When I went to college

When I went to college, Carroll invited our parents to come for an orientation. My dad went because this sort of thing falls under his purview of responsibilities. Not a dis on my mom, but not her thing. My dad told me after that they had a rape orientation which was essentially, Catholic school, door open, feet on floor, which much like abstinence only education is fool proof, and they warned our parents that a lot of kids have trouble with the close quarters in the beginning. This was promptly followed by a tour. Now, I too had the rape lecture and found it as useless as my dad, but his response to the dorm living I’ll never forget. He said to the tour guide, my girls (J and myself) share a room not even half this size. It was true. J and I shared a ridiculously and comically small room growing up. It really prepared us for living in a surveillance state because there was no privacy. When I moved to DC I had a closet larger than my childhood bedroom—I measured it, because that is something I’m neurotic enough to do. I didn’t actually have my own room until I moved out of the dorms my senior year and into a brothel (not really, but according to the restrictions in South Euclid, houses with more than 3 unmarried women…).

My parents’ home is one floor located about half way down our street (our current vacant lot count is 18); growing up it was always white, inside, outside, all the walls, white, always white. It didn’t have a basement just a crawl space or much of an attic, which was only accessible through a trap door in the hallway ceiling. A hallway that two people can’t really fit side by side in, which I’ve mentioned before and completely responsible for my sisters and my belief that basketball should be a full contact sport. I’m trying to paint a picture here of simple, and that word is important because of an article I read last week talking about the appropriation of poverty. We were working poor and by no means that bad off. My parents put us through private school so we could go to college, and while I don’t know if it was their intention without Trinity I would never have been able to assimilate into Carroll or the rest of my life and not just because of the Catholic part. Trinity was a college prep school, and with its shortcomings, and there were some, Trinity taught us how to pass with kids who there was never any questions about whether they’d attend college. Trinity gave me the patience women stereotypically have and along with those shortcomings the realizations that there are consequences for everything and the price is pretty steep for people who don't intrinsically belong. 

The article, “The troubling trendiness of poverty appropriation” by July Westhale published on the Establishment, left me with a lot of feelings and thoughts. Westhale and I have very different experiences, and her’s definitely lends itself more to the “simple living” trends, but mine, well mine is the gentrification that displaces and erases poor people, mostly poor people of color from urban neighborhoods. Westhale says, “And it’s not the Tiny House Movement that incites my discontent. From dumpster diving to trailer-themed bars to haute cuisine in the form of poor-household staples, it’s become trendy for those with money to appropriate the poverty lifestyle—and it troubles me for one simple reason. Choice.” Preach. The article is broken out into three major sections: space/things, entitlements, and food.

Women in general are hyper aware of space, please see manspreading for more information. Women are told not to take up space by everything, and poor women should take up even less after all they haven’t earned it. So when people start talking about wanting to living small spaces or take back spaces relegated to the poor what they are saying is I can choose this and those people still don’t deserve space. It has always been this way; the poor living on top of each other in tiny spaces slums, “ghettos”, trailer parks, or even further back the tenements. As for things, when you think back to being a kid, think back to saving for something, remember saving your allowance or birthday money or whatever, and then you buy whatever it is, and it is just stuff, a thing, which can’t make you happy or anything, but it is yours. That is kind of what poverty is like. So everything you have you had to earn. People don’t think about that when they think about the poor. We think people with money earn things, but people who always have access just have things; they don't earn things. Things and space are the right of the those in privilege. 

