One of the hottest statements my girlfriend has ever made was, "I don't want a[n engagement] ring... I want a around-the-world plane tickets." Ladies and Gentlemen, that's the definition of a keeper. I think this perspective is much more practical and romantic (yes, you can mix the two!). However, I have met many women who still need/desire a rock on their finger--and anything less would be grounds for dismissal.
My father never gave my mom an engagement ring; they were poor, recently immigrated grad school students. Besides, I'm not even sure the tradition of engagement rings even exists in Chinese culture. Flash forward thirty-odd years and my sister's fiance is taking out a loan so he can adhere to the 2-3 month's salary rule. Excuse me?! Some of us can buy a decent used car with that kind of money. Nevertheless, the poor sap is binding him (and his future spouse) into a loan because he doesn't have a lot of disposable income as an LD teacher. Meanwhile, my sister makes almost twice as much as he does. In fairness, she's about to undergo a significant pay cut during a career change and is also paying for a significant portion of the wedding. But my skepticism still stands: in a more equality driven society, does the traditional engagement ring have a place?
In some African cultures, gold jewelry was given to the woman upon marriage. The idea, some scholars assert, was that upon divorce or separation, the woman would have something of value. As someone trained to work with victims of domestic violence, this idea cannot be under-emphasized. Lack of economic means the top reason that abused women don't leave their husbands--they can't. In a traditional man-as-breadwinner marriage, I can see the necessity of an engagement ring.
Unfortunately, Western history isn't so generous; it seems our tradition is just another delusional game of "let's play rich" (ask me about my opinions of Vegas if you want to hear another example). Wikipedia, for what it's worth, claims in an un-cited statement that the standard of diamond engagement rings were spawn of De Beers' massive advertisement campaign. This article seems to agree.
It's easy for me, a skeptical capitalist and more importantly the cost-bearer of the ring, to dismiss diamond engagement rings. Even so, it's hard for me to accept that troves of enlightened and empowered women yearning for a rock. Seriously, it's just a fucking rock. The only thing that makes it any more valuable than that shit your kid buys for $5 a bag at the science store is because someone else says it is. In this age where both spouses working and splitting major costs like weddings, honeymoons and houses, why not demand something you can enjoy together is the norm, why not demand something both parties can enjoy together? And if it has to be material, why not get something that isn't going to be thrown into a safe deposit box after 3 months. 
Furthermore, I'll only take the "it's a symbol" point of view so far. Flowers, yes. Small jewelry, sure. $5000+? No. That's corporate America telling you to go fuck yourself. Why not just ask your man for cash? Chances are, your husband-to-be has given NO thought to the ring beyond that you want it and if he can afford it. Your girlfriend/sister/mom is at the mall without you for a reason...
Furthermore, what is it a symbol of? Personally, I think it's an artifact of a dirty dish called bride price. Maybe it's not paid to the parents, but how many women do you know would consider marrying a man if he didn't offer a ring? I find this disturbing because it implicitly places a price on a woman (or for other symbologists, on love). Why not invest in something that will bring memories and lasting enjoyment--something you can't put a price on, something unstereotypically romantic? Like a around-the-world tickets. Or a garden in that new house. Why a shiny rock, that if De Beers ever loses its majority control on the diamond supply, will be worth less than the band on which it's mounted?
I don't think that all men (or women!) should pop the question empty-handed, though I don't think a "gift" is necessary. Nor do I believe that we should have a new symbol that replaces the diamond engagement ring in all but form. Instead, I see marriage as a symbol radically different life spent together, so why not celebrate that shit...together!
In closing, I understand that for many females the diamond-desire is self-admittedly irrational, and despite all the practicalities and rationalities, they still want one. That's fine. Just don't get pissed when your husband comes home with a Ferrari in 20 years.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Crush
If you're lucky you have one. Girl or a guy, single or serially monogamous, hopefully there's someone who catches your eye and makes you think, "hmmm, what if...." The most depressed I've ever been in terms of my love life was when I lived in South Dakota, where I really felt (at times) like no possible romantic option existed. True, I wasn't settling, but no one seemed crushworthy to me then. Imagine my delight upon my arrival in Chicago.
It's not even the necessity of action, usually the best part of the crush is that you don't act on it. Especially if it's someone totally inappropriate in real life (like your boss, for instance, or the new freshman workstudy hire in your office). But just sensing the beginnings of reciprocated romanticism from across the room or in a casual encounter is really fun, or at least I think so. Crushes are all about the intangibility of signals. Deciphering whether him staring at you in class means something or whether he's really checking out the clock, or worse yet, the girl next to you, can take up many a pleasurable procrastinated minute. It's fun to have a prospect, sometimes even more fun than acting on said prospect.
I'm not going to go all Debbie Downer and tell my gentle readers that crushes are much better than reality because men in reality will always disappoint. That's probably true about any fictionalized love object who doesn't materialize to both cook you dinner and do your homework. Instead, I'll just advocate the crush itself, finding/creating one, not obsessing on one, but getting a bit caught up in the What If of one.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Rules
Every woman knows "The Rules." Perhaps she has not memorized them or acted on them, but she knows what they are. "The Rules" are one of the most successful and controversial guides to dating. While most women who consider themselves, strong and independant laugh at the pathetic creatures who believe in such absolutes as "don't call him and rarely return his calls" or "don't stare at men or talk too much" because we all want to believe that men really want women who are smart, honest and most importantly: strong. Yet, on some level, we all know we have to play by "The Rules."
