No cookies required, but maybe a hug...

I usually drop the ball on these things, but didn't this time. However, not really having the energy to punch through that final tackle (to continue the US sporting metaphor!)

I'm on SI's Football Manager Live (I talked about setting up my team, the Steel Cross Gyrls, in an earlier post), and I occasionally join in the forums on the game. Recently there have been a number of complaints, people whining about bugs in the servers and suchlike, or more often, they just don't like the way the game's rules are designed because t make sit hard to figure out. Anyway, a lot of whining complainers.

So, one person decided to make a point about this. There was just one problem with how he said it, see if you can spot what it was:

20+ people that act like spoiled teenage girls...

So I replied, "Please keep sexism to a minimum: you could just have said 'spoilt teenagers' and it would have had the same meaning". No cookies required! After all, it was unlikely there would be any other feminist person on the game to make an issue of it, so I couldn't just let it go, could I?

Of course, I should have expected the follower (from someone else in this case):

Grow up. he hasn't launched an attack on either sex, he just made a point in the easiest way possible.

I'm sorry. Right now I haven't got the energy to take that on. I know some folks have to deal with that shit all the bloody time, and by God I feel for you! But I log on to the game to have a bit of downtime and relaxation and fun - I at least put down a marker that there's one feminist on the server, but Lord knows I can't face the whole battle again tonight, it's been a long day already.

Nevertheless, I hope my presence will mean it isn't a total safe space for bigotry and sexism.

Don't blink at the kitty...

It would appear that the cat in this video is quantum-locked (or whatever that fancy term the Doctor used) just like the Weeping Angels villains:

It's not a cat. It's a weeping angel cat.

Very creepy.

And yet, at the same time, incredibly cute.

What I believe feminisms are

I have become involved in the team responsible for the Carnival of Kinky Feminists (first submission deadline is now 1st June).

As part of getting things set up, the organisers were each invited to provide a piece explaining what feminism means to them or how they define feminism (there are some great pieces of writing there!) After some soul-searching and searching through my previous posts on here, I came up with the following concise description of where I see feminisms having their foundation:

I believe that feminisms’ foundations are formed from the combination of women’s action in, and application of, social sciences, politics, philosophy, and activism to their own lives and the way those lives relate to other women’s lives. The common theme is it’s about women. Women in every walk of life have contributed to this foundation by virtue of living their lives and talking about them.

Feminisms tend to be activist both on a personal and a political level, but can be more purely academic as well. However, even the act of dispassionately and accurately recording women’s lives and experiences in terms of social science research, for example, is a revolutionary and activist thing in a world where the male is seen as the norm or default.

I believe that for both men and women, being feminist starts with listening to, and acknowledging as valid, women’s experiences and understanding the diversity as well as the commonality within them.

I am sure it's not perfect - it's just one person's (one man's!) version in just 157 words of the ideas that have been developed over the past 400 years or so of campaigning for women's political and social equality with men. But I think it's a good picture of where I'm at now in terms of how I relate to the word.

I relate to it as a feminist man - so it's an adjective rather than noun for me. I do not call myself "a" feminist. I describe myself as feminist, or having some feminist qualities (I hope).

"Not That Into You" chapter 14 notes

Continuing the series of posts showing you how my brain works when reviewing a book (in this case, "He's Just Not That Into You").

Getting near the end now - finished the meat of the book, this is just the final flourishes to go.

N.B. common abbreviations used:

G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)


Chapter 14: Q&A with G.B.

Q. 1 - Are you sure I can't ask him out?

G.B.: "Do you really have time for a guy who's so afraid of you that he's not even capable of inviting you for coffee?"

Again with this. Look, if a guy's intimidated or scared to ask you out, it probably means that he actually gives a shit what the answer is. Why WOULDN'T you have time for a guy who cares what your answer is?

Q.s 2, 3, 4 – Are there enough guys out there/aren't I better off being with someone than alone?

G.B.: You can feel crap and lonely or crap with someone, but you still feel crappy, so give yourself a chance not to feel crappy.

So far, so good. Greg also thinks lots of men measure up to his standards, which may or may not be true. But lots of perfectly good and "into her" guys won't, and I think that's a problem.

Q. 6 - Can bad guy turn good?

G.B.: Anything's possible, but it hasn't happened in my experience.

I agree with this. I think people sometimes take a little while to get used to each other's needs, but in general if he's uncaring to start with, he'll stay that way.

Q. 7 - I always pick guys who are not into me?

G.B. "A lot of guys, good and bad, are going to fly in your direction. Which ones you pick to invest your time is is where you have your control."

Good advice, but again I'm bothered that maybe not all the "not that into you" guys are really "not that into you", because some just don't match G.B.'s model of masculinity.

Q. 8 - Sometimes he has real reasons why he's not in a serious relationship with me.

G.B.: "Not up for it' = 'Just not that into you'." Don't wait around, because "not able to be in relationship" = "not able to be into you".

Well, yes and no. Firstly, I read the question slightly differently, thinking it meant either "reason why he hasn't asked me out" or "reason why he needs to be on a break" (e.g. stress from work). G.B. might be reading it as "reason why he's putting off going to the next level". Everyone has hard times, and it isn't always possible to devote oneself as fully as needed to both, but still care and be deeply into someone. I don't call that "not up for it" (unless G.B. thinks that only permanently happy and successful people deserve relationships).

Sure, if all he's doing is going "not yet, not yet" with no end in sight, then yeah – that counts as "not that into you". And that seems to be what G.B. is saying. But not all situations are like that.

"Not That Into You" chapter 12 & 13 notes

On we go with the series of braindump posts. Same rules apply.

Doing 2 chapters here because they're shorter than previous ones.

N.B. common abbreviations used:

G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)

Chapter 12: Don't listen to these stories.

Sure, stories exist of guy being pursued and it works out; the jerk who ends up being a good husband & father; married man having an affair ends up leaving his wife and marrying the girlfriend instead.

"These stories are the exceptions to the rule. Thinking of yourself as the exception is what got you into this mess in the first place."

But how many exceptions does it take for the rule not to be a rule? Again, returning to the whole "don't ask him out, he has to ask you" "rule" that G.B. repeats here: what if it's 20% of men prefer to be approached (or don't mind it)? What about 30%? 40%? What if it turns out to be 51%? Then again: what if, of the guys who are likely to be "really into" a woman (according to the other rules that G.B. gives), it turns out that a clear majority would prefer to be asked out than have to do the asking? Maybe the reason it appears (as in Chapter 11 "Why This One Is Hard") that there are so few good men is because you've discounted the majority of good men already by not asking them out!

Chapter 13: Now what do you do?

Since “we just laid waste to your personal lives”, some advice for after the break-up.

“Ask you to at least try to notice, even just a tiny bit, how good it feels to be out of a relationship with someone who actually wasn't that into you. Can you at least feel that sense of relief?”

Good advice as far as it goes, but because a break-up is a form of loss, there are steps to go through; noticing the relief straight away will only come if there were really big issues in the relationship; for some of these rules, I think noticing the relief might take a while because of missing the good things that were in the relationship.

Takes energy to make excuses/”figure someone out”.

