and watched Sex and the City. I think I've experienced a lot of the cultural indoctrination of how relationships are supposed to be; here I'll get a little personal--at the same time, I think my parents are sort of a-typical. My mother does have a bit more of a traditional bent on males than I do. I refuse to believe that men are really all that different than women. Obviously they have different anatomy, different hormones, which change the way they react to things emotionally perhaps, but all-in-all, I think both men and women are capable of being honest, rational, and communicative with each other. I think the Rules are stupid. I also recognize, however, that we are in a transitory phase of gender roles. Things are unclear (all the more reason to be communicative). So sometimes it is nice to just relax and let the typical gender roles drive things. I'm not totally averse to this but I do think it is something we should be aware of when we're doing it. Ok I'm onto analyzing someone else's argument.

Hymowitz wrote a piece previously about the whole concept of the child-man, and how men are putting off serious relationships because they're basically too immature. She got all of these responses and explains:

Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.

So, right off the bat, I'm having issues with these men playing victim and claiming that "young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging." I'm all about re-defining gender roles. I don't think we should "diss" all things male. In fact, I am a huge proponent of men being able to be themselves instead of having to play into ANY stereotype at all. I'll come back to this, because it is basically my problem with all of this--that any general statements can be made at all (that women are slutty, shallow gold-diggers, or that men are lazy, commitment-phobic child-men; either is ridiculous because some women may very well be slutty, shallow gold-diggers, and some men lazy, commitment-phobic child-men, but certainly not all of them) is sort of missing the point of relationships as I see them. To me, a relationship is a very individual thing--it is a partnership, a connected agreement betweent two people, not either person trying to manipulate the other into losing so that they win.

Hymowitz claims that the problem is that men are left wondering "what (or, as they might put it, WTF) women want." Why don't you ask them? That's really all I can say. She claimst that men and women are mysteries to each other and that "one reason people developed so many rules around courtship was that they needed some way to bridge the Great Sexual Divide." I'm so confused by this. Can we not speak to each other? Can we not ask each other what we want? Is our communication so hindered that we must rely upon the "traditional" rules of courtship? At least I agree with her on the point that men are "wooing" women who "are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually." But I do have a problem with the idea of "wooing." Can't women woo men? Isn't that part of the equality? Is there really actually a problem with that? Why do we need the expectations?

Here is the real problem:

But then, when an SYM walks into a bar and sees an attractive woman, it turns out to be nothing like that. The woman may be hoping for a hookup, but she may also be looking for a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live. She may want one thing in November and another by Christmas. “I’ve gone through phases in my life where I bounce between serial monogamy, Very Serious Relationships and extremely casual sex,” writes Megan Carpentier on Jezebel, a popular website for young women. “I’ve slept next to guys on the first date, had sex on the first date, allowed no more than a cheek kiss, dispensed with the date-concept altogether after kissing the guy on the way to his car, fucked a couple of close friends and, more rarely, slept with a guy I didn’t care if I ever saw again.” Okay, wonders the ordinary guy with only middling psychic powers, which is it tonight?

This guy doesn't need psychic powers, just those of communication. Ask this woman what she wants. I agree that this is pretty typical--what women want at any one time will vary from woman to woman and from time to time. Is this not also true of men? God forbid women be nuanced and complex human beings with different desires depending upon her position in life, or even how she's feeling that day or week, how her other social connections are at the time. God forbid you have to ASK HER what she wants. That we have to be HONEST with each other about what we're looking for.

Hymowitz says many women have "personal scripts" that they believe their date must follow. Once again, though there is this issue of communication. Here it's the problem of women having some sort of expectation that she failst to communicate. I, as a human, cannot expect someone to do something so specific as opening a door when I have not expressed that this is important to me. Or at the very least, I do not think I should not fault them for not doing it unless I ask. I also take issue with the fact that people act as though everyone wants the same thing, and you're wrong if you want something and someone doesn't do it. If someone's "idea of a date is that the man plans the evening and takes the woman out" and the guy you go out with doesn't do this, don't go out with him again! Or TELL him that and see how he responds. That will tell you a lot more about him relationally than if he had done what was expected of him from the beginning.

I understand that we have certain social expectations, and when they are changing it is challengeing because we do have to communicate in explicit ways that we are not used to. But I actually think that is a good thing; I think it makes fore a healthier relationship. But what is WRONG with this woman not liking the guy because he didn't open the door for her? If that's what she wants, the guy should find someone who doesn't mind. Because there are plenty of women who do not care. He should be with one of those women. There is often this attitude (take people in the Bachelor/Bachelorette, for example) that you can win anyone over. That just does not make sense to me. While I don't believe there's The One, I believe there are various people who you will work with, but that that number is finite. No one can be a good match for everyone, and we shouldn't expect to be. This is perfectly exemplified in the whole idea of the Game--as in men learning how to pick up any woman he wants because "women want alpha males, the Seduction Community agrees." What??! How is this possibly true for ALL WOMEN?