My frequent bar conversations with men reveal most of all my inability to play by the rules. I am patronizing to men I find unintelligent, dismissive to men I find cocky and most of all I won't give the ugly ones the time of day. On the rare occasion an abundance of alochol or lack of a date compels me to lower my standards, I have learned that to some extent "The Rules" are necessary. Last week a few guys were talking to my friends and I and asked what we were studying. My truthful response of "ethnic conflict" was met with awkward glances and the longest three seconds of silence imaginable until I was able to remedy the situation with a giggle. Apparently, "ethnic conflict" is too deep for bar conversation and now I simply respond that I study politics-- simple and non-threatening-- and maintain the giggle.
This strategy is not new. Having the opportunity to attend an elite university, I soon realized if I wanted to meet men outside of my own school I had to tell them I went to a school with a less rigourous academic reputation to avoid the silent seconds. While I would often speak with pride about my ex-boyfriend's academic accomplishments to my friends, I rarely hear my male friends discuss their girlfriends in the same way. It is not that all men do not want smart, substantive women-- many do-- but frankly, men are easily scared. We compete in a tough market. There are so many beautiful, accomplished single women competing for comparatively few men with requisite resumes and relationship values. There is a large cultural component to this: men want to settle down in their thirties, while more women in their twenties are looking for something more serious (dare I say, tick- tock). If you want to snag a man in the young twenty-something dating world you have to play it safe-- which often means playing dumb.
I am prepared to defend this against the inevitable slew of anecdotes from women who met a wonderful, caring, father of their children at a bar in Dupont Circle and she DID NOT have to be anyone but herself. My defense is that I do not know a single woman who can honestly say they have not toned down their accomplishments so as not to intimidate a man. Alternatively, I do not know a single woman who felt a man came off as too smart or accomplished for her. The dating scene requires caputuring his interest before his heart and unfortunately that includes playing up the physical and ditching the substance.
I want to end by being clear that this is not the way to have a substantive relationship. Of course if you meet someone and it is the real thing, they will get to know and love the real, intelligent, politically offense person that you are. Let's be honest though, ladies, we are not always looking for the father of our children-- and that cute guy shooting you a smile is more likely than not to give you the silent seconds if you can't muster up the giggle. Perhaps even today, for some occasions, "The Rules" were not made to be broken.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Always be yourself. I write this and think about my past bar converstations that have not ended successfully, because I have done just that-- but still would not change a thing about my behaviour. I think it is important to point out these unfortunate double-standards but not important to live by them, rather to learn from them. You know what you want: if you just want to sleep with him, leave Hillary vs Obama for the office and bat those beautiful eyelashes, but if you want a guy whose worth your time-- buy him a drink and find out what the hell he thinks is wrong with Pakistan...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Frenimies
For those of you who do not recognize this term-- shame on you! You have been ignoring a tabloid frenzy in the past couple of years involving such celebs as Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton as well as Mary Kate Olsen and Lindsay Lohan. Now, before you dismiss this because you are "above" celebrity gossip-- I assure you, if you are a woman you have a frenemy. "Frenemies" are friends that you secretly see as an enemy (ok, I know the term can also include friends you pretend are enemies, but if you knew that you are WAY too into Us Weekly!). We all have them-- and we know better than to let them fall out of our closest circles. Men and women differ in this way, when guys don't like someone they keep them at bay when women don't like someone, we make her our bridesmaid.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" could be a sociological study on female relationships. For some reason women feel that subvert hatred is the only appropriate kind. I have been in endless conversations with friends about people they despise only to see them hug the same person with an elated greeting ten minutes later. Yet, this is not about being fake, it is about protecting ourselves because as much as it is hard to be an frenemy, being on the wrong side of the wrong girl is the worst thing you can be.
It surprises me that more women are not in politics because our relationships are so political. There are never fights between one girl and another. We always collect allies. We always make sure we reach out to mutual friends to ensure that our side is the one with the greatest support before we enter into a battle. The battle itself is about looking good while being bad. I remember my roommates and I had passive aggressive fights all year about one roommate's inability to clean up after herself. Notes on the kitchen door stating "If you use dishes, wash them!" or "The trash needs to be taken out!" attempted to alleviate the problem, but to no avail. Yet, they did secure an alliance of three clean roommates against the messy one which we fostered all year long. Yet when one of my male friends was angry with a roommate for his messy habits he wrote a note saying "Dude, clean up your F%$^ing mess." And it was over.
I cannot say which tactic is better, as women, in my opinion make both the worst enemies and the best friends. While we are more calculating and manipulative when it comes to people we hate we are devoted entirely to people we love. My friendships with women provide a closeness that no man could ever replace or even understand. Of course, many men have good friends, but women have strong emotional bonds to their friends, and frankly to other women. I was walking down the street in tears the other day and numerous women stopped me to make sure I was okay--strangers even offered to hear what was wrong. Perhaps there are men that do this, but none stopped me that day.