“Basically, you're going to have to feel the pain, you're going to have to go through it, and then you're going to have to get over it.”

So far, so good. Goes for everyone getting out of a relationship, I would guess! (Plenty of songs about it , f'rex!)

Book focussing on the future - “how to do it differently”.

Reset Your Standards:

“Let's set a dignified bar for you to exist at. Let's put you in charge of how it's going to go next time.

“A standard is setting a level for yourself of what you will or won't tolerate... Make sure you know what you stand for and what you believe in.”

This is great advice for anyone. Heck, I even try to follow it for myself as well when forming relationships (and not just of the romantic/sexual kinds). The issue I've had all along is that some of the standards G.B. (and to a lesser extent L.T.) set are just dumb.

“And because we obviously think we know better than you...”

Yeah, um... like I said, some of your standards are just dumb (not to mention sexist).

“...we're going to give you some standard suggestions.”

Uh-oh, I bet I can guess what's at the top, and I'm going to be cross...

[Edited to pick out the ones that annoyed me!]

• I will not go out with a man who hasn't asked me out first
• I will not date a man who isn't sure he wants to date me
• I will not be with a man who's afraid to talk about our future

Annoyed for the reasons explained previously. Other points were acceptable or downright good ones (again, they were points raised already).

"Not That Into You" chapter 11 notes

Continuing the series of posts revealing what my brain did when I read "He's Just Not That Into You". Just to clarify: I have now finished reading the book, all the "as I went along" notes like this post and the previous 11 posts have been written. It goes up to chapter 18 so seven more of these. Then you get to see the final, polished, article - the condensed version that is normally all you see when I write a book review or response blog post. I hope this is revealing to you guys about how my brain sees stuff?

Anyway, on with the show:

Same abbreviations as before:

G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)

Chapter 11: …if he's a selfish jerk, a bully, or a really big freak. (If you really love someone, you want to do things to make that person happy)

Okay, buttons pushed here: plenty of people think I'm a "really big freak" and while I accept that I am rather big (self-identified "tubby bitch"!) I reject that my being a BDSM sadist/Dominant – or being somewhat gender-deviant – makes me a freak. So, really unsure about this chapter to start with…

G.B.: Forget all his good qualities/bad qualities/excuses/promises. "Ask yourself one question only: Is he making you happy? … I don't mean some of the time, on rare occasions, not that often, 'but the good still outweighs the bad.' Does he make it clear in his actions every day that your happiness is important to him?"

Mostly agree, especially the last sentence. Sometimes even if you can't make someone happy you can still be showing all the time that hir happiness is important. Because there are hard times for every couple, so sometimes "happy" is not an option, but those times should be the exception because always working out how to make that happiness come back soonest.

Excuses/scenarios covered:

'He's really trying to be better':
Scenario: He never does anything to help or to make special times, swears he's trying to change but it's not noticeable.

G.B.: "He may think he loves you, and maybe he does. But he's really bad at it."

I think, if you love someone, you figure out how to do it well. I think he's in love with the idea of you, but not with you the person – which is (as G.B. says) pretty much the same as not being into you.

'It's just the way he was brought up':
Scenario: he doesn't like families, in particular, is not liking (not making an effort to like) hers.

G.B.: "He doesn't have to like your CD collection. He doesn't have to love your shoes. But any good, mature guy better make an attempt to love your friends and family"

I'm going to say that there are some families in this world I am never going to be able to like, or attempt to like – e.g. if most of them are racist scumbags, and I happen to be dating the only non-racist member of the family (or something). And I think that kind of situation merits some allowance for us guys! (I mean, do I now have to find not only a girlfriend who's feminist, but her whole family is too!?) I'm pretty good (maybe too good) at biting my tongue and keeping quiet in such situations, but you can bet I become sullen and unfriendly in them!

But serious political disagreements or personality clashes besides, yeah – at least make an effort!

'It's not always going to be like this':
He's tired/stressed – shouts at her if woken/interrupted in the middle of something. Apologises every so often, and tells her it's only until project/exams/whatever are over.

My reaction: This is how DV stories start. They end in DV refuges, hospitals or worse. This scenario is seriously scary. She needs to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE NOW!

G.B.: "People who yell are people with anger issues who need help. People who yell are people who think they're entitled to yell."

Precisely. And that sort of person can so easily become an abuser just like that. **snaps fingers**

G.B.: "Do you want to be that couple? You know – that couple where the guy yells at his wife all the time? Even better, do you want him to be that dad?"

After all, that produces the next generation of wife-beaters.

'It's behind closed doors that counts':
Scenario: He's nice in private, but puts her down, insults her education/intelligence in front of friends etc.

My reaction: he's on a serious (and non-consensual) power-trip here, and one of the most creepy sorts of abuser there are, because it's so easy for him to deny it (but he's clearly making himself feel good at her expense).

Now, it mentions "correcting grammar" as one of the things he does, and I do that a lot – but I take no pleasure from it, and actually feel guilty when I blurt it out sometimes. Red Pen Syndrome is an affliction, and one that I am careful to control when necessary.

Did online-only thing with a woman for a while, who explained to me that she liked being free when not at work to be sloppy and eccentric in her use of English – so I always let it slide with her (despite the temptation always not to). So, if he does it even though he knows it bothers you – then he's a grade-A jerk.

G.B.: "Why should you care if he treats you better when you're alone? Because it sounds like he can't wait to get you out in public just so he can humiliate you."

Precisely.

'But he's just trying to help':
Scenario: She's trying to lose weight, he says what she can/can't eat, if she wants to cheat says it goes on her big butt, points out when she gains weight (or loses it).

My reaction: This is, again, a total power trip in the worst possible way. He's feeding on her insecurities about her weight to become an emotional vampire and take control of her life in non-consensual ways. (Hey, radfems who say BDSM is sub women self-deceiving about their role: here's what that REALLY looks like, and BDSM really doesn't look like.)

G.B. (basically repeats what I just said, minus the radfem part)

G.B. – taking last three together: "It's hard to feel worthy of love when someone is going out of their way to make you worthless. Being told to get out of these relationships may not work for you. Knowing that you're better than these relationships is the place to start."

Two points:

Firstly, why is there nowhere in this book any info on resources for women in/getting out of abusive relationships?

Secondly: He's not going "out of his way" to make her feel worthless: it's precisely his means to an end, it's exactly his way, and he'll do it to anyone he can get his claws into.

'But now I'm playing in the big leagues':
Scenario: he's so amazing, loads of wonderful stories – but never asks about her.

G.B.: "He's not into you; he's into how you look listening to him… When two people are connecting, they hunger for information about each other."

Definitely.

I know it's very easy to talk about myself for ages, but if there's any interest at all in her, I want to ask her things and I break off my self-descriptions to find out about her. In fact, sometimes very frustrated now when she's reticent about it!

"You're the catch. They are out to snare you."

I'm not keen on this formulation (which pervades G.B.'s advice, it seems) that only men do the chasing, women are passive recipients of men's lust and interest. But you have to view yourself as being at least as interesting as the other person.

'He's just finding himself':
Scenario: He's long-term unemployed, "just doesn't know what he wants to do with his life." She supports him with her income/money. "Or maybe he's just depressed?"

