I was a teenage "friend-zone" victim

There are a lot of fascinating things about the tumblr blog Nice Guys of OK Cupid. Whether you think it is a cruel, troll-driven exercise in schadenfreude, or a clever, simple take down exposing some dark strands of misogyny and narcissism, there's no denying it's just a really clever idea. Social media and dating sites have coaxed us (especially the younger generations who don't remember the time before) to post our pictures and intimate thoughts in the public domain. There is almost no editorializing and very little speculation. NGOOKC is simply taking people at their own word, and it is usually, enough. 

 

http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com/image/39594094455

The whole "girls like assholes" and "nice-guys can't catch a break" sentiment is so enraging and blatantly ridiculous I can't even spend any time breaking that phenomenon down (not today anyway, no promises for the future) but the thing that really make me go "hmm" is the whole "friend-zone" lament.

Intellectually I know that the "friend-zoned" concept is problematic, and not only in the case of our "rape ambivalent" friend above. (You guys, he's such a hopeless romantic!) The "friend-zone" implies for men every relationship with a woman is a journey toward sex, that getting "stuck in the friend-zone" means that their ultimate goal was thwarted. Not only are they disappointed that this friend doesn't want to have sex with them, but they are angry, in some cases, really angry that they have somehow been "duped" into being friends with a woman, "conned" into being there for her, with absolutely no sexual reward! Bum-mer!

Yeah, yeah I know that none of that is cool. But here's the thing...I kind of feel like I spent some time being "friend-zoned" myself, and this NGOOKC thing has sent me on a soul search of how my experience in the "friend-zone" is different from the sad, misguided Misogynists Nice Guys of OK Cupid.

Me, freshman year. That's a Stussy cap by my feet.

In high school,  I wasn't what you would call an instant hit with the fellas. I mean, I had a sense that I had a lot to offer...I was funny, smart, there was even a pretty face beneath some of the baby chub (that still hung on until I was about 17) and I had an active sexual imagination. (yep, girls have those too!) But I found myself stuck in the "friend-zone" pretty often. For me, that meant I was often "in love" with my male best friend. Keep in mind, we were not already best friends like Keith and Watts. I didn't wake up one day and I realize I was in love. We became best friends because I thought I was in love and it was the only way I knew how to get close to someone. I spent a lot of time pining away over these boys, cultivating a weird, drama-fraught friendship because some attention was better than none.  They weren't way out of my league or anything (I'm not sure I even really believe in "leagues" to be honest, but for the sake of clarity I will use the trope), they were mostly nerdy like me. But they usually had girlfriends throughout, and THEY KNEW I was in love with them most of the time. They completely played into it, as I imagine it was pretty flattering, and on some level they did like me. So if I was friends with them in the hopes of getting into their pants, and they were "leading me on" in some way even though they had no intention of dating me and were involved with other people, how am I different from the poor saps of NGOOKC?

Well, maybe I'm not. Maybe I was just as angry and bitter and the time but didn't have a public forum in the same way to air my grievances. But I don't think so. Here are a few important differences between my experience in the "friend-zone" and what it seems like these guys are experiencing.

1) I wasn't angry with the objects of my affection.  Frustrated sometimes, confused at others, but I don't remember feeling angry at them, because I understood they didn't owe me anything. They liked me as a friend, that's all. It made me sad, and resulted in some pathetic poetry, but I didn't blame them for ruining anything because I understood that it wasn't all about me, but the result of many circumstances beyond my control.

2) I didn't think the girls they chose were bitches, or assholes, or that I was better than them. Did it bug me when they like thinner, prettier, quieter girls instead of me? You're damn right it did. But it didn't make me angry at them, or the other girls for that matter. If anything, it was a pain I internalized and turned on myself. Of course they liked girls who were prettier, thinner, more popular. Who wouldn't?  What bothered me was not that they chose them over me, but that I wasn't more like the girls they chose (btw, I am not saying this is a good option, merely pointing out how it was different that how NGOOKC process this experience.) Often it was the girlfriends who hated me, because even though she was supposed to be #1, for some reason their man kept me hanging around, confided in me, enjoyed my company. I imagine this was confusing and annoying to them.

3) I was still grateful and enjoyed their friendship. While there were peaks and valleys in those relationships, ultimately we were friends, and on the day to day, I had fun in those friendships.

4) I was a kid. We are talking experiences I had in High School and early college. By the time I hit 20, I was over it. I either moved on, or got over my sexual attractions where they weren't reciprocated to let a platonic friendship grow. To allow this shit to go on into your 20s and 30s is just indulgent. 

