Getting Women, But Not Like Getting an Object

I wonder if I don't get feminism because I'm approaching it from an idea of equality. Because, the more I think about the women I know that I would call "feminists"—and I want it to be clear that I don't use that word with any kind of negative connotation—don't seem interested in being treated equally with men. At least, not in the universal sense of an all-out, across-the-board equality.

Rather, I do think they want equality when it comes to employment, opportunities, and advancement (for a great depiction of where society stands right now regarding this kind of progress, check out this Newsweek, but not at the cost of sacrificing what makes them feminine. In other words, I think they want access to the boys' club, but they don't necessarily want to be "one of the boys."

But isn't that a "have cake and eat it too" scenario I'm proposing?

No.

Why not? Well, besides the obvious (and yet, not always as clearly obvious as everyone would like) fact that they are not boys, most women want to be accepted and judged because of who they are as women. So rather than being treated as another guy, they want to just be treated as a girl within a group of guys.

And that's why this is a revelation for me—not because I'm discovering that girls and boys are different, but more because I think I'm understanding a bit more that our differences can't be simply glossed over. Put another way, I'm pretty sure women don't want their womanhood erased in favor of being treated like another one of my "boys." Instead, they want to be accepted into the group as another relevant voice—respected for what they contribute, regardless if that contribution feels different from what Bill or Jack or Eric would normally bring to the table.

The obstacle, as I see it, then isn't inclusion, but rather empathy—I think most guys aren't naturally dismissive of women, but they don't realize that they think (and therefore act) differently in social situations.

We (men) think we're doing good, and yet we're actually just creating a different—yet still awkward—situation where women now need to traverse socially.

Now, to be fair to the unfair sex, there is a massive double standard here. Basically, if a woman does want to be treated like one of the guys, then you need to include her. But on the other hand, a woman might act like she wants to be included because she thinks she has to—because she wants to be included in the group, just maybe not in that particular dynamic.

Confusing, right?

But that's why blanket statements about gender are generally ludicrous to begin with. And yet, even if this isn't a completely accurate depiction of the female psyche, I think it's still a more accurate step in the right direction.

The problem is, though, that it's not necessarily easy to identify which women want to join in., and which are just pretending—I know plenty of women who give it as good as any guy, and yet are also incredibly sensitive about taking the same type of crap from guys. Again, this would seem, on the surface, hypocritical, but is it fair to accuse them of that aforementioned "cake" scenario? I'm starting to lean towards the "No" column.

That doesn't mean there aren't triflin' girls—no matter what, individuals are who they are, separate from race, age, nationality, and yes, even gender. But to think that all women fall into that category is a fallacy that should only be perpetrated by men who are probably so ignorant that their opinions are invariably going to sound like the pot calling their gender-opposite kettles black.

The problem then is, what can be done about it? Even armed with this new-found self-awareness, doesn't the biological and social wiring I've been subjected to prevent me from actually changing? In other words, I'm now "book smart" about this issue—I academically grasp the concept of gender inequality on a new level—and yet I wonder if that's going to translate to my daily practice.

But that's when I look over my words again. One in particular stands out: Practice. Yes, lip-service would probably be applauded in certain audiences: That guy gets it. But I don't want to just be saying the words—I genuinely believe they are the right words, and therefore should be implemented.

So how does someone get better at doing something?

Practice.

It won't be an immediate thing—either for me or for the whole male gender (obviously). But if I can remain conscious of it—and keep reminding myself in situations where women might even possibly be uncomfortable to pause and re-evaluate how I’m acting, then gradually it should become part of my nature—and maybe the other men around me will pick up on it.

Interestingly, I’m currently reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, which is all about gut reactions and that instantaneous moment of judgment that informs so much of our daily lives. One thing he discuss in the book is the idea of being able to “prime” minds to unconsciously act differently. In other words—in his example—if someone sees positive images of black men such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Barak Obama, and Arthur Ashe, they are more likely to be able to complete this race test that asks the test-taker to associate certain words with whites or blacks. What the test shows is that, without “priming,” most Americans—white and black—inevitably hesitate associating good words with blacks, to varying degrees of delay.