G.B.: "A man who's really into you and himself will try to get his act together a fast as he can. That means, first and foremost, collecting a salary."

Okay, I too am long-term unemployed, and I resent the implication by G.B. that a man is only "together" or worth anything, if he has a paying job.

There's a big difference between "lazy" and "wants to work but not being offered any jobs".

G.B.: "People go through rough patches all the time… The only job you need to worry about is the job of finding someone who would be never be that comfortable living off you and your family's money."

True story: every time I visit my parents, I have to fight my dad because he wants to give me money to help with my budget. And the money is useful, for sure – but I always try hard to refuse it - I end up caving, because I can't deny it's useful, but it always makes me uncomfortable.

And I would never be comfortable living off someone else's income, at least, unless I was able to contribute meaningfully to the household in some way on a daily basis. But G.B. is very heavy on this idea of the guy as the breadwinner somehow – there seems to be no room in his philosophy for the Stay-At-Home-Dad.

I think this is the crucial thing: is he even trying to contribute?

Also: if he is suffering from depression, then it's possible that counts as "emotionally unavailable", depending on the state and the phase. Whatever, it's likely to be a hard road to travel if you stick with him, and he should certainly get diagnosed and get professional help (whether talk therapies or medication) to get over it.

I certainly think people with depression are capable of having meaningful and serious relationships, but from my own experiences of the disease, I know that it can be tough at times for both. So make sure you're getting the support you and he need.

'Maybe it's just his little quirk':

Hmm, lots of things could be considered "little quirks", and only some of them should be considered as something more…

Given that the chapter heading was "if he's a really big freak", I'm guessing this is something else.

Situation presented: he doesn't like being touched (but does have sex with her); she really likes physical intimacy (cuddles, touching etc).

G.B.: "He may be really into you, but he's certainly not really compatible with you." … "You will meet people who don't like to be touched, or kissed, or who don't like sex. You can spend a lot of time trying to fix them… Or you can realize that they simply don't like to do the things you find absolutely essential to your enjoyment of life, and then go out and find someone who does."

This is why I can't really date 'nillas. D/s especially is absolutely essential to my enjoyment of life, and S/M is right up there as well, so vanilla sex will never be right for me. Of course, finding someone who does enjoy these things is easier said than done!

In general terms, agree that finding someone who's compatible sexually is important (and "physical intimacy" can be an extension of sexuality, I think).

The rare and exotic 'He's Afraid of the intimacy of sleep':
Situation: a year into a relationship, he's still not sleeping in the same bed as her: after sex, sleeps on the couch.

G.B.: he's a freak, get rid of him.

I'd say something's not right in the relationship, but I wouldn't call the guy a freak. Whatever his issues are, though, they're now affecting her. This is a special case of the point in "just his little quirk" above: it's not a compatible situation, so you need to find someone else.

G.B.: "If you date, you will meet your share of weirdos and jerks… The only thing in your control is how long you allow these gentlemen to take up space in your life."

Point not acknowledged by G.B.: definitions of "weirdo" may vary. Making someone feel bad for being different from you is Not Okay.

L.T. 'Here's Why This One Is Hard':

There aren't that many good men out there.

"There are more good women out there than good men."

Sceptical about this. Then again, depends on definition of "good". And how definition varies according to gender.

Means can't all end up with "great men who love us and whom we love back, where there's a passionate mutual attraction, who also treat us like queens."

You don't want me to treat you like a queen. I'm anti-monarchy: for me, treating you like a queen would be cutting off your head!

Therefore, seems logical to lower expectations. Especially if hate being single.

"Obviously, I don't think people should go out with someone who is abusive to them. But there are subtle degrees of abuse… These guys… They're not just assholes. They can be nice sometimes, too. And there are many days when I personally think it's better to be with someone your friends hate but will help you carry in the groceries than be alone."

"Greg, you have to take over."

G.B. Responds:

"Being lonely, being alone, for many people, sucks. I get it."

Statistics can only frighten you, and thus keep you down, so don't use them.

"It's your life - how dare you not have faith in it!"

Jeez, maybe because thus far it's given us very little reason to have faith in it? (Oh, wait – I'm a man anyway, so I automatically have confidence according to G.B.)

"…we are all tired of operating from a place of fear. You want to believe you are better than all the crap… Well you are. You are an excellent, foxy human being worthy of love…"

Wait, what? Only the foxy are worthy of love!?

"I know you can get lonely. I know you can crave companionship and sex and love so badly that it physically hurts. But I truly believe that the only way you can find out that there's something better out there is to first believe there's something better out there."

Well, indeed. Of course, nothing wrong with answering a sex craving with a bit of no-stings-attached stuff, and friends are good for companionship too.

But yeah, believe that there will be an answer and maybe there will be. Stop believing, and there definitely won't.

G.B.: 'This is what it should look like'

Female friend is scared of clowns, her husband makes sure "she never sees one or is near one". He "still wants to protect his wife from things that frighten her."

This is probably just me, but I find that quite creepy, really. It seems like making her dependent upon him and unable to stand on her own. For me, the loving thing to do would be to be there to support her when she needed it, and to help her gain the strength in herself to deal with her fear – that is, to stop fear limiting her. The above example sounds to me like a power trip of the "He's just trying to help" variety.

Save Kiana Firouz!

Via Laura Woodhouse @ The F-Word Blog

The EveryOne Group informs us of the case of Iranian actress and lesbian rights activist Kiana Firouz, who fled to Britain and applied for asylum based on well-founded fears that she would be executed for her participation in lesbian acts.

The F-Word Blog and EveryOne Group links above give you all you need to get active about this regarding contacting the UK Government about it, and I do think anyone reading this blog ought to do so (after all, international pressure can sometimes help).

One more thing: apparently the Minister of State (Borders and Immigration) is one Damian Green, who has a somewhat chequered past, it seems.

Anyway, here's the letter that I've sent him. A person in another campaign group tells members of that group that mailed letters are the most effective form of communication in terms of getting a minister's attention (as they tend to ignore form letters, emails and petitions), and because there is someone's life at stake here, I have put the cost of a stamp and envelope at a lower value than that!

Dear Sir,

Immigration Status of Kiana Firouz

Human rights campaigners "EveryOne Group" have brought to the attention of the world the plight of Iranian actress Kiana Firouz, who has recently been refused asylum status in the UK. I am writing to add my voice to the protests against this decision and ask that her status be re-evaluated and she be allowed to remain in the UK as a refugee from persecution.

Kiana Firouz is a lesbian, from a country where lesbianism is punishable initially by 100 lashes of the whip, but if repeat offences are discovered, could face the death penalty. Kiana Firouz, through the evidence in her political campaign films, is very likely to be executed if she is returned to Iran. It is a fact of European law that we do not extradite anyone to a country where they may face the death penalty, but by deporting Kiana Firouz that would be exactly what we would be doing. If the values that have made Britain great are to mean anything and we are to have the moral authority to criticise other countries for barbaric behaviour, then we must surely allow people like Kiana to shelter in our country from barbaric treatment that they can expect in their own. If we do not, her blood is on Britain's hands as surely as on Iran's when they execute her.