So since all women want the same things, but it's changing all the time, this is indecisive. Evidently men see women's "indecisiveness" (I would see this a complex, nuanced personality with complex, nuanced desires as a positive thing, but whatever) as just too confusing, frustrating and therefore clearly it is just women being entitled.

Sure, girls can—and do—ask guys out for dinner and pick up the check without missing a beat. But that doesn’t clarify matters, men complain. Women can take a Chinese-menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday night and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day. This isn’t equality, say the male-contents; it’s a ratification of female privilege and, worse, caprice. “Women seemingly have decided that they want it all (and deserve it, too),” Kevin from Ann Arbor writes. “They want to compete equally, and have the privileges of their mother’s generation. They want the executive position, AND the ability to stay home with children and come back into the workplace at or beyond the position at which they left. They want the bad boy and the metrosexual.”

I do not condone women bitching about things that they haven't talked about (the whole "A single rose? That's it?" is a little whiny for my tastes). But wanting to be able to stay home with your kids when they're young and then return to working is not entitled--it's what BOTH men and women should be able to do. I'm not sure about this "bad boy and the metrosexual" stuff, because I think it's weird to have some sort of "type" that you're looking for in the longterm. But I do think it's funny. But women DO deserve it. We all do--men AND women. What these men fail to realize is that the traditional script of relationships fails both men and women. At least that's what I think.

Next, Hymowitz goes on about how women want bad boys. This is just too ridiculous to respond too much to, but here's what I think: men interperet groveling at a women's feet as being a "nice guy." So no, don't worship me--treat me like a person who you respect. And maybe some of us "want" bad boys because we're just so used to being treated as an object--either one men adore or admonish--which makes us expect to be treated that way. I think a lot of guys' ideas of the "nice guy" are actually just the flip side to the "bad boy" coin. Let's treat each other as fellow human beings. I think that will work best.

But this brings Hymowitz to her thesis--that men are forced into a position of becoming a pick-up artist because women are just so confusing, men need to write their own new rules. These rules are based on Darwin--natural selection. And women like alpha men. These men don't have to respect women because they can "get laid anytime [they] want." And now I'm confused because I thought this article was about love. Evidently, men are really uncomplicated--all they want is sex. Hymowitz goes on to talk about this newly developed attitude towards "dating" (I use the term lightly), which I just refuse to go into more in-depth because it is so inhumane.

That is the real problem I have with all of this--as I keep saying, there is a lack of nuance, or recognition that we all need connections to other human beings. Men need them. Women need them. None of us is perfect, but if we were more honest and upfront about things, I think we would be a lot better off. This is the easy way out--to just look for sex, to treat the other gender as a commodity to be "had" instead of people to relate to. But we lose so much when we fail to recognize and comfort other's vulnerabilities, as well as share our own.

Thank god there are men like Will Wilkinson. His response argues that

annoyances and disappointments suffered in the process of realizing fundamental conditions of a decent society don’t call into question the desirability of those conditions. All this vexation is a very, very small price to pay for equality. For men, it is a very, very small price to pay for the opportunity to share a life with a peer, a full partner, rather than with a woman limited by convention and straitened opportunity to a more circumscribed and subordinate role in life. Sexual equality has created the possibility of greater exactness and complementarity in matching women to men. That is, in my book, a huge gain to men. But equality does raise expectations for love and marriage. The prospect of finding a true partner, rather than someone to satisfactorily perform the generic role of husband or wife, leaves many of us single and searching for a good long time. But this isn’t about delaying adulthood, it’s about meeting higher standards for what marriage and family should be.

That is what I thought! And he rightly points out that "many men aren’t angry and confused because they don’t know what women want. They’re angry because they want what their fathers or grandfathers had, and they can’t get it. They’re confused because they can’t quite grasp why not." I also appreciate that Wilkinson recognizes gay culture as a place to look for some guidance because it offers "a wide variety of templates for manhood that are at once unmistakably masculine, playfully ironic, aesthetic, emotionally open, and happily sexual." I have found this as well, as a heterosexual female. But for real--it'd be great if we could all just be human beings, treating each other as equal people. Really, isn't that what relationships are all about?

Love in the Time of Darwinism [City Journal]
The "Menaissance" and Its Dickscontents [Will Wilkinson]
Is There Anything Good About Men? [American Psychological Association Presentation]

More on Relationships

This is sparked by my reading this incredible couple of postings on Feministe, especially this one (but it's in response to the first one).