I wonder, then, if that’s what it would take for men to eliminate the barriers and obstacles society has erected in front of women. If, in other words, men simply need to “prime” themselves with images of successful, intelligent, and powerful women in order to unconsciously treat women as equals, rather than unconsciously treat them as unequals.

I wonder, then, too, which examples would do this…

I also wonder if this "onus" solely on the men? Of course not. At the end of the day, we're not mindreaders, and if a woman isn't giving any indication—either during or after—that she didn't feel completely at ease, then it's going to take a much longer time for these types of societal overhauls to be accomplished. Yes, it will take bravery on their part—they might find themselves left out of things when men think they don't need to change their ways to accommodate women. And there might be times when, upon reflection, those were situations that the woman probably didn’t actually want to be a part of.

I know—the idea that “guys need to be guys,” is inherently a false claim, but only to an extent. Guys shouldn’t feel compelled to have designated times for them to “act like guys.” But when I say that, I also mean that guys who think they “have” to have these moments are probably never going to get passed the societal constructs that have kept us stuck in this mindset in the first place.

Men do need to change. That is clear. The thing is figuring out how to change. And, also, figuring out what women need to do to affect this change—including making some changes of their own.

This is unfair. Why should women, who did nothing to be put in this place other than being different, have to change when clearly it’s a male problem?

Because, as I said, we’re not mind-readers. There’s too much tradition, genetics, and precedent to fall back on to make it impossible to simply make a sweeping shift in a cultural mindset. Without input from women—and not just “you guys need to change”—it’s fairly unlikely we can figure it out on our own.

Especially when a lot of men—either consciously or unconsciously—see no reason why they should have to change.

Realistically, I think this is going to be a grassroots operation. It’s going to take individual women to help the men in their lives realize that something is wrong in the way they’re being treated. They need to make it clear how they want to be treated—and make it clear when they feel that the situation isn’t conducive to men and women being equals.

It’s going to take a ton of courage. And, again, it’s completely unfair. But this isn’t about rationality. I’m completely aware of how messed up this is, and yet I still can probably look in hindsight and cringe at the way I acted—and how it probably made my female friends feel.

Perhaps this is just rambling—perhaps I’m way off-base in my analysis of this situation. But if that’s the case, then great! Know why? Because the only way I’m going to know is if someone points it out to me—which means that at least a dialogue is beginning.

Then I might be able to have a conversation with a woman and not have my mind automatically label her as “unequal,” even if I don’t truly believe that.

And then I only have to figure out how to talk to a woman…

Out from Under Probation and Back on the Shelf

Before I get into what the title is about, I thought I'd get this off my chest first:

You ever have a movie or song or book that you keep having to tell others that "you want to watch, but you just haven't gotten around to it". Oddly, one of the movies like that for me was The Transporter—which I've finally seen.

Probably not what you were expecting, was it?

But that's okay.  Because I didn't realize it was that kind of movie for me until I finally saw it.  Not that it's so phenomenal.  Rather, it's that I can understand why people kept asking me if I'd seen it.

To start with, you have my boy, Jason Statham.  Now obviously he's not really "my boy”—either biologically or socially.  But what our relationship lacks in personal interaction is more than made up with a deep and abiding desire to hang out with this guy and let his coolness wash over me.

Now I'm not under any illusions about his acting ability.  I used to bemoan the fact that he'd be a bigger star if he got better roles and didn't spend his time making movies like Crank and War.

But then I realized something--it's exactly those kind of roles that he is best suited for.

And how I realized that was by finally getting around to The Transporter. It's not a a good movie, by any stretch. But it's a fun movie, and that's all it tries to be. Statham is his normal awesome self (see above—my man-crush on him hasn't abated; he's number 2 on the “Would I...” List only after Ryan Reynolds). But everything else, from the plot to the co-actors to the dialogue is pretty much spectacularly bad.

Except for the action—which is great, and the whole reason you'd watch such a movie in the first place.