Therefore frenemies is perhaps the best term to describe female relationships. We are the best of friends and the worst of enemies. Our relationships with one another keep us standing and knock us down. I have never cried over a fight with lover like one at the prospect of losing a close friend. The emotional turmoil that comes with female relationships is complicated-- so thank god we have our girlfriends to talk to about it!
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Yet, confrontation is hard, but you have to do it sometimes. It is better to nip a problem in the bud then let it stew over time until there is the ultimate showdown between the warring groups. It is easier to say, CLEAN UP once than to say something softer ten times. Yet, by the same token, often being subtle is to protect our friends emotions and ensure lasting friendships even if they are not the closest-- and hey, we are all into that. So keep your friends close and your enemies-- well never let on who they are :) are :)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
One Enchanted Evening (Or What the Snow Queen Pageant Taught Me About Life)
I should have known better. I'm no beauty queen. Beauty, sure. Queen, only on my good days. It was during high school. Perhaps I was drawn by the crown or out of boredom or curiosity. My motivations somewhat unknown, even to me, I stood before the crowd assembled in Sisseton, South Dakota's high school auditorium and sought the Snow Queen crown.
I'm reminded of my own sordid beauty pageant past by a recent clip in which a very confused Miss Teen South Carolina answers the question of the sages: "Why can't many U.S. citizens locate their own country on a map? Beautiful.
I'm tempted to write off the beauty pageant industry as obviously populated solely with vapid crown chasers, eating only cotton balls and using preparation H in the strangest places for optimal firmness. But, in a strangely out of character way, I've been there, and while I cannot comment on the tenacity of women who go for state or national crowns, I can offer some insight on why women still compete for the chance to be labeled "Prettiest" "Smartest" "Best in Show," when all indicators should lead us to believe we're already there.
Despite our ever-increasing achievements in school, the workplace, and even the hard sciences (thanks, Apollo), women remain trapped in what Naomi Wolfe has coined "the Beauty Myth." Miss Teen South Carolina notwithstanding, most women in pageants are strikingly smart and articulate; unfortunately, it's not enough to be the smartest without also being the prettiest. In a clever sleight of hand, the patriarchal limitations second wavers overturned have been subtlety replaced with massive pressures to feed the beauty industry. And feed we do, perhaps not ourselves, but certainly the behemoth of diet remedies, make up, hair dye, plastic surgery, $10,000 pageant gowns... the list goes on. We're buying it because women caught in the beauty myth are convinced that only a certain socially appropriate appearance will satisfy her lovers, her employers, her friends, but most of all, herself.
What did the Snow Queen Pageant teach me about life? At the very end, each participant was called off the stage and asked whom we thought should win, ourselves or our best friend. One by one, we went under the pressure of the regional selection committee, (A committee consisting of Kathy, our school nurse and Donna, the local beautician.) Only one young lady won the crown. She chose herself.
(P.S. It wasn't me, although I did win Miss Junior Princess Spring. That's right.)
Monday, February 18, 2008
If (subject == science) { Why do Females != Males?}
xkcd is pure brilliance--as in divinity in webcomic form--though sometimes slightly over the head of those who don't revel in the alternate reality of computer programming, math, physics and unrequited love. Today's episode is particularly sad and poignant. Before we grab our pitchforks, rest assured, the author of xkcd does not share these sickening stereotypes and is in full support of female nerdism (Pix Plz and The 1337 Series are but a few examples). Nevertheless, I saw the outlined scenario and its corollaries far too often as an electrical engineer/computer scientist, and frankly, it needs to stop now. Let it be known that the only generalization about my engineering classmates I ever made was that I was better/smarter than everyone else.
I've seen a variety of theories why there are relatively few women in the quantitative sciences ranging from probable to inherently stupid (such as "men are biologically wired towards logic and the quantitative, while women towards the emotional and qualitative"; just try to back that one up, bucko, we'll see how far you and your rationalized preconceptions get). Whatever the reason, the inherent discrimination and alienation that every mathy girl faces probably doesn't help.
Most women know this happens; for many men though, there's still this air of skeptical ignorance. I remember consoling my girlfriend for almost an hour after the typical arrogant computer science major openly snickered at her question in class. I've heard comments ranging from ignorant (bitterness towards recipients of scholarships targeting women) to appalling (like suggesting non-consensual sexual assault). Most of the time, I hear the hackneyed "Boys are naturally better at math than girls."
I don't mean to suggest that male scientists are malicious bigots; on the contrary, the majority of us are Mostly Harmless. That being said, most of us are instilled, whether by our parents or by our peers, with a natural tendency to stereotype females as inferior. This will continue until more women join our ranks, which isn't happening because of all the aforementioned biases.
This brings me to two paradoxes:
1) The number one complaint for male engineering students is "not enough females in classes." Yet, their behavior and beliefs are driving females toward more "acceptable" and socially rewarding studies, like the arts and humanities.
2) Clinging to the stereotype despite the average female outperforming the average male. If a female is kicking your ass in math and she has a natural handicap...you're pretty bad at math. Of course this point is completely anecdotal, but I'm reminded of a conversation with a notoriously arrogant professor who confided in me that there was only 1 other electrical engineer suited for graduate school in my class of 50. I only guessed two females. I was right on the second try.