Whether you are accepting of homosexuality or opposed to it, it has been a very long time since anyone faced the death penalty in Britain because of their sexuality, and I do not believe you or anyone in government truly believes that gays and lesbians deserve to die. The Iranian government does, and for that reason, homosexuals from that country should be granted asylum.

I close by asking you once again to do all that you can to ensure that Kiana Firouz is granted asylum in the UK to protect her from almost certain death at the hands of her own government.

Yours Faithfully,

Go now, and do likewise. (But come up with your own wording - as I said, my understanding is that form letters don't do as well as individually crafted ones.)

Why I won't be drawing Muhammed

Via Merda D'Artista, who got it from Jihad Watch

Apparently, there is some great idea (sparked by cartoonist Molly Norris) that on 20th May, everybody should show defiance to Muslim extremists by drawing images of the prophet Muhammed - something that is outlawed in Islamic culture. This follows the news that US broadcaster Comedy Central edited an episode of South Park after death threats were implied against the show's makers for daring to include a scene with the Prophet, thereby creating an image of the Prophet; that said image portrayed Muhammed wearing a bear suit may or may not have had an impact on the reaction.

First up, I am a passionate defender of free speech. Death threats for things like this are seriously Not Okay, and actual murder (as happened in Denmark) even more Not Okay. The extremist folks behind this are dead wrong and I think defiance, anger, outrage, and "FYTP" are all perfectly good and reasonable reactions when shit like that goes down.

So, no matter what, the South Park team don't deserve to be threatened this way.

On the other hand, what they were doing was an extremely arseholish thing to do, and it is my feeling that this whole "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" is arseholish in the same way.

You see, this isn't only going to offend the extremists. It's also going to offend millions upon millions of Muslims who have no particular wish to hurt or kill non-believers for any reason, but who are still passionate about their faith and their beliefs. People who would like their feelings and emotions and lives to be treated with respect. So when loads of Westerners of no particular faith, who perhaps don't understand what these rules mean to Muslim believers, set out with "Oh, teeheehee, let's go and break all their laws!" that's going to come across as - well - offensive.

While the message may be intended as "...counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid" what millions of Muslims are going to hear is:

"We in the West don't give a shit about you, your culture, your beliefs, your feeling, your emotions. You are not our equals, you are lesser beings and deserve to be trampled on."

Now, I've just deleted a whole chunk of rant based purely on the quotations from Norris at the various sites that reported the story. After checking out Norris' own website, I realised that I was leaping to conclusions about her attitude to the whole matter. In fact, she probably is the only one who's acted with any class in this!

It seems that Norris herself recognised the problems inherent in the idea and asked for the whole thing to be called off:

My one-off cartoon of a fictional poster does not work well as a long-term plan.
The vitriol this 'day' has brought out, of people who only want to draw obscene images,
is offensive to the Muslims who did nothing to endanger our right to expression in the first place. Only Viacom and Revolution Muslim are to blame, so write to them instead!

I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off.

Thank you to those who are turning this crazy thing into an opportunity for dialogue, education and solutions.

On that link to Norris' own site, there's a new version in which Norris graffito-ed her own poster to express her feelings about what happened.

***

There are lessons in this for those of us who work in creative media: what we do may have massive effects if something strikes a chord with people's mood, and that may not always be a positive thing.

As I said, I think South Park aiming to show the prophet Muhammed in a bear suit was really dumb, puerile and pointlessly offensive. They didn't have to do that, and I think they deserve to be censured (but not censored) for such behaviour. Death threats? No, certainly not! But decent human beings who gave a shit about other people's feelings might have thought twice about how they dealt with it. Comedy Central pulling the show - if they'd made the editorial decision that it was A.O.K. to broadcast, then submitting to terrorist-style demands was not acceptable; but again, that they decided it was okay to broadcast means that they're not very nice people. In fact, the South Park producers and Comedy Central act like bullies, in my opinion. As long as they feel there's no comeback for their arseholery they'll do what they like and to heck with the consequences for anyone else. Just because they do it to everybody (which they do), doesn't make it okay.

I still don't think any of that makes the death threats okay, but in the spirit of the First Amendment (we don't have that over hear, but I appreciate the spirit), I think it's fair to say that (to paraphrase Voltaire badly) "I may loathe what you say, and defend your right to say it - but I also assert my right to call you a jerk for saying it!"

Norris' original cartoon poster was, I guess, intended as satire and to a certain extent I think it's valid art in that sense. My initial reaction to this was negative (as you can read in the first part of this post, I thought Norris and everyone else were just saying effectively, "Oh, teeheehee, let's go and break all their laws!") I now see that there was a specific point that Norris intended and that the point wasn't to piss anybody off. I think it probably was a misjudged piece of art, but valid nonetheless, and so if it does cause offence, that in itself is no reason to criticise Norris. There may be a certain amount of privilege showing itself in the way that Norris chose to make her point, but I think it was ultimately a fair comment.

That's what distinguishes Norris from South Park, and also from the people who gleefully jumped on board this idea. Norris shows she actually gives a shit about other people when it turns out that something she's done has caused a problem.

Fundamentally, I don't think being a jerk means you deserve to threatened with death (although sometimes I might dearly love to whack you round the face a few times). But if you don't want to be considered a jerk or an arsehole, DON'T ACT LIKE ONE. Pretty simple, really.

[NB: I looked at a couple of other cartoons on Norris' website and, TBH, I think she is an arsehole in a number of ways, and her quoted comment that "That's a cartoonist's job, to be non-PC" on the original news report really does indicate this; I just think that on this one, she did okay]

Petition to remove Theresa May from Women & Equalities post

Just quickly want to draw people's attention to this:

Petition "Requesting Theresa May's Resignation from the Post of Equalities Minister".

In so many ways, May is the wrong person for this job. Let her keep the Home Secretary position, but not the Minister for Women post as well! For one thing, the post deserves someone who can give their full attention to it, it shouldn't be treated as a secondary job that can be done in one's spare time.

I'll leave it there, the petition page has plenty of other reasons why May should be asked to quit.

Women's Twenty20 Cricket

The Women's World Twenty20 cricket tournament has been running concurrently with the men's tournament, and has reached the semi-final stage. Last night (or "yesterday" if you were in the same time-zone as the tournament!) the Aussies beat India to reach the final. Tonight (this afternoon) New Zealand face the West Indian team.

I'm not feeling much like talking lots about the tournament today, and anyway, any information I gave would be gleaned from the link above, so you might as well go there and form your own opinions. But I did want to highlight the pictures from the Australia/India match, and a couple in particular:

Poonham Raut in a classic batting pose. Raut was the kay batter in the Indian team's innings.

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/117300/117311.jpgEllyse Perry in a classic bowler's action shot pose. Perry did a great job to set up her team mates for the win.

Jhulan Goswami celebrating with her wicket-keeper after taking an early wicket. I can't help imagining how certain elements in society would respond to that image, but I'd rather focus on it as an image of an overjoyed sportsperson in full celebration: again, it's a classic pose from the world of cricket these days.

So I'll just say for now: well done to all the teams who played in the Women's World Twenty20 tournament, and especially well done to the Australian team and whoever will face them in the final.

Okay, I now have a political comment to make:

Via this Translation Party:


The internet works its magic, translating back and forth between English and Japanese, but it finds...