 As an adult looking back, I might have advised myself to branch out a bit. Spending a lot of time with someone who is never going to reciprocate your feelings is not a good idea. Not because you are never going to get laid and that is the ultimate goal, but because it might be distracting you from other possible friends and relationships. There may have been other boys that might have been interested in me that I didn't even notice because I was so focused on the drama of those friendships. But whatever. I was a kid, and I learned a lot and in the end we had a lot of good times together.

And maybe, just maybe, being "friend-zoned" might have actually been the best thing for me. I learned that friendships come in many forms, and that I could be close with a boy without any pressure of sex. I never felt insecure in terms of "hanging with the guys" because that is what I was used to. I learned a lot about what guys were looking for in relationships by being on that end of things, and if I meet a man who doesn't want to sleep with me, it doesn't wreck my self esteem or make him a write-off.

Maybe me and the NGOOKC aren't so alike after all. And yes, the differences in our experience in the friend-zone is going to be inherently different and men and women. But I know a lot of men who have been in the friend-zone and came out the other side of it as normal, non-psychopaths, so I am sure it can be done. And for this reason it is important to examine, expose and even ridicule the guys on this site, because its not OK to take a basic human experience and turn it into a personal tragedy.

An Open Letter to Ben Stein, et al

Another year, another version of that obnoxious Frankenstein quote that people are so fond of posting. I hadn't thought about it since last December, but there it was in my Facebook feed again yesterday. Normally I would ignore the whole thing and move on with my life, but this year I am particularly offended by so much of what is in there. I had to pause, and pick a fight. 

Is it a feminist issue? Not explicitly. But I am a feminist and I have issues with it. So there you go.

Here'e the thing, it's not enough that the current posting of stupid Ben Stein's stupid face is predicated on the  myth that Obama decided the call the Christmas Trees in the White House "Holiday Trees" (spoiler alert: he didn't). Nor is it the point that this statement is not even really from Ben Stein but is actually a conglomeration of statements,  including elements from Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham. Forgetting then that this is built on a mountain of falsity (because hey, I am a fan of fiction) let us examine the content of this odious post.

BEN STEIN: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

Come on. Is this really a thing? Because you know what? I am with you on this. But really? Who is walking around threatened that people call Christmas Trees by their name? Who feels discriminated against because they're not called Holiday trees? I mean, listen I'm a Jew too. And every single one of my ancestors was Jewish too (I think anyway. Actually, now that I think of it, this is a ridiculous and un-provable claim to make, but whatevs.) And let me tell you, having grown up around Jews, nobody over the age of 11 cares all that much about being included in the whole tree thing. A lot people think its kind of stupid. And those that have trees in their house might call them holiday trees in their own home. What the fuck do you care?

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.

Um...what? Actually, this shows that people assume that you celebrate the same holiday as they do. It shows that in fact, they have no interest or sensitivity to the fact that not only aren't you brothers and sisters, but that you come from a whole other line of people (all of your ancestors are JEWISH Ben!) and you DON'T celebrate Christmas. And gee, golly, gosh, shouldn't that be OK too?

The thing is, I really, truly, honestly don't care if people wish me Merry Christmas either, but not for this stupid, broke-ass reason. Life is hectic and busy, and maybe you don't know I'm a Jew from looking at me, and whatever, it's not like my skin melts when you wish me Merry Christmas. But it sure as hell doesn't make me feel closer to anyone. And thanks for speaking for all us Jews Ben! (Oh, but not. And like, not ever.) Because like you, I too never felt left out. I was lucky to grow up with a strong cultural identity, ties to the Jewish community and a family that surrounded me with holiday cheer about our own holiday (which you fail to mention once. It's called Hannukah. Here, I looked it up for you!) and an appreciation for other's holidays too. We went to see the Macy's windows. Then we went for chinese food. We went to the movies. Bam. Perfect. Jewish. Christmas.

But you know what? Not every Jew feels that way! (I bet not EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ANCESTORS even felt that way.) Some Jews really struggle to feel a part of American culture, and for them, this time of year and its constant reminders of their "otherness" can be kind of a bummer.

And also, Ben, I don't want to upset you, but Christians and Jews are not the only people in America. There are people of many other religions and cultures who don't celebrate Christmas. People who might like to feel included in the holiday that dominates television, radio, the newspaper, the shopping mall, our work schedules, and everything else in our society for the entire month of December. 