Maybe I'm just as guilty; I looked at the women in my class with some degree of pity. They were top of their shit but I always wondered if they were naturally hard workers or if they did it just to prove their worthiness as female engineers. Whether they were or they weren't, it's sad that anyone feels that females have to prove anything simply because they're female in a male-dominated world.
I'm not sure if there are any strong lessons in this but these two come to mind:
1) If you have a female friend, relative, acquaintance, running partner, etc. and she's thinking of going into the hard sciences/engineering, encourage her to do what she wants. No one should do anything just to follow or fight a stereotype.
2) If you hear any guy purporting that females are worse at math/sciences than males, give him a swift knee to the testicles. Because yes, there are differences between males and females. And they should be exploited.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Emotional Security Dilemma: What International Relations Theory Teaches Us About Love and Loss
As a student of international relations I keep looking to the security dilemma to ensure my emotional stability when it comes to my ex. The security dilemma is the inability to distinguish offensive from defensive military structures, forcing states to assume the worst and build up their defenses until it becomes too threatening to their rivals and they go to war. The security dilemma is a tragdey: the war is the result of misunderstanding the actions of the other side. Like states, we must also put our own emotional security first-- risk hurting someone else before being hurt--but we also operate in a world where guessing can result in destroying something or someone because of misunderstandings.
Throughout my relationships and listening to my friends' relationship troubles a trend reveals itself: we like to know why. A guy stops calling, sleeps with someone else, dumps you, leaves town-- while the action in itself screams "he's not that into you," that is just not enough. The why factor haunts us and then becomes the even more damaging what if factor which makes us reach for the Ben and Jerrys.
The struggle of whys and what ifs need never be approached alone: that is what our friends are for! In efforts to be supportive we come up with everything that could explain this behavior: he wants to make you jealous, he needed more attention, his cell phone was eaten by a dog, someone had to be hospitalized at the last minute, he was hit by a truck...There are a million reasons to explain the why. The problem is that in our efforts to pursue the why we abandon the facts for hope. This is where we get the emotional security dilemma: the facts are coupled with assumptions which lead to actions based on the assumptions rather than the facts.
International relations theory has some ideas on how to alleviate the security dilemma. The most preferred method is transparency. This is true for relationships as well. If both sides can trust one another and be open and honest then the emotional risk is minimal. Yet, as we know, with some relationships suspicions cannot be overcome, and there is rarely one hundred percent trust. How can there be? Like countries, there is no overarching government to force your significant other to be honest with you. There are no relationship police to arrest him for cheating and as a result trust can only go so far, especially when past experience or odd behavior triggers suspicions.
The other ideas the scholars of the security dilemma have come up with involve interventions, complex truth enhancing structures (think couples therapy) and separation. That is right, just keep them away from each other so that it is impossible for either party to hurt the other, because its not feasible anymore. This method can only work to an extent. With mutual friends, the internet, living in the same general area-- there is only so much one can do to eliminate someone from their mind and life.
The most practical solution, in relationships, is to operate without assumptions-- then make decisions. I will use an example based on my personal life to illustrate what I mean. My ex-boyfriend recently began advertising a new girlfriend. The fact he was dating someone was previously unknown to our mutual friends as well as myself (as I chose partition, shout out to Chaim Kaufmann for all you IR nerds out there)-- and the public venue he chose to inform the world would ensure that yours truly would become aware quickly. In efforts to cope with both the sadness of losing him even more and the anger resulting from the malicious desire to shove it in my face, I have started enhancing the security dilemma. In efforts to protect myself I have turned to friends, family and my own ideas for how to handle the situation. In conversations filled with suggestions on how to reciprocate in kind (dress like a slut and put pictures online), explanations (he misses you, wants to make you jealous, is playing a cruel joke) and of course comforts (she is an ugly bitch)-- I have learned that my emotional security is put at risk allowing myself to believe or act on any of these: what I know is that he has moved on and what that means is that my life goes on without him--as it has been.
The why factor is almost always a guessing game and the ability to rely on those guesses results in fears, questions, and often emotional hardship. While the struggle to understand why someone you love would hurt you, abandon you, forget you, etc. allowing yourself to search for reasons leaves you tragically emotionally screwed. The facts are hard to face in these cases but the facts are the best mechanism for understanding: if he cheated, if he has moved on, if he doesn't call, does it really matter why? Is it worth your emotional turmoil to understand 'why' when you could alternatively ask 'what now?' This way, you keep your actions restricted to what you know, and allowing your defenses to remain in tact. If you are in the relationship, you will hopefully have the transparency and trust to find out the way-- but those struggling with the why means that they are operating under the emotional security dilemma. It is tragic either way-- your significant other hurt you-- but by looking the 'what now' it makes your options much more clear and controlled. (Perhaps if some of these aggressor states were more introspective World War I would be a worst case scenario-- not a reality).