So there you have it: the prospects for a harmonious Liberal Democrat/Conservative government seem bleak, despite Clegg and Cameron's luvviness!

Just a little one...

I know I should probably talk about the fact that my country has a new government, (with an appalling lack of women or non-white folks evident in its upper reaches) but honestly, it's too depressing to think about. At least we can hope that the LibDems will put the mockers on a complete devastation of the poor and working class, though I wouldn't count on it. And that's all I care to say on the matter for now.

Instead, I want to share a little feminist "teaching moment" from today's counselling skills learning session. I'm obviously going to have to be careful what I say because confidentiality applies here.

There was a discussion about different perspectives and one member of the group made the usual generalisation about women being eager to talk about emotions, but men not being emotional at all, or not talking about it. I was able to say that it's about the way men and women are taught to behave, rather than the way they actually are underneath - and one of the male members of the group backed me up on this with his own personal observations that men often really welcome the chance to open up when they feel they don't have to perform masculinity. I think that for some, at least the fact of being exposed to those ideas that counter the received "wisdom" that men and women are just "naturally" different, may have helped a little.

It's also encouraging that I'm not the only guy in the group who seems to get these things.

It may be a very very small drop in the ocean of feminist activism, but it's still a step in the right direction when there are so many steps in the wrong direction out there every day. And it allows me to keep believing that feminism may one day change the world fundamentally. One day!

"Not That Into You" chapter 10 notes

Continuing the series posting my immediate thoughts while reading through "He's Just Not That Into You".

Same abbreviations as before:

G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)


Chapter 10: …if he's married (and other insane variations of being unavailable).

Immediate reaction: "absolutely!"

G.B. claim: "If the person you 'love' cannot freely spend his days thinking about you and being with you, then it's not real love."

Definitely tend to agree with this. Agree with a lot of this chapter.

Excuses covered:

'But his wife is such a bitch':

Instant thought: "He's saying this about her now – how long before he says it about you (either to your face, or to the next woman he cheats with)?"

G.B.: He's having an affair, which means he's okay with being dishonest, with cheating, with disrespecting marriage, and is only giving you scraps of his time (thus disrespecting you).

Also good points.

'But he's really a good person':
Scenario: he says he doesn't want to hurt his wife/kids, he's really nice and feels like real love.

My advice: he may be a good person, but he's not thinking about how much it'll hurt them when (and it's always when, not if) the secret eventually comes out. He's still being a selfish person about this.

G.B.: Leave him, let him figure out his life. If he leaves her, he can get you back (free from shame) – if not, then he was never going to leave her, and you were just his muggins.

Agree with this.

'I should just wait it out':
Scenario – custody battle, he's slagging off his wife all the time.

Again – if he's saying it about her now, how long before he says it about you to some other woman?

G.B.: "It's never going to be good news if you have to think of your relationship in terms of 'waiting for him.'"

Definitely.

He should be "emotionally available enough to talk to you, see you, perhaps fall madly in love with you. That's why he's on a date with you."

Definitely – perfectly explained!

L.T. 'Here's Why This One Is Hard':

"Because it's you – not someone you read about or heard about or saw on TV."

"… why not hang on for dear life until he shakes off his ex?

"The operative word … is 'wait.' You have to do the waiting… he's so special, that guy. He deserves to have you sit around, putting your life on hold, not getting what you want, while he takes his time sorting it all out. He's that special. You of course, aren't at all."

Love the sarcasm dripping off that last sentence! Reasoning is perfect here.

Boredom with loving the unattainable sets in eventually – eventually want to be actually getting what other people have instead of scraps.

Heh - boredom as a positive influence!

L.T. 'This is what it should look like':

Friend met a guy on the rebound, thought that was all it would be – but eventually it became serious because was really into her, never made himself unavailable emotionally.

Doesn't sound like quite the same scenario, but answer is similar – he was already out of relationship first (I guess?)

"Not That Into You" chapter 9 notes

Continuing the series posting my immediate thoughts while reading through "He's Just Not That Into You".

Same abbreviations as before:

G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)



Chapter 9: …if he's disappeared on you.

Again with the "wait, people need this explaining to them?" reaction.

G.B.: making excuses for yourselves to keep looking for him again.

Excuses:

'Maybe he's dead':
Scenario: "Maybe he's hurt in a hospital, or I offended him, or he lost my last email"

G.B.: Much more likely he found someone else closer to home.

My advice: If he's in hospital, he will eventually get around to contacting you (and if he actually is dead/dies, then you need a medium, not a phone or email!) If he lost email, then again – if he's into you, he will eventually come back to find out what's up.

G.B.: Don't write again to give another chance for rejection, just move on.

Well, that would scupper my advice if he also takes the same perspective. I say give it a week, send again, and then if no reply – it's over. Can't help but picture him and her both thinking "well, I haven't heard from her/him so s/he has dumped me" when actually both were still into each other.

What I did when someone disappeared on me was send email "Haven't heard from you, is everything okay?" and left it at that. First time, turned out she WAS in hospital. Second time, no answer so moved on.

'But can't I at least yell at him?':
Example: "He disappeared, I found out from his friend he was back with ex. Can't I let him know he can't get away with that?"

G.B.: Sure, but he knew how you'd feel, he's an asshole not an idiot, hence vanishing act. Take moral high ground and just move on.

Total agreement here. It may feel cathartic to get it off your chest, but ultimately it will end up feeling grotty the morning after. Much better to move on.

'But I just want an answer':
G.B.: no answer he could give would make for a happy ending here.

Again, total agreement. He scarpered, and the "why" could only hurt more, not less.

L.T. 'Here's Why This One Is Hard':

Had wonderful thing, feel deserve some reason for it ending. Hard without closure.

But as G.B. would say "you really want to know the exact reason he didn't want you?"

"It's the toughest one of all to put into practice. But I definitely like the kind of girl who could do it. Good luck to us all!"

It's a good point, because there's always a temptation to ask "what did I do wrong?" and "what can I do better next time to make it work?" But so often that just ends up hurting and it's not something you can change, or s worth trying to change - because THAT would only hurt, too.

G.B. 'Here's what it should look like':
Admits disappeared on someone once – a year later, saw her again with someone new, she'd totally moved on – she was much classier than him!

Damn right she was much classier. And I think in general, the right sort of man partner is not going to behave this way so if someone does, it does mean "he's not that into you". However, again, this whole thing that G.B. assumes that every guy acts and thinks the way he does.

Shaving Snowdrop

I don't mean shaving my facial hair (although I did that as well).

I hate my body hair. I want it gone, forever, and never coming back, if possible. Those who've read my gender identity and body image questionnaires will remember that this was a very definite answer to questions about things I'd like to change!

So today I finally did something about it, and with a newly selected shaving "system" (the Morrisons own-brand "Chique" products) I hacked my way through the forest that was my leg, belly, chest and arm hair (I can't reach my arse or my back to do those, or I would - in fact, when I find myself a sub, one of her duties will be to shave the bits I can't do myself!) One other caveat: I didn't do my pubes (too nervous of slipping up down there).