And does wishing someone Happy Holidays or calling something a Holiday Tree really put someone out so much that they can't bear to do it? Does it really dillute your holiday experience so much. Because if so... that's just...pathetic. As John Stewart illustrated perfectly on the Daily Show Christmas is doing JUST FINE, so relax. I make room in my life (and my waistline) for endless Christmas parties, packed mall shopping, obligatory holiday gifts because I am living in America, and I partake in elements of popular culture, and it is often enjoyable. Is this tiny gesture to make room for me and others like me (or nothing like me) in our society really such a terrible sacrifice? Or is it in fact, the least you can do? LITERALLY?

Phew. Let's pause for a minute here to catch our breath.

OK, still with me? Because here is where (in this most recent version anyway) Billy Graham's daughter kicks into the conversation (although it is not clearly stated that way in the Facebook post). And I will state that if you thought I seemed pissed before....

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

What? I can't even...this is so...wow. There is so much here I am not sure where to begin. It's so obvious that the line "In light of recent events...terrorist attacks, school shootings etc." was tagged on either in this or a previous go around, considering that it is not even a sentence. But, that said, IN LIGHT OF RECENT EVENTS, HOLY SHIT, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

And then there's the dig at Madeleine Murray O'Hare and mentioning causally that she was murdered, as though one thing has anything to do with the other. And if you do think being an atheist will lead to your death (um, I don't remember hearing a lot about that from the Christians by the way. I mean, where you go after you die maybe, but actually hastening one's death?) what about all those atheists who live to 100? Or young Christians who die at 40 from cancer? What were they doing wrong in your estimation? Do I really have to point out this incredibly simplistic hypocrisy to you, you sanctimonious pricks?

Also I love this idea that because we're not reading the bible we don't know not to kill, steal etc. This is so absurd. If you fail to mention these basic rules to your kid because there is no bible reading going on, you are kind of shitty parent. Sorry (not sorry).

Also, that whole argument, "How can you be moral without God?" Ugh. I think the better question is, "Why do you need God to be moral?" Doesn't your stomach flip at the report of a murder? Doesn't your heart break when a child or animal is abused? Doesn't a bell go off in your head when you are doing something that will harm another person. Whether you believe in God or not, do you NEED him to tell you what you are doing is wrong? If so, check yourself. You might be a sociopath. 

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

WHAT. THE FUCK. DOES THIS HAVE TO DO. WITH CHRISTMAS TREES.  Also, as though it was Dr. Spock and him alone who decided spanking was bad, and not all of society and countless studies and years of proof that corporal punishment is a disaster. 

And by the way, his son did NOT commit suicide. Sensitive in bringing that up though. Maybe you want to go hang out with these guys. They too are all about sensitivity, appropriate responses, and loving thy neighbor.

OK, there's more but I think you get the point. This whole thing is just exhausting. And ironically, it is posts like this that make me, actually hate Christmas, when I wasn't feeling so angry about it before.

I might piss some people off with this one. But that's what I'm here to do, no?

Allow myself to (re)introduce myself

Hey friends and folks!

I have been gone so long. Did you miss me?

Don't answer that.

A couple of things have happened in the past couple of years. Some of them were really good! Some of them, not so good.

Anyway, allow me to take this opportunity to declare an early New Year's resolution: More blogging for this feminista!

I have decided to stop letting real life get in the way of my virtual life. Start spending more  time online, and stop letting quality time with loved ones stop me from having arguments with anonymous strangers. So back to the blogosphere!

I am thinking about changing  the name of my blog. Now that I am an old married lady, and will only be posting about feminist weddings along with myriad other feminist (and occasionally leftist agenda propoganda not directly related to feminism) is it unfair/unwise to keep the name Feminist Wedding?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

"Bridezilla" is an anti-feminist concept

In my many travels as a feminist bride, and in the several interviews I have done with reporters, it is inevitable to come across the notion of whether or not I consider myself better than those "Bridezillas" out there. You know, as a feminist, who has basically completely rejected the notion that my wedding was going to be about me as a bride, people assumed I would have a natural aversion to these monsterish, spoiled demanding brides with their faux tans, brazillian waxes and diamond studded veils, standing at the door of the chapel foaming at the mouth because the hydrangeas are the wrong shade of puce.

But while you might think my journey of self discovery would have put an even wider wedge between my and my tiara donning counterparts, that is not exactly what happened.

Look, its easy for me to make the case that my wedding day is not all about me, and not the most important day of my life (although I will say, it was one of the most FUN days of my life), but that is because I was raised to believe I would have many important successes and that finding a partner, while incredibly important, would not be defined by the day we made it official.