For me, it hurts me but it didn't change me. I alleviate the emotional security dilemma by facing the facts and operating under no assumptions about 'why?' So 'what now?' I have a date with my dissertation-- no one can take that from me (although if anyone wants to volunteer, Id trade for a lesser commitment-- I just got out of a relationship after all!).
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Valentine's Day -
I am a hopeless romantic cloaked by a protective layer of cynicism and doubt about the prospects for love. I read the Atlantic article about settling for someone stellar but not Mr. Man of My Dreams in order to build a stable family life. Granted, I'm not part of the mid-30s demographic the author targets, but I still didn't take her message to heart. First of all, I'm safe because I've already decided no children for me! Second, I'm sure I'll find Mr. Dream Man safely before the mid-30s crunch hits and if not, well, better to be alone than settle for Mr. Rude to the Waiter or Mr. Bad Hygiene.
Except today is Valentine's Day, and whether it should be or not (and it really shouldn't be, seriously people) It's a reminder of what we expect our loved ones to be and do for us. So is it better to have unmet expectations or to lower our pride and tell him exactly what we want (if we know what we want) and then insist that he give it to us? I think neither. This is where my hopeless romanticism kicks in. The best Valentine's Day gift we can give or get is to accept and love ourselves for who we are and accept and love each other. Very Pollyanna, I know, but at the end of the day, no one is keeping score for how many boyfriends we've had or how many Valentine's we've spent with a bottle of wine and some Miles Davis for company.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Relationships aren't easy. Even the relationship we have with ourselves can be precarious. So love yourself today, try to love your neighbor, and if you're with your Valentine, enjoy it!
Breaking More than Candy Hearts
Valentine's Day is supposed to celebrate love. Love, while people say it is all around, is actually rooted in one other person. If you were decieved into thinking that you loved your friends and family, your country, your religion or Dancing With the Stars, then Valentine's Day is here to remind you that love is rooted in romance. One need only look to the commercials for jewlry, the advertisements for romantic dinners and even my gym has an offer to "bring your loved ONE for free" for Valentine's Day to see that instead of love Valentine's Day is celebrating romance.
It is fascinating to me that Valentine's Day focuses on romantic love-- perhaps the most fragile of all loving relationships. While people rarely quetion of their love of a cause or family, for some reason the love of a romantic partner does not hold the same power anymore. Of course there are people who love one another dearly, and have spent years in difficult circumstances to remain together and support one another. Yet, divorce, adultery, abandonment and other means of betraying romantic love run rampant in our society. Therefore, when we celebrate Valentine's Day it seems strange that we should force people to focus on the love of a romantic partner when it is the hardest love to face.
Would it not be a better statement to focus a day to celebrate love on the things that hold all of us together? The powerful emotion that makes us follow the elections with such passion, that commits us to God or humanity, and that makes us feel devoted to our family, friends and ourselves. Being single on Valentine's Day makes one feel loveless. By focusing on an aspect of love that excludes and depresses large portions of the population, Valentine's Day is breaking more than candy hearts. They are breaking the spirit of people that are blinded to the vast amount of love in their life by commercialized couples and diamond rings. It is hard to face a day that celebrates romantic love when you have none, but it is harder to feel like that means there is no love in your life at all.
Everyone has love for something in their lives, so celebrate that today. Whether it is family and friends or a political candidate or chocolate cake-- there is something we all look to when we need to love and the ability to do that is something worth celebrating. Even if it doesn't pay for dinner.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: Being alone on a day devoted to being together is not fun for anyone-- but it is important to remember that if you have one person you can cry to about it, or one phone call or email that you can send to vent, then you are not alone. Take this opportunity to celebrate more than romantic love, celebrate the power of devotion that we have to each other as a society, as friends and as family. There is so much love in this world that we need not waste its celebration on the need for one other person.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
YOU, Me and Everyone Else is ON A DIET
While few of you admitted to subjecting yourselves to torture methods to lose weight, many people in America are already lining up for miracle cures. Weight loss products and surgeries that do everything from stapling your stomach to making you crap in your pants if you eat too much are selling like crazy. When looking at the voting on the poll it was hard to imagine there were people out there who were perfectly happy as they were. My friends, relatives and colleagues are costantly worrying about their weight, figure, and image in a way that not only borders obsessive, but makes me question what it means to have a healthy body image in a day when the only healthy mindset is on a diet.
There are people who struggle with their weight because they have to but there are even more who struggle with their weight because they want to. As someone who has recently joined the ranks of the image conscious weight loss obsessives, I have noticed that as soon as I mention my desire to lose weight every woman in the room echoes my statements. No longer do people act as if my weight loss proposal is ridiculous but become enthralled with my methods and plans for achieving my goals. Not too long ago it was taboo to talk to someone about how they need to lose weight, whereas now if you don't think you need to-- well what will you have to talk about?
Truthfully I have not met a woman who does not worry about her weight. Perhaps this issue is pertinent for men as well, but it is not pervasive. In my emails to friends and family, weight loss is a common subject that can relate to anyone. There is an entire social network in dieting. Do you do Weight Watchers? If so, can you make a pizza that is only three points, because I created one. I also created a way to make one point brownies, while my friend has created three point muffins and my mother can bake four point lemon squares. My aunt is on South Beach and relies on nuts for snacks, but frankly, they are too many points for me so we have trouble sharing ideas, but try anyway. We are all on a diet, but losing the diet would be losing a topic of conversastion as socially acceptable and common as the weather. Therefore, perhaps what we really need to lose is the weight of our diets.