Now I don't know if I'll ever watch the sequels, but I will say I'm no longer quite as disappointed that every movie Mr. Statham is in isn't a gem like Snatch or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.

I'm also glad I finally got around to seeing The Transporter.

---

Just finished Stephen King's latest novel, Under the Dome, and I was pleasantly surprised. Not because I'm a King-hater (although if I saw George III walking down the street, I'd punch him in the face—because he'd be a zombie), but because I'd kind of given up on him, just as it seemed he had given up on us.

Growing up in the Eighties, King was the at the height of his powers, and I loved every minute of it. I must have read It five or six times, The Stand a few times, and Misery more than once, not to mention some of his lesser known novels. And I loved The Bachman Books (still considering “The Long Walk” to be one of my favorite novellas/short stories ever), and will still go back to it maybe once a year.

But then I read Insomnia...and the fascination stopped. A thousand pages of what basically was the movie Dark City--but with senior citizen protagonists—and I was done.

And yet I've returned, and I'm glad I did. Under the Dome does what I think King knows best: the dark side of human nature. The premise is pretty “Twilight Zone”-basic: What would happen if, for no explainable reason, an impenetrable dome covered a small town in Maine?

What ensues are power grabs, riots, panic, murders, and the exposure of secrets—it's “The Monsters are Due on Maple Street” writ large. And I'm completely okay with that.

Because, if I've said anything about where science fiction is going this past year, my prediction has been towards dystopia.

King—no stranger to this realm—comes back to it in a big way, and although he still has his usual “King problems” (Umm, I just wrote a really long book, and I don't feel like I can be bothered with anything called satisfying resolution), I love the characters and how they interact with each other—particularly the main Barbie/Big Jim Rennie dynamic, but also the Andy/Chef relationship at the end—I love the way King gets around the “easy” solutions, and I love the plausibility of the situation (despite the fact that it's based on a completely implausible idea).

I think if you're a fan of Shirley Jackson's “The Lottery,” MJ Engh's Arslan, or even King's own The Stand, I'd check out Under the Dome. While not his greatest book, it's definitely the best thing he's done in a long, long time.

The Life and Times of My Life Watching TV

I'm always looking for the next “thing” that I'm going to get into, whether it's music, books, comics, or television. Part of this is a way to stay culturally relevant—to maintain tabs on the pulse of what others are (or will be) interacting with on a entertainment basis. Maybe this sounds rather herd-like, but I don't do it to be with the “in-crowd,” but rather to be a part of the conversation—whether it's “Hey, have you seen that?” or, on my part, “You know what you should check out?”

And, oddly, what I'm here to talk about today is a combination of both. On the one hand, my friend kept telling me about this show on HBO that he loved called “The Life and Times of Tim.” And I kept telling him I can't really afford HBO. But it finally came out on DVD (and, apparently got picked up for another season by HBO), and so he lent it to me, because he was sure I'd love it.

Boy, did he have me pegged.

Animated, “The Life and Times of Tim” is the brainchild of comedian Steve Dildarian. If you don't recognize the name, don't worry—I'm sure he's not surprised, either. But I am surprised because the show is comedic genius, even if the animation is borderline Squigglevision (which is a bad thing, if you're wondering).

Which brings me to the other hand—go check it out. As I said, it's hilarious, the humor coming from a combination of the awkward and the absurd. I may have mentioned this before, but I'm usually not a fan of awkward—shows like “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and “The Office” are almost unbearable for me to watch, because Larry David and Michael Scott are always putting their feet in their mouths (their own mouths, that is—it would be even more awkward if they were putting their feet in each others' mouths), making me literally cringe. But, for some reason (and I wonder if it's because the show is a cartoon), I can watch “The Life and Times of Tim” over and over, knowing fully well he's going to do something to sabotage himself.

Perhaps the problem with the show is that it's pretty much impossible to describe the humor just by reciting the lines—so much is contingent on context, tone, and delivery. That's why I recommend you go watch it yourself. It's completely worth it.

Here's a little taste:



Because, seriously: how could any show that coins the term “Bum Rape” be bad?