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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Crush
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!
