A Weird Classification of Transgressions

The movie Sex and the City is on television right now, and I find it as mysterious as when I watched it the first time. One friend's husband cheats on her, and all her friends insist that it's not a big deal and she should forgive him. Another friend's fiance doesn't show up for some stupid, super elaborate wedding ceremony, and everybody supports her in dumping him for that. The second friend (who's in her forties, mind you) starts a huge melodrama because of this silly botched wedding and everybody treats her ridiculous suffering with respect. The first friend doesn't seem to be entitled to a similar (or any) bout of depression because of what happened to her.

Isn't it ridiculous when people earnestly see formalities as more important than the actual content of a relationship? 

Dragging It Out

Many people make themselves intensely miserable because they don't know how to break up once and for all. It so happens that I'm witnessing several such stories around me at this moment. Instead of ending a profoundly unhappy relationship once and for all, people keep going in endless circles, arguing, fighting, crying, and making both themselves and their former partners completely miserable. 

Then, there are also those who are into "remaining friends" with their former partners and spouses. It's possible that there are cases when such "friendships" are healthy and don't serve the purpose of manipulating the next romantic partner into permanent submission, but I'm yet to see them. More often than not, such relationships are not about friendship at all. They are about people trying to make themselves feel more important at the expense of new partners.

I always warned everybody I ever dated that if the relationship were to end, it would end completely. After we are done, we don't get in touch any more in any way, form, or manner. And I also reserve the right to forget the names and faces of each and all former partners. As a result, today I don't have to drag around the useless baggage of failed relationships and marriages. 

The Patriarchy Within

I don't write about my personal life a lot on this blog but today I will because I have an important point to make. Namely, that patriarchal ways of thinking are so deeply ingrained that even the most progressive of us need to be on the lookout for the patriarchal woman within. She is there, people, always ready to rear her ugly head and devour all of our feminist achievements. My goal in life has never been to service anybody's needs or to make anybody happy. Except, of course, mine and myself. My number one priority in life is not relationships (as I'm told it should be by pop psychology swill). It's my intellectual growth. Sacrificing my needs to please men is completely alien to my way of being. Or so I thought until the patriarchal woman within showed me how easy it is for women to succumb to patriarchal conditioning.

So here is the story. From the day N. and I started living together (which was on our second date), we have had the following distribution of household duties: I cook and he cleans and does the dishes. (If it seems to you that his duties are heavier, it's because you never tried my food. False modesty aside, I'm a fantastic cook.) This system worked great for us for years, and we never had a single discussion - let alone an argument - about household stuff.

Last Saturday, though, I had this very bizarre experience. Maybe it happened because I was exhausted. Or maybe I had a mini-stroke. Or maybe it was a temporary bout of insanity, I don't know. But I heard this weird voice in my head that said, "Oh, poor N. He has such an important project he needs to finish. Why don't I do the dishes to help him out?" Get it? HE has an important project. Because, obviously, I don't. The three projects I'm working on at the moment (a literary translation of a novel, a talk for a conference in November, and an article on Galdos's Lo prohibido) pale in comparison with the really important stuff my husband is doing.

So believe it or not, I proceeded to do the dishes. Then, I did the laundry. And then - oh, horror - I folded it. Folding the laundry is weird on two counts. One is that I never fold my own laundry and consider the habit to be a weird waste of time. The other one is that in all of my marriages and relationships I'd never had an occasion to touch male socks. Until now. And I can't really say that it did a lot to enrich my existence. Just the opposite. Our heretofore perfectly balanced and beautifully feminist co-existence suffered a blow.

First of all, N. wasn't all that happy that I did this stuff for him. Turns out he likes doing the dishes and folding the laundry because it's a way for him to take a break from the above-mentioned important project. Since on that day he didn't get an opportunity to take his little breaks, he was cranky and curmudgeony for the rest of the evening. And on the next day even weirder things started happening. First, he said he was tired and suggested I do the dishes again. And then, he went off on a strange discussion of. . . gender differences.

Now, what you have to know about N. is that he is extremely feminist. Obviously, I wouldn't even be with him if he were any other way. Jessica Valenti's Yes Means Yes  is one of his favorite books. When we were discussing what would make each of us consider a divorce, I said cheating while he said that he would consider divorcing me if I turn out to be not a true feminist. (I then asked him whether this means he would be fine with me cheating, to which he responded that cheating would be un-feminist. Which is, of course, very true.) So for him to discuss gender differences like they actually exist is equal to me saying that I hate reading and books are evil. To say I was flabbergasted at this turn of events doesn't even begin to describe it.

Of course, since then we re-established the balance of the relationship but this situation made me think about how easily women slide into patriarchal subjection without even noticing it. In this country, women still do most of the housework, which drains their energy, undermines their careers, and gets in the way of their personal and intellectual growth. For the most part, women choose this household slavery without any prompting from men. I'm sure there are male ogres who refuse to clean their own shit and do their own laundry, but why enter into a relationship with such a prehistoric creature to begin with? Most men have no problem with taking care of themselves and doing things around the house. Women choose to infantilize men because it offers them a certain degree of empowerment they can't find in other spheres of their lives. We all hear these nasty little voices in our heads, from time to time, telling us to postpone activities that would enrich us professionally, intellectually and spiritually and go take care of some guy instead. And this state of affairs will not change until we start changing it.