This time was a lot more successful than the last time I did my legs: I cut myself quite badly doing that and, if my memory serves me, the scars that I still have from when I got an infection in y leg match up pretty closely to the places where those cuts happened - not a good outcome that time! No cuts at all this time, although a tiny nick on the right elbow, and also I noticed a little one under my left nipple (but no pain there).

The elbows are definitely the hardest part to do that I can actually reach - I can't figure out any way except to look in the mirror to do them, and it's so awkwardly shaped, very knobbly indeed (the knees are almost as bad in that regard).

It's taken me about 2 hours to do - I don't know how much that is to do with the fact that it was forest-clearing work (I'm guessing women don't normally have to shave their titties!), and how much to do with that's how long body-hair removal takes - but it's a new appreciation of the investment that women are expected to make in their appearance.

Anyway, there is a reason why I felt it was worthwhile to go through all that palaver and put simply, it's that I love the outcome. I love the way my body looks when I've got rid of my body hair. I love the way my body feels, and without the coating of hair blocking them, suddenly every sensation of touch sees that much more alive and real. I love the way it makes me feel inside - sleek, sexy, sensual. I feel so fresh and vibrant, it's fabulous.

All of which leads to you asking (you're so kind!): "if you feel so sexy, and love the look - when do we get to see it!?"

And the answer is - right now! I think I look beautiful here, and I hope you agree.

(For more pics, fuller length and probably NSFW, there's a post on my other, NSFW, blog)

"Not That Into You" chapter 8 notes

Continuing the series of "immediate-reaction" type posts as I go through "He's Just Not That Into You".

Abbreviations:
G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)

Chapter 8: …if he's breaking up with you.

Immediate thought – "Wait, what – people need this explaining to them!?"

Intro explains – "Sad, wistful 'I miss you so much' voice… irresistible, validating" But is just using you as comforting pillow, no real attachment.

Have to agree.

Excuses:

'But he misses me':

Example given sounds to me like he wants to be still friends, but she's putting a different meaning on it.

G.B.: "A man who wants to make a relationship work will move mountains to keep the woman he loves."

Well, personally, if I feel expected to do so to prove it, then you bet it's over: as J Church sang in "Rich And Young And Dumb": "I'd rather walk than start to crawl".

But that's not what this is about – he split up with her, right? And is calling for news of her life. In that context, I suppose it works.

G.B.: "If he's not calling you to tell you he loves you and wants you back, it should only be because he's showing up at your new residence to do it in person."

Both points above work! Both "not going to crawl" but also, if he's calling and is interested still, why not say so?

But then, maybe he feels bridges are burned?

My advice in this situation – be clear what you want. If happy being friends, take it as that and that ALONE. If need it to be more, or not at all, then be clear on that too.

'But it really takes the pressure off us':
Example: "Dated for a month, split up but still have sex like before".

First thought: cool, you're using each other for sex, nothing wrong with that.

Example goes on "he must like me" and "I'm not going to call his attention to the fact that we're actually dating. Except for the fact we broke up."

So example says she still invested emotionally.

G.B.: "He… breaks up with you… which basically absolves him of all responsibility toward your feelings."

Fair point if (as example implies) is still emotionally invested – but if he moves on is only a problem if it actually would hurt her.

Hmm, I know intellectually what this is about, but can't help confusing it with consensually casual relationship where it's cool for the other to move on as-and-when (such as have had myself – and been the one left behind!)

G.B.: "Ladies, please, keep your eye on the prize. Remember always what you set out to get, and please don't settle for less."

Definitely agree with this. But still, the consensually casual relationship for fun sex is cool in the meantime: as long as both sides know what it is and that it won't be anything more. As already said: Communication!

'But everyone is doing it':

Not sure why they called it this!?

Actually about "break-up sex" being hot and passionate etc.

G.B. in advice: "…it's nice to have sex… It confuses everything and makes you feel like crap, because face it, you're a woman, and women can't separate sex and emotions. (How many times will you make me have to say that? I sound like such a jerk!)

You sound like a jerk, G.B., because you ARE a jerk for holding this sexist, Patriarchal, arseholish prejudice of women! **Feminist snarl**

G.B.: "He's not into you. He's into the… sex."

Well, in this instance, I think it's true. I think in this sort of case, there's something to the suggestion that maybe he also is having trouble separating emotions and sex! In fact, from talking to friends and suchlike, this tends to be the thing that I hear more often: that it's the guy who has trouble separating emotions and fucking.

'But then he wants to get back together':
Serial break-up/make-up guy scenario. "I keep telling myself that he must be really into me, if he keeps coming back – right?"

G.B. advice: "He's sniffing around for something better, and when he doesn't find it, he gets lonely and comes 'home'. It's not that he's so into you. It's that he's so not into being alone."

While I am sceptical that it's true of all cases that he was "sniffing around", the second part is true - not into her, into not being alone.

Anyway – why would you want to be with a guy who's so inconstant in his affections?

'But I'm so damn nice':
Example given – he needed a house/cat-sitter, just cos he broke up with her, she doesn't stop caring about him.

G.B. "Don't confuse being classy with being a doormat. Classy is walking away with your head held high, graciously, and with dignity. Being a doormat is offering to drive him to the dentist for his root canal."

Alternatively, "classy" is being able to do stuff that friends do for one another. It's only being a doormat if he's not going to reciprocate when a favour is needed in return (and when that shit happens, then you get to do the head-held-high bit)

'I do not accept his break-up':
Scenario: "People don't just totally like someone one day and then wake up and not want to be with them the next."

My comment: logical deduction should not be "therefore he still loves me" but rather "therefore he never truly loved me."

Example given: "So I'm going to keep calling/keep his stuff until he comes back."

G.B.: "One simple rule, ladies: Always be classy. Never be crazy." Don't want awful memories of crazy behaviour later.

Well, indeed.

L.T. 'Here's What's Hard About This One'
Wonderful feelings from relationship, want some sign that can have that back again quickly.

So, want to keep around as "friends" while planning/hoping to get him back.

My advice: Well, nothing wrong with actually being friends. Being friends just cos you want him back is dumb cos it won't work that way. Very sceptical of the whole "clean break" thing, unless it was acrimonious or bad feelings underneath. But it has to be "I don't see him that way any more" otherwise you'll just drive yourself nuts.

L.T. 'This is what it should look like':
Knew a couple who dated, split up, then 5 years later got back together and eventually married. In between, no contact at all. "They moved on with their lives, grew up separately, and only then realised, much later, that they could be together again."

Maybe there's something weird about me, because I cannot for the life of me see what the problem is with being in contact after a break-up, unless you refuse to believe it's a break-up. I don't know.

I'm sorry, USA - I misjudged you!

Turns out, I was wrong to mock you in your elections in recent years, for not being able to get your voters through polling stations in time.

Several polling stations around the UK have experienced situations where long queues (hours long in some cases) were turned away as polling stations closed at 22:00. In other cases, the queuing voters were locked in to allow them to vote. I've seen a report that in one case, they ran out of ballot papers, even! There's also a report I've heard that in Sheffield, voters who were turned away have barricaded the polling station refusing to let the ballot boxes leave until they're allowed to vote. (All coverage taken from BBC coverage)

So, USAians: I apologise. I should never have taken the piss out of your inability to run a democratic election. It turns out, it's harder than it looks!