I have gained a substantial amount of weight since I went abroad to study, and have found a million reasons to fixate on losing it. The real issue, though, is not how I gained the weight, but why. After a devastating break-up, adjusting to a new place, struggling to keep up with school, friends, etc. food was something that filled a void in my life. Now, I continue to postpone acknowleding my real struggles by obsessing with the struggles of my diet. Why do I keep gaining weight? Why can't I lose the pounds? I only ate three points today! My friends comfort me with statements like, have you tried olive oil? Dieting is a roller coaster? You exercise, it is muscle weight...don't worry. But the truth is, what we should really be saying to each other is, why do you care so much? Why do you take the time to worry so much about what you weigh? That is the real problem. I know how to lose weight, but I do not always know how to find myself.
I think that everyone can have a healthy concern about their body. Perhaps I do not look fat to others, but if I am unhappy with my body it is perfectly appropriate that I try to fix it. The problem is that we are so comfortable worrying about diets that we have stopped worrying about each other. While we all struggle to lose weight, we should also be working toward stronger emotional relationships and topics of converstaion that reflect positive aspects of their life instead of their struggles toward various levels of starvation. I'm not going to stop counting my points, setting personal goals or worrying about my appearance--but I am going to try to stop making my food decisions form my relationships. Thanks for the recipies, motivation and ideas, but lets not all be on diets when it comes to losing our burdens or our weight.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: It is important to support your friends and family in weight-loss efforts. I love hearing progress reports from friends and family who are successful and help those in need of a boost. The problem is that diets become consuming. We look skeptically at someone eating a candy bar or cake who we know is "on a diet" and we never wonder why people eat the way they do, or feel compelled to diet the way they do. Perhaps we can be better supporters of weight loss if we try to talk about other things a little more often.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Kicking Off Valentine's Day Week
As the poll says, it might be just a little too easy for the Gods and Goddesses of real love to make fun of Valentine's Day and all its vapid promises of candy box fulfillment. Does anyone outside of junior high seriously subscribe to its chocolate-coated expectations of gifts and fancy dinner anymore? (If you still do, and think I'm being slightly cynical, post away.)
I'm not a big believer in the VD, and that might be reflective of numerous less-than-stellar historical showing's from Cupid in my life. There was the Valentine's Day when my date made out with another girl at the college house party. The year I accidentally sunburned my entire body in a tanning bed and decided to end a moderately fulfilling but ultimately disappointing relationship with a good friend. One year, I spent the night fending off sad 40-something women at a bar called Nutty's as they drunkenly tried to embrace me, saying "I wish I had a boyfriend! I don't want to be single anymore!" A total downer.
You know what this means, my expectations are extremely high now that I'm celebrating Valentine's Day with a super-nice boyfriend by my side. (Just kidding.) In all seriousness, I think this holiday in particular gives us something to Not Be Into together. I'm going to kick it off, by opening some space for not being into expectations and stereotypes.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Tuesday
I would feel remiss if this blog didn't mention the fact that for the first time, a woman is running a serious presidential campaign in the United States. In one of the most exciting primary contests in recent history, both candidates are running on a platform of change and both have had to run a race that acknowledges the race/gender card without overplaying it. My female friends and acquaintances have pointedly not supported Hillary simply because she is a woman and almost no one I know (save Merle Haggard) has even spoken very much about what having a woman in charge might mean for the U.S.
Hillary's gender, however, does appear to be salient for older women, our mothers and grandmothers who remember what life was like when girl power was yet a gleam in Gwen Stefani's eye and before schools were pouring resources into improving boys' performances. Third wavers may not be making gender an issue in this race, but the very few young men who support Hillary's bid indicate to this feminist at least that it is affecting how people evaluate the candidates. Hillary's tears in New Hampshire melted an "ice queen." CNN has talked more about Hillary's laugh or hairdo than her detailed policy plans, and a major Clinton opponent started the 527 Citizens United Not Timid to funnel campaign funds into her opponents coffers. (Get the acronym? Can you imagine a similar one for any other candidate that would not provoke a major outcry? I can't. )
Is the elephant in the room race or gender in 2008? Or are both referenced enough for people to have it on their minds without meaningfully debated?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Young adults will be young adults
As a modern male, let me reiterate that we’re living in some crazy times. I mean beyond the gloom and doom of Facebook culture, climate change, and wars abroad, we’re in the midst of a cultural shift of inclusiveness unlike any in the modern age—namely the emergence of women. These days, it’s women’s turn to shine. Finally. After centuries of fighting for equal rights, or hell, even the ability to be considered a person, women are outperforming men in the classroom and in many cases, the office. I, for one, welcome our new overlords—not because all women deserve it, but because as a rational society, it’s pretty damn stupid to waste 50% of your talent and intelligence pool because of castration anxiety. Basically, I don’t give a shit if you have a penis, a vagina, or both, as long as you can do the job and not be an asshole about it.