And even I, to whom getting married was not a main focus of my life, felt immense pressure when in the thick of it. When you have so many people coming to an event, when you know everyone is going to be looking at you, when you have some significant money invested (and lets be honest, its almost impossible to do it without that unless you are having a picnic in the woods, which sounds really nice, but comes with its own challenges I imagine)...basically, unless you are eloping, there is a lot of stress involved. And its hard to get help. Because a wedding is perceived as female territory (a designation both imposed on women, and by women), many men feel uninterested or uninvited to take part in the planning. Wedding planners and merchants make "once in a lifetime events" everyday of their lives, and a lot of them are terrible at making you feel like yours in anything special. Often there is strife between in-laws and parents and siblings and couples regarding the details and then there is the subtle, corrosive societal pressures that very few among us can ignore completely.

And in the middle of it, is a bride. A woman who is told that this is the most important day of her life, that she has to look perfect, be fit, have her makeup and hair just right. She has to have planned the perfect event, having thought of everyone, foreseen all details, and wear white no less! Can you imagine the pressure cooker situation this is for the average person who has never planned an event before, has no experience in public speaking or even posing for pictures? And when there are cracks, when a bride has an explosion, or makes demands, or get extra frustrated with uninvested parties, we turn around with shock and awe. "What a bitch!" We think. "A total Bridezilla."

Now, I am not above this gawking. I have seen the shows and looked at the pictures with disgust. But going through the wedding myself, and having a few borderline moments, I have a different feeling for these stressed out brides: Pity.

I just think as a society, its really unfair to teach a girl from the time she is born that her wedding day is the crowning acheivement, that it is a reflection of who she is and how well she has done in life, set up IMPOSSIBLE standards for her to reach economically, physically and emotionally, and then turn around and point and laugh in horror in what she becomes.

Not that some of them aren't horrible women, and would be detestable in any situation. But then why are we focusing on them on what might be one of the most stressful days of their life? "Peoplezillas" maybe. "Bridezillas"...I say no more.

A Prairie Chic Love Story

There was a sweet little article about our wedding in the most recent issue of Winnipeg Weddings.  You can find the spread with a whole bunch of pictures here:

weddingsinwinnipeg.ca/winnipeg

It's mostly the simple story of how we chose our clothes for the wedding and who made the centre pieces, and other really important things. But I was very pleased to see that they highlighted my quote, which I had written as advice to future brides:

“Plan your wedding together as a bride and groom. It’s so much fun to see a shared vision come to life.”

Looking back, I wish I had said, "Plan your wedding together as a couple", not "a bride and groom", because, obviously not everyone getting married is male and female. But aside from that, I think that despite the fact that I am still searching, discovering and on some level, still making peace with weddings and marriage in general, I can say honestly that this is the best lesson I have learned, and the most important tenet of the feminist wedding as far as I am concerned.

When a wedding (and by virtue, a marriage) is planned by the couple getting married, its a major step toward a true feminist wedding. It takes the pressure off of the bride, off of the idea that the day is somehow more about her. When a couple enters into a wedding and a marriage together, having planned and worked toward a common vision, it makes the day incredibly special, and true representation of two people's commitment to each other.

Somehow, in this day and age, this is still a novel idea to a lot of people. So I am glad I got to say it, especially in a mainstream wedding mag like Winnipeg Weddings.

A Sobler by any other name...just isn't a Sobler

Yo, I totally got married.

I can hardly believe it myself, but the husband and I had the weekend of our lives and I have a whole lot to write about regarding the successes and failures of my feminist wedding. Ironically, I expect to write more now on this subject than I did while planning the wedding, mostly because I will have more time, but also because I feel like I have gained some valuable perspective.

And if I was ever wondering whether I was going to keep this blog up after getting married (I didn't really, but still...) I opened up my Alumni Magazine to an enraging article about one woman's under-examined choice to take on her fiance's name.

I was meaning to write about the name change thing for a while, and so I am most excited to have this inspiration, negative as it may be.

You can find the article here, it's very short, and worth reading to gain context on what I am about to say.

I don't know Ms. Grose personally, and she is an editor at Slate, which is a well known site, so I would be interested at some point in engaging in an actual conversation an maybe even a debate on this subject...maybe give her an opportunity to further explore her decision to take her husband's name. Because from the content of this article one would have to assume she hasn't actually put much thought into it.

Look, people do it... a lot of friends of mine have done it, and despite my aversion to making that choice personally, I recognize that people have their reasons. Some people hate the idea of having family members with different names, like their kids and husband won't be readily tied to them. Maybe their life is now about being a wife and mother and so it only makes sense to adopt that identity. And I have spoken to some women who just like the tradition. Choosing which traditions to keep is obviously a woman's right, so far be it for me to judge that choice.