So, dear female reader, please step away from that laundry hamper, that dishwasher, and that pile of stuff spread all over the living room. Take the baby, put her in her father's hands, and leave the room. Go read a book, take a nap, call your friends and go out drinking and dancing until the closing hours. If you are just embarking on a new relationship, enter into an agreement about how the household duties will be distributed and, no matter what happens in the future, never do more than your share. If you start having those images of the house going to seed, the husband starving, and the kids running around dirty and famished, remember: this is patriarchy speaking to you, trying to scare you into subjection.

Why Nobody Wants a "Nice Guy"

I just discovered a really great post aimed at explaining to the so-called "nice guys" the reasons why nobody really wants them:

There are any number of geek guys running around out there without the love and companionship that many people and all golden retrievers deserve. Sometimes these guys sit down and try to figure out why they’re living a life devoid of love, romance, sex and discussions about whose hair it is in the shower drain. They undertake a deep self-assessment, questioning all their long-cherished beliefs about themselves, and this is what they conclude: They’re too nice. And that’s hilarious!  Guys, you’re not “too nice.” That’s like saying you can’t get seated at an L.A. restaurant because you’re too famous.

A post that begins like this is bound to be hilarious. And it sure is. Read the reast of this great post here.

If Your Romantic Partner Has Asperger's

People often come to my blog with the following query: "What do I do if my boyfriend / girlfriend has Asperger's?" There are many books out there on the subject. Often, however, they describe somebody who is a total jerk and then blame that person's jerkdom on Asperger's. is a prime example of such an account.

In my opinion, life with an Aspie does not have to be constant martyrdom. We can actually make an ideal life partner for the right person. Remember that one of the central markers of Asperger's is developing an exclusive interest in something or somebody and pursuing it wholeheartedly. If that object of interest is you, your Aspie partner will be the most loyal and dedicated person you will ever meet. We are also not prone to lying about feelings and emotions. While many people often say "Yes, of course, I love you" without meaning it, an Aspie will, in most cases, only say it if it's absolutely true.

There are, of course, certain qualities that somebody who wants to be with an Aspie needs to have or develop. Here is what I have come up with but feel free to add your own in the comments:

1. Don't be inquisitive and curious. The best partner for us is the one who either doesn't  notice the little OCD things we do, or pretends not to notice them. Being interrogated about your routines is torture. It is often easier to end the relationship than to give up on the routines or constantly feel that you are judged for them.

2. Develop your own hobbies and pursuits that will take up a lot of your time. An Aspie is somebody who often has obsessive interests that occupy a lot of his or her time. If we are not allowed to pursue these interests or feel that somebody is encroaching on the time we dedicate to them, we tend to start feeling resentful towards that person. If you need somebody who will spend every free moment they have  paying attention to you, think twice about entering into a relationship with an Aspie.

3. Memory and caring are two different things. Retaining dates, names, phone numbers, etc. is often very difficult for us. So if your patner doesn't remember your mother's name five years into a relationship, it does not mean she doesn't care about you. It means that she finds it very difficult to retain names because her brain works this way.

4. Give them alone time. Being alone and doing things nobody knows about is often very important to us. Don't interrogate your Aspie partner. If she seems reluctant to tell you where she was, it doesn't mean she has been meeting her secret lovers. In all  probability, she was just doing her OCD things that she doesn't feel like discussing with anyone.

5. He does not forget your name, he just doesn't like to say it. Often, we find it extremely difficult to call people we are close to by their given name. I have never, for example, called my partner by his name. Not once. I try but somehow it just doesn't come out. This has nothing to do with how I feel about him, it's simply the way I am.

6. Prepare for destruction of pretty things. If you like good china and expensive carpets, either forget about it or look for a new partner. The neurological symptoms of Asperger's include clumsiness and a difficulty with maintaining balance. Everything will be broken, spilled, and destroyed. My best friend 'Mafalda' came up with a brilliant solution after I destroyed her new sofa: she bought me a sippy cup. Way to go, my friend!

7. Prepare to be embarrassed. Some of us come up with ways of dealing with social situations but some of us don't. It is probable that during social gatherings your partner will say something offensive to your friends, relatives, or colleagues, will wander off looking all distracted, or fail to respond when people talk to her. If these things bother you, think twice about making your partner attend such gatherings.

You can read more about Asperger's here and here.

Nina Atwood and the Chauvinistic View of Female Sexuality

Nina Atwood's relationship advice books have always scared me with their unapologetically chauvinistic view of female sexuality. Naturally, if she were an only unenlightened fool to produce this kind of nonsense, her ideas wouldn't be so scary. They have, however, become widely disseminated in the media. So widely, in fact, to have become mainstream.