That being said, I can’t help but be offended when females rehash the fallacious stereotype that men are the immature sex. Hymnowitz, whose article garnered a spot on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, anguishes over “Single Young Males’ (SYM)” modified adolescence and the problems it creates for the growing number of empowered females in society.
In the 1960s, as a male in my mid-20s, I would have been screwing on caps at the local toothpaste factory, making love to my high school sweetheart, and living with my parents so I could save up enough to feed my kids. Forty years later, the modern me is wasting away in a hellish apartment with some dudes and dumping money into Xbox, iTunes, and sex--or the pursuit of it anyway. My droogs and I, when we’re not at our 9-2-5, are wrecking young females’ lives and hearts with our hard-to-get routine and our general preference for shooting the shit instead of changing diapers. We choose to “hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3 and, in many cases, underachieving.” In contrast, our female counterparts are “hyper-achieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling and dining with friends.”
Excuse me? Why do shopping, traveling, and gossip hour fall into “leisure” while their equivalents of drinking and video games equate to underachievement? And if I’m not mistaken, we’re not hooking up with other guys (well, 90% of us aren’t anyway), so aren’t females also hanging out in these dens of iniquity? Or sorry, does the fact that they’re in a pair of fuck-me boots they bought three hours earlier and have a pair of Chinatown bus ticket stubs to NYC in a Coach bag mean that they’re still achieving the American dream? Men may be turning to Tucker Max and Maxim for advice, but women are doing the same; their sources have names like Carrie Bradshaw and Cosmopolitan.
Which brings me to my “beef” with Hymowitz: this is a generation clash, not a gender difference. She notes that 33% of 25 year old males are married these days, compared to 69% in 1970. Funny, but she forgot to mention that 40% of women in their 20s are unmarried, too. And trust me, the woman who grabbed my ass in the bar last night wasn’t looking for me to show the ring and pop the question. I’m not trying to absolve the mire of men; God knows we are a filthy creation. Instead, I believe that this pre-adult stage is a shared experience between both sexes.
Nevertheless, I don’t see our generation’s lack of popping out babies and buying up houses for families as a problem. We’re in the unique situation where we may be the first generation in America that does not earn more per capita than their parents. We’re competing with the explosion of American education, the emergence of women in the workforce and an educated foreign workforce. Furthermore, our generation has been taught by our society and public education system to “Be Something” rather than another cog in the machine (kids want to be doctors, lawyers, and astronauts—not office managers and electricians). Is it any wonder we’re not satisfied with our .ppt-creating, coffee-making, copier-troubleshooting work day?
Above all, family is an improper (and antiquated) metric for responsibility and adulthood when the individual is existentially searching for a way to contribute to society as a whole. With our bustling economy and entertainment-filled lives, who doesn’t want to be the next Bill Gates or Matt Damon? Our dreams are not our fathers’. And they are especially not our mothers’.
Is our generation somehow less responsible because we’re more interested in investing in stocks and high-interest bank accounts than locking ourselves into mortgages? Are we less capable of making decisions because we derive entertainment from parodies and immaturity rather than contrived “wholesome” TV? Is society going to collapse because 20 year olds are getting action on the side rather than making babies in an overpopulated world? I say no. Then again, maybe I just share the Burgessian vision that in the not-so-distant future, we’ll tire of our ultraviolence and yearn for unruly 20 year-olds of our own. Our generation is no more threatening to the American way of life than the immigrants of the 1920s, and the teenagers of the 1960s.
In the meantime, if you’re 20 and looking to get married, I have a few suggestions:
a) Stop trying to find your future spouse at a club (unless it’s a country club)
b) Don’t sleep with her/him on the first date
c) Move to Idaho
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Tracy Flick vs. Elle Woods
To illustrate the powerplayer/sex kitten divide, I've chosen two blonde prototypes of the female superpower archetype, both played by Reese Witherspoon. First, we have Tracey Flick from the film Election. She is, simply put, out to kill. This girl will win her bid for high school presidency at any cost.
Second, Elle Woods, equally successful in the end, but patronized and parodied, while generally acknowledged as beautiful.
Tracy seems almost asexual in her turtleneck sweaters and perpetual frown (although the viewers know this masks a recent affair with a married man.) Elle shamelessly plays up her physical gifts, sending law school admissions a video of herself in the pool wearing a bikini in lieu of an application. (She gets in, natch.)
What do the two sides of Reese tell us about powerful women in media culture? Frankly, ladies, we can't have it both ways. Either you're the cold, manipulative, competitive Tracy Flick or you're the perpetually sweet, slightly dumb, certainly inoffensive Elle Woods. Both get to be powerful, and both get what they want, but the trade-off, of course, is in popularity. The message: it's okay to be successful and maybe beautiful as long as you're also unfailingly nice and probably a little bit dumb, so as not to offend anyone, sweetie.
This delicate balance between class president and homecoming queen is rarely walked by men. They, of course, are sexy BECAUSE they are powerful, not despite being powerful; therefore, "masculine" elements of power, being assertive, decisive, even abrupt, are okay for men, but threatening when co-opted by women.
