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…

There's Gold in Them Thar' Hills!

Know what pisses me off about "The Hills"? Besides the fact that I'm a guy, and technically it's pretty gay that I watch "The Hills?" It's that it's reality television.

There is a persistent belief that reality television is, in fact, fake or scripted. Perhaps that is the case, and I doubt "The Hills" is in any way an exception (hello: Spenser and Heidi?), but there's a reason they call it "reality television." Not because it depicts any true reality (and, I'm sure I could get into a whole existential discussion about the "truth" of "reality"), but because the fakeness is of a questionable nature. There is clearly a scripted quality to the show -- such as Jason reappearing, not mentioning he has a girlfriend, and then announcing his engagement at his house-warming party. It's completely ludicrous to believe that he and Lauren would have ended up at the same restaurant as Spenser and Heidi (you know someone got a text saying they should go there).

And the obnoxiousness that is Heidi and Spenser is beyond compare. Is there a faker person than Spenser? Everything about him screams "I'm a douche-bag!" And not in a "I'm a suave, bad-ass douche-bag" -- no, he's a complete, dorkified, full-blown douche-bag. With ridiculous teeth and a face that begs for people to punch it.

He's corny.

Yet, Heidi sticks with him. Despite the fact that Lauren (in a kind of dick move, but at least she's honest) has hated on him from the get-go, meaning that Lauren and Heidi's friendship is over. Despite the fact that Heidi's family thinks it's a mistake, and has told her and Spenser -- numerous times -- that it's a bad idea. Most importantly, despite the fact that Spenser has yet to tell his parents that he's engaged to be married.

It's that last one that blows my mind. How can this not be fake? What girl would put up with that kind of nonsense. It's bad enough he doesn't have a job. It's bad enough he thought it would be cool with his fiance if he got a friend to do a graffiti mural on their living room wall (I'm a single guy, and I think that's fucking wack). But to propose marriage and never tell your parents? I don't get it. What's he trying to avoid or say with this? Moreover, once Heidi is aware of the fact, he still doesn't think it's all that imperative that he get on the horn and let his parents know they will soon have a daughter-in-law.

To me, that's insane. Not him not telling. That I can deal with, on one level or another. But who is this girl with no self-esteem that allows her entire life to fall to shambles and lets the cause of all her problems insult her by basically saying: the news of our impending marriage is not important enough to mention to my parents. That's crazy.

And yet, is it? Sure, it's a little weird how she doesn't seem to get mad at him, but I have a feeling people in a lot worse situations have gotten married. At least these two are pretty, B-list famous, and relatively wealthy. More to the point, this does not seem to be so out of line with what one could expect from certain girls.

For example: Audrina. Seemingly a cool chick (okay, I think she's hot, so she's "cool" in my eyes), and yet she's the most preposterous person when it comes to her relationships with guys. The most telling example of this is her interactions with Justin-Bobby (his name is Bobby, but he wants people to call him Justin; don't ask). This is a guy who is completely anti-social with everyone, including Audrina. At one point, they went on a trip to Vegas, and he ditched her there. As in, left her in Vegas, by herself. And she took him back.

Then, at a party they went to together, he leaves with another girl.

And she takes him back.

So the go to Vegas (again!) and all her friends hate him (because he's an anti-social dick), and she's practically willing to drop them all to be with him. In the end, she doesn't (kind of), but you could tell she wanted to.

Basically, she's a television camera away from being in a physically abusive relationship and convincing everyone that it's her fault. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but if this isn't a mentally abusive relationship, I'll . . . um, I'm not sure what I could "turn in," seeing I really don't have any credentials in this regard. Still, it certainly appears like a weak person being dominated by a strong person, and not in a sexy, leather-and-whips kind of way.

That's what makes me question the fakeness of this reality show. Because, as sad as the above situation is (because, like I said, she's pretty hot, and could probably find a guy who wouldn't treat her like crap), this is not something straight out of science fiction. This is a trope common throughout history. Chances are, you know someone like this. God knows I knew girls -- intelligent, beautiful girls -- who couldn't grasp that they were both going out with the same guy. Oh, they knew he was seeing the other girl (because the guy didn't try to hide it), but they each convinced themselves that "he really loves me." The bad boy thing is almost a biological inheritance from our more primitive ancestors.

So what if that also throws a lot of the Enlightenment out the window? This isn't a show for feminists, that's for damn sure. It's not about a woman's independence. Destiny's Child does not sing the theme song (Natasha Bedingfield does, a fairly conservative pop-star if there is such a thing). There is no political agenda with this show. Which means, of course, that the "reality," while faked, comes across as genuine, in an oddly perverted way.

So next time you watch "The Hills" -- and trust me, you should watch "The Hills;" Whitney's the shit -- remember that you are watching thousands of years of supposed human evolution getting shown the door. But you'll get to see it accompanied by L.C.'s all-purpose raised eyebrow (It's a question! It's approval! It's incredulity! It's everything and nothing and deserves it's own show!).

If you don't have a half-hour to spare for that, than maybe you ought to check how "real" your life is.