I have been thinking a lot about this whole idea of poly relationships and this just takes the cake for me. Let me be clear--I am not sure personally what I feel about this. But I certainly thing it is interesting to think about, especially considering a very interesting Modern Love article from the NYTimes a bit ago. I was blown away by this intellectual and measured reaction to a woman's husband saying he didn't want to be with her any longer and that he didn't love her anymore. Her reaction (in short) is that she doesn't believe him and she tells him he has his shit to deal with, she expects him to deal with it and that's that. I read this and think, "who says women are emotional??" But really, I think this is more how women are naturally, that is, without social conditioning to be concerned about other constantly. So, looking at this in combination with what these women say about nonmonogomous relationships being about being your autonomous self, I see a very strong connection. I think people do often get very wrapped up in their own idea of how connected they should be in their relationship and fail to recognize their own part in their individual growth. Your growth as a person does not stop simply because you are in a relationship...! But I think a lot of people sort of give up, or start to believe that their relationship to some degree takes the place of the necesisity of their own personal growth. Anyway, I just think this is fascinating, connecting feminism, not owning/posessing other people, letting partner(s) have their own autonomy and giving them space to deal with their issues within the relationship...and then you add children in and assuming you are in a stable situation with a relationship or several relationships, I think that could actually be a fairly healthy way to grow up. Obviously bizarre for the "norm," but a village raising a child, and true free love. And I think the Modern Love article is an excellent example of the advantages of nonmonogomous relationships being taken into a monogomous relationship, showing that it is not, in fact, about mongomy versus nonmonogomy, but actually about communication and preserving your individual integrity.

Readings (in Jezebel form):

Is Nonmonogomy A Feminist Relationship Choice? [Jezebel]
Nonmonogomy and Feminism: A Happy Couple [Feministe]
Another Perspective in Nonmonogamy [Feministe]
Those Aren't Fighting Words, Dear [NY Times]

Relationships

So, I know it's been forever. But I just want to write some thoughts about relationships. And gender roles. Some of this is from things I have read, parts from my own experiences. I've always been fascinated by relationships and gender roles, trying to figure out if it's "okay" to call a guy, struggling with trying to avoid feeling needy and obsessive. I have a lot to thank Ali for in terms of giving me some confidence in this area--seeing how she is, which is essentially completely unafraid to just be herself and contact whoever she wants, when she wants, I realized that guys don't get afraid if you're really not needy (at least, the good ones). I understand now (at least intellectually) that your actions, just as words, are so much more about how you do something than what you actually say.

The most interesting of the articles I read about self-help books said that part of the problem is that "Society is set up for women to be passive." The argument here is short and concise, basically saying that the romantic relationships world is set up (it is accepted) for women to be pursued; women have been empowered in so many other aspects of their lives and part of the self-help book world/push/success is due to women needing to feel like they have SOME sort of power and control over their own destinies in romance. I can totally relate to this. I am definitely afraid of being out of control. I prefer to know that I can affect change in situations I am in, even if it is just some. And I like self-help books (as much as I hate to admit that). This is interesting. I think there is SO MUCH truth to this, and I really had never thought of self-help books as related to gender (blind, I know).

The irony is that many of these books (The Rules and such) require women to sit on their hands, essentially. Perhaps reading the books makes women feel more empowered, but the advice within most of these books tells women to wait. Or do something very minor, make some change to themselves, but never actively pursue any men, because that would just be wrong. He's Just Not That Into You might actually be an exception. Here's my reasoning: it empowers the woman to leave. Maybe that sounds really easy, but I think women often feel like they cannot end a relationship. They get scared about just letting go. And I think that's really one of the biggest problems people have and reasons so many bad relationships last so long--people just don't know when to let go. I suppose it's sometimes a fine line between when to break up and when to work on things, but I think there must be a commitment there that both people have and are constantly aware of. The fabulous Dan Savage said in one of his recent podcasts that every day, you have to remember that in any relationship, either person can walk away. Sometimes it isn't very likely; the things one might have to give up might be too much. But I think there is some real treasure in remembering that--as Dan puts it, remembering your partner can leave helps keep you on your best behavior. I think also it requires you to become familiar with the idea of the person leaving you, and not be scared of it. Being alone is not the end of the world. And probably better than being in a relationship where one or both partners are not committed enough to work on the relationship.

But back to what this has to do with women and self-help books. I think women are too often afraid of being alone, and of letting go of a "good" guy. We work so hard to see the good things in a relationship and ignore the glaring problems. Or try to fix them to make ourselves feel like we have some level of control over the situation and outcome. Perhaps the best thing to do is accept that we have very little control over anything, and we have absolutely no control over other people's decisions. We can do things that we thing another person will appreciate, and therefore make it more likely that they will be willing to put in the effort to work on the relationship. But we cannot predict how they will react, if it will be enough. The best we can do is ask them what they need, what they're looking for and honestly access what we are able to give. But often people are unsure what they want or need, or have trouble articulating it. Which just throws this whole other kink into the machinery. But makes it all the more important to communicate, because it quickly becomes clear when someone is confused about what they want and what they're capable of.

I think it boils down to creating a culture of acceptance of radical honesty, both with oneself and others. That can be scary, because it means admitting that sometimes people are not right for us, or we are not right for them. But if and when you do find someone, there's no need to not be yourself. And when it comes to calling a guy and feeling needy, I've come to the conclusion that heterosexual couples have a lot to learn from homosexual couples--do what you feel is right, what you want to do. If you want to call someone, do it. You can make a different decision next time. And you can tell if it is welcomed by the response you get from someone. This stuff is complicated, and we can't really deal with it until we're honest all-around.