The main tenets of Atwood's chauvinistic teachings are:

a) the worst thing you can do for a budding relationship "is to get sexual too soon". A woman's central strategy has to consist of "putting off sex until you have a real relationship with a commitment." Atwood doesn't explain, of course, why any sane individual of any gender would start a "relationship with a commintment" before figuring out if you are even sexually compatible. There is even less explanation for why anybody would even want to start a "real relationship" with a person who uses sex as a manipulation device from the very start;

b) after sex, the man should feel "obligated" because your "self-respect as a woman demands it". The most annoying thing here is Atwood's use of pseudo-feminist vocabulary to justify a decidedly anti-feminist attitude. According to her, a woman has to trade sex for commitment and obligation. In her world, sex is what a man wants, while commitment is what a woman needs. This, of course, has nothing to do with reality. The need for commitment and/or for sex is not gender specific and has more to do with the needs of a particular individual at any given time.

In order to justify this ridiculous approach, Atwood brings out the old chauvinistic myth that for women, sex is about intimacy, while for men it's about physical pleasure: "For us, having sex creates more intimacy. We wake up the next day wanting the relationship to move forward. If we’re brutally honest, we have to admit that we wake up the next day halfway in love and thinking of him as a boyfriend. This is nothing to be embarrassed about - it is perfectly natural and normal for a woman to feel this way! In fact, it is how we are wired." There is no proof whatsoever for these sweeping generalizations, except the vague and baseless declarations about being "wired" a certain way. And we all know how stupid such statements are.

It's strange to me that Atwood never stops to think how insulting such a position is to women. She believes that we are such simple, one-dimensional creatures that in order to achieve intimacy with us and make us fall in love, all you need to do is get between our legs. Our souls are located inside our vaginas, so it's very easy to get inside them. Men, on the other hand, are much more complex. It's not enough to sleep with them to achieve intimacy or reach their feelings. I can understand why some male chauvinist would want to promote this vision of women. But a woman? It's mindboggling. 

Guys' Mothers

Whenever you find yourself talking to a woman you don't know well and have little in common with, there is one failproof way to get her to open up to you and become your best buddy instantaneously: ask her about her mother-in-law and offer to tell her about yours. I have yet to meet one heterosexual woman who doesn't have a list of horror stories about her partners' mommies. This is one experience that transcends ethnic, cultural and class boundaries. We have all been there and we can all relate.

I've been asking myself for a while why this happens. Why is it that the best thing a woman can hope for in a relationship with her mother-in-law is that maybe one day she will accept your existence and not hate you too much? Why is it so difficult for mothers of grown men to avoid hating the women in their sons' lives? Why do so many mothers behave as if they were their sons' romantic partners rather than mothers?

Many mothers of today's adult men do not have a rich and fulfilling professional and social lives. They also belong to the generations that did not encourage women to pursue sexual realization as an important goal. They are unaccustomed to the idea that they can leave a relationship "just because" it doesn't fulfill them sexually. They don't have a professional sphere where they could sublimate some of these perennially repressed feelings. As a result, the affection and the energy that they could have spread between their sexual partners and their jobs is showered upon their sons. A relationship between a son and his unsatisfied mother often acquires sexual undertones. This type of mother-in-law feels deep jealousy towards the "ther women" in her son's life.

Money and Relationships: Another Silly Article from New York Times

It seems that as long as the New York Times exists I will never run out of topics for my blog. One would think that their policy of publishing op-ed pieces by college professors is a good thing. Somehow, however, they manage to choose the most ridiculously ininsightful professors in the country. One salient example of this is an article titled "Married With Bankruptcy" by a Johns Hopkins professor of sociology Andrew J. Cherlin. Sociology as a field of knowledge is noted for offering extremely simplistic conclusions about its subjects of research*. This op-ed piece is more proof of how irrelevant sociology has become (and even more proof of the overall irrelevance of the New York Times).

The article starts with a bit of whining about "our sky-high divorce rate." From my point of view, this sounds extremely emotional and completely unscientific. What does the author mean by sky-high? What's wrong with the divorce rate? Why is it necessarily a bad thing? If you pretend to be a scientist, then maybe it would be useful to leave aside this kind of preconcieved views and deal with data.

The author proceeds from an assumption that economic crises have the capacity to "destroy the inner life of many married couples" and "generate a . . . backlog of couples whose relationships have been irreparably ruined." This, I believe, is just plain silly. If a relationship and its "inner life" (whatever this sociological term might mean) can be ruined by money or its absence, then I somehow doubt that it was a relationship worth saving anyways. A financial crisis can bring to light some problems that already exist in a relationship and, in this sense, it sounds like a positive thing.

*I will never forget the following state-of-art definition of identity provided by a group of known sociologists: "Identity is something that somehow binds certain people together." It literally took these researchers years (according to the preface of their book) to come up with an important conclusion that identity is something.