Well, I voted

Election day in the UK.

I was tempted to spoil my ballot, because there were two candidates I could never vote for, two I could but didn't reply to my email, and one whose reply was perfunctory and didn't cover all the issues (though we did have a good chat at the hustings).

I was tempted to vote for Lorna Blackmore, just because I had had that chance to talk with her. But she was staunchly New Labour in her views, and although there was potential I felt for constructive work in terms of persuading her of sex workers' rights issues, in this constituency she doesn't stand a realistic chance of winning (actually, only the Conservative does, but the LibDems are second place and with "Cleggmania" might just narrow the gap to make this no longer a safe seat). And a vote for Labour is a vote for New Labour policies which have been dreadful for 13 years (just not quite as bad as the Tories would have been).

So the Liberal Democrat candidate got my vote after all, despite not having replied to my email. Plus, I think for the longer term, the Liberal Democrats are our best shot: if electoral and parliamentary reform is to stand a chance, the LibDems have to be strong this parliament; and without electoral reform, real change will not be possible. Basically, this is a strategic vote, with the hope of getting a proper choice in 2015.

And when democratic freedom comes down to that, you know there's something wrong with the system.

Dancing and Development

Yesterday was a busy day for me. It started early (painfully so, in my opinion) with a train journey to Hastings. There, I had my first session of a counselling skills course. The official title of this course is "Helping Skills & Personal Development" and it will give me at the end a Level 2 certificate in counselling skills, which would count as entry requirements if I wanted to do further professional development in that area. I'm more interested in the transferable skills and the personal development aspects of the course, but certificates are good.

The course runs on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, so I will have lots of painfully early starts to come.

I'm looking forward to it, although there was some uncertainty about whether I would get travel expenses covered by the Jobcentre (who set me up on this course in the first place) or not. I've got that sorted out now, though, so it should be okay.

After I got back home about mid-afternoon, I was knackered and had a little power-nap snooze, because at 7:30 it was back to the dancing lessons.

After struggling the first couple of weeks with the cha-cha, I found some music to practise it at home. Because I struggled to go straight in at disco tempo, I needed to find something with a similar beat but slower. Since cha-cha has a strong 2nd and 4th beat, what sprang to mind immediately was ska, and its slower-tempo cousins rocksteady and reggae. I also discovered by chance that "Showdown" by the Electric Light Orchestra also has a cha-cha beat at a slower tempo.

Armed with a selection of these tracks, I found the ones that had the clearest "cha-cha" element to them and practised diligently all last week, and as a result yesterday evening I totally (well, maybe not TOTALLY, but a lot) nailed the cha-cha! Super sense of achievement and satisfaction for that. Also, super amounts of sweating and muscles aching. Half an hour of pretty solid cha-cha dancing is a real workout! Especially with half an hour of waltzing as a gentle warm-up. It was pretty good.

Tomorrow, it's back to Hastings and then come home and go out to vote. Annoyingly, I haven't had replies from the Liberal Democrat or Green Party candidates, so I feel like I'm going to be voting "blind" on important issues (I could reward Lorna Blackmore for Labour, since she did at least reply, if only to recap briefly the small section we'd discussed face-to-face after the hustings - but I wasn't terribly impressed by her understanding of sex workers' rights issues). There's no chance that I'd vote for UKIP, and although Hendry has done a good job as MP, he's still a Tory, and crucially, he's in favour of the 20 week limit on abortion (and, if I understand correctly, he'd prefer to make it much harder to get as well - almost a "pro-coathanger" candidate).

Racism and sexism in Europe: banning the veil

The F-Word Blog has an article about the Belgian government's move to mirror the French ban on the burqa and niqab.

From the Guardian website comes a story of a woman in Italy given a fine for wearing the niqab.

The actual law in the Italian case is a local bylaw, and bans "the wearing in public of clothing that prevents identification by police." However, I am willing to place bets that this outcome was in fact the real intention behind the law in the first place - especially as the region is a stronghold for anti-immigration politics in Italy. The Northern League party is pushing for legislation like that in France and Belgium, the Guardian article reports.

The Northern League mayor of Novara said face-covering veils demeaned women. "We cannot accept cultures that destroy women's dignity," Massimo Giordano said in a statement.

I'm willing to go out on a limb here and suggest that fining a woman for wearing the niqab is not in any way, shape or form, helping to preserve her dignity - I would even go so far as to say it serves to undermine it further.

As far as I can see, this is a clear instance where, whatever your views on the veil's role in Islamic cultures, it's possible to say that this is the wrong way to do something about it. This application of the bylaw seems to be a clear example of racism, sexism and Islamophobia.

Dan Docker, UKIP's Wealden parliamentary candidate, on sex-positive issues:

As part of my election process here in the Wealden parliamentary constituency, I've emailed a series of questions about sex-positive issues (plus a couple of social and economic ones that matter to me) to all the candidates (except the sitting MP Charles Hendry - having written campaign letters to him and received replies, I feel I know his position on many of these issues).

The sex-positive questions put were about sex workers' rights (in particular, decriminalising prostitution); repealing censorship of erotic material; protections for practitioners of S/M; provision of rape crisis centres and DV shelters. I also asked some candidates about sex education, but because Dan Docker uses a web-based comment system for his questions I omitted this one for reasons of space when contacting him. (I also left out the economic/social issues questions for the same reason, and because I felt those were covered in the UKIP manifesto).

Dan Docker, of the United Kingdom Independence Party, is the first to have replied at any length to these questions.

He replies that UKIP does not have any policy on most of these issues.

His feeling on decriminalising sex work is that UKIP would be open to having a referendum on the issue, although there is no official policy.

On repealing censorship, he believes the party would be against such a move.

He expresses no opinion (and the party has no policy) on BDSM rights.

He restates that the UKIP takes a hard line against DV (the manifesto pledges increased penalties, especially where there are children to witness the violence) and says that therefore, he believes they would make provision of refuges a priority.

Another example of why the jury system is a good one

I just thought I'd highlight this story that's covered by the Harlot's parlour blog of UK sex worker rights activism.

The short version is that Claire Finch worked as a prostitute from her home, with a number of other women, which arrangement they felt gave much better protection against assault, rape or robbery (or murder) than working on the streets. For this, she was charged with "keeping a brothel". Despite a campaign to prevent the case being brought to court, the charges were heard by the Crown Court.

A jury of 12 citizens (including 4 women) of the UK decided after deliberating for 90 minutes to return a "not guilty" verdict.

This is the strength of the jury system. I am fairly sure that under the letter of the law, there was sufficient evidence to convict (the Crown Prosecution Service letter to those who protested against the case being brought certainly indicates they felt there was sufficient evidence). However, the jury looked at the situation and, considering the spirit of the law and what their consciences told them was the right thing to do, returned a not guilty verdict. This is the protection we have against unjust laws.

By association, we can see that a jury of 8 men and 4 women found that the anti-prostitution laws are unjust in such cases, and hopefully this will be another few grams on the scale to tip towards decriminalising sex work.

"Not That Into You" chapter 7 notes

Continuing the series of posts about my reactions to "He's Just Not That Into You".