Blah, blah, blah. I can give an argument against all of the above reasons, but the bottom line is people have the right to make their own choice.

That said...

This article really rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, according to the writer, the ultimate reason she has chosen to take her husband's last name is it is "sweet decision". Wow. How thoughtful. I only take issue with this because she herself admits that she had never even considered changing her name. She claims her fiance was "upset" by this, but couldn't really articulate why. So rather than truly ask him to examine his motives and desires for her to give up a large part of her identity, they both shrug their shoulders at the question and decide to go with tradition. Ain't that sweet?

One of her friends, who had a most "un-traditional upbringing", whatever that means, made her case by...get this...surprising her.

"I think you should take his name." she said. "You didn't think I would say that, did you?" I didn't.

Well I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. This un-traditionally brought up friend goes on.

"I hate having a hyphenated name," she added. "And besides, I think it's sweet to take his name."

And that was what did it for our author. It was a "sweet" decision. Never mind that the history of the practice is steeped in property laws and ownership of women. And while the practice may no longer translate to complete submission and the forfeiting of your identity, the fact that it is no longer legally necessary makes one wonder...why is it so expected? When women full expect to maintain their identity after marriage, why is changing our last names such a given practice? And why is it that for someone that is not a given is so easily persuaded by the argument of "sweetness"? And sorry, but does that even mean?

In her essay, Ms. Grose touches upon two points that are almost passable, and would have certainly been a much more satisfying catalyst for a name change, at least for me. The most practical reason is that she has never liked her own last name. I have to concede, it's not the best one, and I am sure she took some abuse growing up. Her fiance's last name is a wonderfully WASPy Winton...a vanilla dream for someone who grew up with the last name pronounced "Gross".

The other argument that borders on intelligent in this article is one made by her friend. For many of us, our current last names are the names of our father's, not our mothers. And so maintaining that name is maintaining the patriarchy we were raised with. OK...

However, I do take issue with the idea she (through a "friend") asserts that "Technically, taking your husband's name is just as patriarchal as keeping your father's." We don't choose our given last names. Our parents choose for us. We re swept along in the patriarchy of our childhoods and upbringings whether we like it or not. But going on being who you are, and choosing to change your name to be the same as your husband's are simply not "the same" as the writer asserts. And anyway, you would hope that by the time you are getting married, you had established enough identity of your own that you are not merely going from someone's daughter to someone's wife.

I won't even get into the fact that at one point in her article someone questions "Is it really such a contentious issue anymore?" and she goes onto matter-of-factly state that it is not. As if now, as women, we've made our point with this whole hyphenating mess, and we can revert back to the way things were, because it doesn't matter what we do...everyone knows what we mean.

I really struggle with this issue because a lot of strong, smart, independent women I know have chosen to change their name, and so I know there is validity in it. But the masquerading of this article as an examination of this decision really irritated me. Not because she changed her name, but because I still don't understand why.

If I made the statement, "I am going to be Alix Sobler until I die," and my fiance looked upset by this, expressed that he expected me to take his name, and then couldn't articulate one reason why, I wouldn't be thinking so hard about whether I could change my name and still be myself. I would be taking a good look at the man I was about to marry, and asking "who the hell are you?"

The Bride's Big Day

I have always been strongly opposed to the idea that the day I get married will somehow be MY DAY. I don't believe a wedding should be all about a bride, for so many obvious reasons, and for a few not so obvious reasons as well. It's not as though the commitment of one's life is bigger for a bride than a groom. They are also dressed to kill and have a lot riding on the success and failures of the day. Not to mention the rest of the family, parents and in-laws and siblings...and very dear friends who (in our case) will be traveling from all over the world to share this experience. I have always believed that if anything, it is a shared day, one that is a collective effort and a collective experience.

But I have gotten into a bit of trouble with that way of thinking. When you start taking everyone's feelings and importance into consideration, you tend to have a whole lot of cooks in the kitchen. And you may be marrying into someone's family, but it doesn't mean you will have have the same taste, or sensibility, and sometimes those decisions get really hard to make when you start "sharing" your day with all the lunatics in your family.

Lately I have found myself feeling a little jealous of the brides who feel like this day is all about them. It would give me free reign to do what I want, plan the wedding I would love and say F you to all the demanders out there. Wow it would be so much easier!

Just a little mainstream dream from a feminist bride.