(To illustrate this point, how often have you witnessed the following conversation circles among groups of women: "What do you want to do?..... "I don't care. I mean, I sort of like movies, yeah movies are okay....I mean, I don't care. What do you want to do? I'll do whatever you want...") I know women who would rather talk circles for hours than risk seeming like they had an opinion contrary to any other member of their friend group.
When I lived in South Dakota, the number one adjective used to describe me was "intimidating." Even strangers at dive bars would level this claim at me (although it was sort of surprising they knew a five-syllable word.) As an assertive pro-choice feminist in an oppressively red state, I probably did seem sort of scary and maybe a little bit dangerous. It bothered me at the time, but I have a better perspective now on why they were mistaken. I think the double-Reese dichotomy is false. We've been trained to identify powerful, successful women as bitches, unless the success is tempered with a degree of sweetness, even to strangers, even when unwarranted.
We're Just Not That Into You Lesson: We don't need to be all things to all people. Embrace both your inner class president and class homecoming queen when appropriate. Don't hide in practice the very gifts that brought success in the first place. We're powerful because of the gifts that we embrace, not the attributes we shun.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Modern Man
Making men obsolete did not require scientific advances. While British headlines have boasting a scientific discovery that has led to the “death of the father,” the role of men in the modern world is facing important challenges outside the laboratory. Currently living in the UK, my conversations with men in pubs allows me to sympathize with British scientists wanting to populate the world without the need for sex with British men. Yet, while the scientific progress is wonderful for gay and lesbian couples who would want to reproduce, its role in changing male/female relationships is about ten years too late. Men have already been faced with the reality that their role in society is no longer clear.
I like to start my afternoons by watching Loose Women. For those of you who never had the pleasure, it is a similar show to The View but generally restricts conversations to issues facing the modern woman. On Loose Women, they were discussing this article on “Making Men Obsolete” when one of the women (typically the ‘we don’t need men’ strong single woman) said something that we do not hear enough, “I feel really sorry for them, they must just have no bloody clue what do with themselves.” She continued to explain that in a world of women achieving at high levels, succeeding in careers and demanding equality in treatment, men just do not know what they are expected to do anymore. I think she has a point. While we talk about the delicate balancing act we must play looking for romance and respect—men are also caught between wanting to be the prince and the damsel all at once.
While I am not opposed to the slowly collapsing good ole boy networks that dominated business, medicine, law and society for centuries, I do sympathize with men’s inability to gage their behavior in the new world of women. I, for one, do not mind when a man hold’s the door for me. Yet, many women are very much offended by the gesture, seeing it as an implication that she could not hold the door for herself. While the same man may open the door for me in the morning and receive a smile, he could do the same thing two hours later and receive a smack. This dichotomy of how to behave transcends into business demeanor. Where are the lines for friendship? For sex discussion? My girlfriends and I can talk freely about which men we would sleep with, who is cute, who is not, etc. Even in semi-professional environments it is socially acceptable for women to talk about potential hook-ups or past mistakes in the same department without worrying about offending the men in their office. Where I would find a comment that I looked nice as a compliment from a male colleague, another situation with a different woman could result in a sexual harassment claim. We want to be colleagues who are treated equally, but legally and socially we are still different. Yet, for men, it is understandably hard to know when it is time to be an equal and time to be a woman (the wording may offend many of you but it is true. The law protects women in a way that it does not for men and as a professional that understanding needs to exist). Demanding different treatment and equality is making men walk on eggshells in all the places they once felt safe. While Greg talks about men just not being that into you if he is not willing to approach you, or if he’s not calling you right away, Greg is forgetting that the modern man has to date us—women who might one day be his boss, who are also really busy and who can perceive advancements as insulting to our social roles.
Men are obsolete in many ways. Their role as the provider is gone. Their role as the source for sexual pleasure is gone (not that it was so overwhelming in the first place). Their role as a social necessity is gone. Their role as jar opener has even been undermined. Yet, they still have an important role in society and in the lives of women. My father is not the one who fixes the kitchen sink (his one attempt cost a lot more than his pride to repair) but it is because of him that I know that there are men in this world who feel unconditionally devoted to their wife and children. Professors, bosses, friends, and colleagues who were male gave me support and guidance in ways that allowed me to achieve things I never thought possible. Even my ex-boyfriend, for all the pain he brought me, supported me and cared for me unconditionally for years. Without these men in my life I would not be the woman I have become, so even if we do not need their sperm, we can want the substantive, caring people many of them are in our lives.
We’re Just Not That Into You Lesson: So for all they do and all they don’t know how to do, let’s give men a little understanding because they have a hard role to play too. They are having a hard time managing our changing role in society—just as we are. While we don’t know whether we want to be whisked away by Mr. Millionare or supported in our career and family choices by Mr. Stay-At-Home Dad or work side by side with Mr. We Met in Law School…they also don’t know how to treat us. Their role in society is changing slowly just as ours is and we need to be understanding of that as well. We cannot have our cake and hate it too. We cannot blame men for not knowing how they should behave at all times. Obviously there are examples of gratuitous, sexist behavior which is always unacceptable. But if he holds the door, maybe just tell him thank you, but you got it and move on—because maybe I still want him to hold it for me!
REFERENCE ARTICLE : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html