Abbreviations:
G.B. = Greg Behrendt (author)
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)

Chapter 7: …if he doesn't want to marry you.

G.B. argument: He will eventually get married, if he says he doesn't want to get married then he means he doesn't want to get married to you.

Evident from scanning examples that it's assumed that the subject of marriage has already been raised – that the relationship is at a stage where talking about marriage is normal (i.e. this is not saying marriage should be a deal-breaker on the first few dates!)

G.B. statement: "There is nothing wrong with wanting to get married. You shouldn't feel ashamed, needy, or 'unliberated' for wanting that. So make sure from the start that you pick a guy who shares your views for the future, and if not, move on as quickly as you can. Big plans require big action."

Well, maybe I was wrong about "not saying it's a deal-breaker on the first few dates"! Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to get married, so far so good. But jeez, make sure "from the start"!? Cos, of course, G.B. has TOTALLY proved already that men are completely static in their emotions and their plans for their lives and NEVER EVER change them over time AT ALL, riiiight? Two points: firstly, a man (or a woman, for that matter) may very well change his perspective on marriage over the course of a year or two (the timescale of relationship that the examples mention), so "from the start" won't tell you for sure what his feelings are about marriage, or about marrying you! Secondly, assuming that his long-term views even at the start include marrying somebody, the "from the start" may but be that he sees you as marriage material but that perspective might very well change after he's been in a relationship with you for a few months, a year or two. Just because he's had a chance to get to know you and figure out if he can picture spending the rest of his life with you. It's so simple!

My advice is just to be alert that things change, but not to EXPECT them to – and don't wait around too long expecting them to.

Excuses examined:

'Things are really tight right now':
G.B. comment: "There will never be a good time, financially, to get married… But somehow people manage."

G.B. claim: "If your man is using money as an excuse not to marry you, it's your relationship that's insecure, not his bank account."

Or alternatively, his relationship with himself that's insecure, thanks to the heavily constructed male imperative to be a Provider for His Family. If he's absorbed these Patriarchal notions of how a man should be able to look after his wife (and, if any, children) then you bet he's scared he can't afford to do what he's learned/been brought up to believe is a man's duty.

G.B. claim in advice, "3 years invested earns you the right to know what your future holds"

But if he himself doesn't know what HIS future holds, how can he tell you? And if he's been led to believe that a man has to be Strong and Stand On His Own Two Feet, he'll never be able to ask for your support either.

It's so simple! This is another example of how Patriarchy and gendered roles end up fucking over EVERYONE.

My advice – support him, decide what you are willing to give up in terms of luxuries or creature comforts, in order to cleave yourself to this guy, work out how to make ends meet with marriage. If he can't accept your help and support, or still wriggles away – THEN you can tell he's not that into you (or else is not as good for you as you must have thought him to be to stay with him for 3 years).

'He's so terribly put upon':
Example given is (he says) he thinks women he dates are really only interested in marrying his money and not dating him for himself. Example woman is self-supporting.

My take: make sure he knows you are proud of your ability to be self-supporting. If he doesn't take your word for it, dump him (or, if he dumps you because you mentioned marriage, then good riddance to him).

G.B. opinion: “I personally think if you have to sit and figure out what's the best way to bring up the idea of marriage to someone whom you have been intimate with for a substantial amount of time, it's not good news.”

Well, maybe it's just my insecurities talking, but I can't imagine not feeling I have to figure out the best way to bring it up. Marriage is kind of a big step, you know? Although – given my desired D/s or M/s relationship, I might find it easier in context of talking about permanent collaring (which to me means the same thing).

G.B.: “Most guys, or let's say the guys I want you to be dating,...”

Yeesh, how creepy and patriarchal does THAT line sound!?

Plus, I kinda had a suspicion about this but here it's almost explicitly stated: he wants women only to date a certain type of man, and his advice is predicated on all men met by women being that type of man. Men who don't conform to G.B.'s version of masculinity are not guys he wants to have dates – we're too different and weird or something!

(Yeah, I know he doesn't mean to say that, but it's the message I'm getting loud and clear from this jerk.)

G.B.: “...will make sure, as soon as reasonably possible, that you know they mean business.”

Again, all I hear from this is that it should be guys who don't feel any fear at the thought of losing her? Cos, if I want to be with someone for the rest of my life, and want to know if she feels the same way, I think that's a big issue and one that I go about carefully to make sure I don't push too far too fast and accidentally push her away.

G.B.: “So if he's not, get to his mixed feelings and conflict as fast as you can.”

I should be welcoming this line after my previous comments, but I can't shake the feeling he's not talking about the sorts of fears that I can easily imagine for myself, but rather he's talking about ambivalence/conflict over whether he wants it (which fits the theme so far on this chapter). Me, I'm sure the issue would not be whether I want it, but whether SHE does, and in particular, what she expects me to be in a marriage (see previous excuse re: masculinity expectations for example).

G.B.: Then, as soon as you're ready, go find someone that is spending time worrying about how you're feeling.”

And yet – that would be ME! But, I would fail on so many of the tests that G.B. sets up in this book! But how can G.B. not see that worrying (in this case, about her feelings) is in itself a form of HIS feelings, too? **sigh**

Notice that not really spent much time addressing G.B. in relation to the example situation given – G.B. only addresses “how to approach issue” point, not the “take advantage of” issue – so not addressing same things?

The 'Is this really an excuse?' dilemma.
i.e. "It's not that he's not into me, he's not into the idea/concept/institution of marriage"

G.B.: "Marriage is a tradition that has been somewhat imposed on us, and therefore has a lot of critics. be that as it may, if someone is as against marriage as you are for it, please make sure there aren't other things going on besides he's just not that into the institution."

Kind of feel that there would be other things going on if it's opposition to the institution on political grounds, because the gulf in political views might very well be bigger than first thought?

In advice, G.B. implies: if he loves you enough, he'll tie the knot despite his beliefs.

OMG, imagine turning that on its head? Sounds too much like teen boys pressuring girlfriend to have sex with him! Yeesh!

L.T. 'Here's Why This One Is Hard':

Lots of people disparaging about marriage.

Real question is "is he covering the fact that he doesn't see a future together with you?"

L.T. advice: "Ask yourself… Do you feel truly loved? Do you feel he is deeply committed to you? Do you feel he has any doubts about wanting to build a life with you? If the answers are yes, yes, no, then let the debating begin, because he might have a point. But if you feel that he's holding something back, or that you're spending a lot of energy trying to change yourself into something you think will make him happier… move on. Don't let him make you feel stupid about wanting to feel loved."

Seems like good advice, although debating may not be helpful (if he or she or both end up feeling on trial as a result of debate, for example) – sometimes forget the "why" with firm beliefs, and just figure out if can be happy with "it is the way it is".

Also, why does "want marriage" = "want to feel loved"?

L.T. This is what it should look like
Anecdote of friends: Guy opposed to marriage from outset but moved across USA to live with her - eventually proposed because could see it was important to her. She had been resigned to living unmarried with him.

Sweet story, but would be equally sweet without them getting married, would still illustrate theme of some comments.

Noticed not much mention of if marriage never gets mentioned at all? Or what if he wants it but she's against it?