< PREVIOUS LETTER   ||   NEXT LETTER >
 

Dear Mary,

When did everything become so antagonistic? Oh, maybe right around that part in the serial where that woman whose only job was not to eat the apple...did. Actually, earlier than that. But in any case, then she (and later, her theoretical daughtren/sistren) has to go out and live her life outside the garden, where she's blamed for every temptation, or where she's kept in the cave (where her great big Power to Give Birth can be safely contained). Over time, this gets boring and annoying. She says so, which makes others (men and women) nervous and annoyed themselves. And so on.

What good does calling anyone names do? I'll tell you what: name-calling allows the caller to "explain" why something sucky that happened was not his/her fault, but rather that of the gender he or she dates/finds unfit to lead, etc. And, in a weird way, it perpetuates the name-callee's ability to get away with sucky things. (Note: "From Mars" and "From Venus" count as "names.") As in: "Hey, if women are nuts/men are pigs, well then, I guess I'm off the hook! Vroom!"

Can't we all get along? Sure. Now, some evolutionary psychologists will concur (in fancier terms) with that message: that Baldwins wander and Betties nurse, and that's how it is. Their opponents argue that there's an equally compelling evolutionary argument to be made for "nice guys," and that it's only nurture/culture's spin doctors who give the so-called alphas the green light. I say...that's all very interesting. But that biology is biology, not destiny. Not dating destiny, anyway.

Why not? Because first of all, women and men may sometimes be jerks in contrasting or "typical" ways, but we all find ways to be jerks. I dare say more [straight] boys have made Predicament of the Week because of a wacko meanie girlfriend than vice versa. Whatever. Either way, we don't have "a problem gender."

Second of all -- and this is more of a response to some of the "Men are under siege!" types than to you, Mary, but I just want to set the record straight -- just because women get stuff doesn't mean men lose it. Women's gains, unless you are Anna Nicole Smith, do not come at the expense of what's truly valuable to men. (If men were truly becoming "expendable," I wouldn't need Paul the Intern's help with all my mail.) Power and voice and employment and money -- and "hand" -- are not fight-over slivers of one finite pie. When it comes to that pastry, there's plenty to go around, and we should all pig out.

Speaking of cakes, you see, this is a revolution. A reaaaaaally long one. It is, and has long been, the best and worst of times; we've been on our best and worst behavior throughout. But we needn't freak. There's always a bat mitzvah; there's always a crisis -- the latter according to Gail Bederman, a historian at the University of Notre Dame and author of Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917. As she told the Times: "The idea of what men are and what women are is always changing. When people are looking at it, there's always a crisis."

So Mary, in response to your query, I'll once again urge readers not to ask "What gender can I blame for this bummer!?" or "What stereotype can I cloak myself in so that s/he blames not me but my gender?!" When it comes to dating, pure and simple -- and neutral -- manners are the Maserati that can leap the gap. (Not only because you "should" be "nice," but also because being a Babe Maligner does not you a Babe Magnet make.)

Oh, and about this "men are pigs" thing to begin with? Pigs, indeed. Pigs are cute, they are smart, they are Babes. I'm with you, Mary. Anyone who can find me a truffle is a friend of mine. Vroom vroom!

Love,
Breakup Girl

PREDICMENT OF THE WEEK:
"Could my first love be The One...twenty years later?"