Westhale also shares an anecdote about hipsters rejecting capitalism through welfare. Once in Portland I became so irate with the idea that people would suggest people who could work, white, educated people who could obtain jobs without the same biases people of color and the poor have to face, who opt out, that I yelled at friends and strangers alike. I was not at my healthiest mental state. I yelled about how block grants get fixed sums of money and when the money is gone most states don’t comp the people it won’t cover. Really, hipsters are taking welfare from poor people; this is the reason to hate hipsters. I still want to hit something. It isn’t just hipsters in Portland who join welfare to opt out of capitalism. A group of people I deeply respect participate in “voluntary poverty,” and as I told them, there is nothing voluntary about poverty. If you can opt in you can opt out again. They don’t use welfare to counter their costs, and they see it as participating with the population they serve. See for real people, poverty is super expensive. It is juggling bills and late fees with what gets paid this month, or opting for a parking ticket instead of paying for parking because you don’t have the cash now, and the ticket won’t be due till after you get paid. Being poor comes with a ton of fees. Opting out of capitalism is like opting out of the patriarchy. It isn’t possible, and if someone does think they are doing it they are blinded by their privilege.

Finally, the food. I love fast food fries. As a kid my dad and I had a rating system. See I’d go with him to get takeout usually on Fridays, and we’d rate fries by whether they required ketchup. Really good fries like Red Barn (Slavic Village, what!) fries required little to no ketchup, but Burger King fries need ketchup, all the ketchup. But poor people food isn’t just fast food, through it is a lot of it, right? You can tell what kind of neighborhood you’re in by the fast food places…Popeye’s, you know where you are compared to a Panera. You don’t even need to think about the actual amenities of these places like the bullet proof glass that separates your server from you in some take out places in the hood or accidentally ordering drugs through a drive thru.  But kidding aside, I can’t eat peanut butter. Westhale talks about rice, but for me it is peanut butter. I don’t know why. I mean we ate it all the time in school. It got to the point where I would only take carrots for lunch because I couldn’t eat the peanut butter. My mom and dad still eat peanut butter sandwiches for lunch every day, every day. My maternal grandma (Nanny, as we called her) couldn’t eat pumpkin. There were times when it was the only thing they had to eat during the Depression so she refused to eat it later in life. And this is the side of things where you consume something so much you can’t anymore, let’s talk about exposure. I never had eggplant, mushrooms, a variety of foods that either my mom didn’t like or didn’t know how to prepare. I remember the first time I ate a kiwi, and the first time I ate a mango. Surprise, poor people don’t have access to a full range of foods or any idea how to prepare some of it. I still have no idea how to prepare eggplant. No clue, and I have the internet. That said mushrooms are gross and always will be. *shudder*

I’m torn on how to end this post because Westhale ends with this quote, “Because, let me tell you, there is nothing simple about being poor.” Truth. Being poor is hard. People have some idea that it is easy or poor people are lazy, but anecdotally, it has been my experience that poor people have hella work histories. They work all the time. Additionally, they have stress and anxiety and are more likely to suffer from depression and usually don't have access to mental health care. To opt into poverty or opt into poverty appropriation is just a slap in the face and reeks of privilege. That might be it, my big peeve about all this: people I know, me, my friends, worked really hard to get out and pass, and because we were lucky and made few mistakes we did or we didn't (and a lot of us didn't) so when these little privileged kids want to play poor for a minute I want to punch them in the face. They don't want to improve things for those in poverty. Instead these people want to mock the poor, and things that have been part of the impoverished lives. 

Aside: My roommate is studying hipsters, and this quote exemplifies everything:

“It’s but one example of an entire hipster moment—can it be called a movement when it’s a subculture rooted not in political consciousness, but in capitalism?—that has brought with it an ethos of poor-culture appropriation and the “re-invention” of things that have largely been tools of survival for the poor, disabled, working class, and/or communities of color for decades.”

That was not a weekend

I can’t even right now, but there was an article at The Guardian over the weekend about how the rich are getting therapy because being so rich is isolating. If only more so, and then we wouldn’t have to deal with them. I get that mental illness can hit anyone (though low-income people, women, and people of color have high rates of diagnoses and that’s largely without access to mental health services), but this is where my background shows. People feel bad because they have too much money? I can’t resist the eye roll. It is a different kind of problem I suppose, and when in the middle of a depressive episode you don’t, or you might, recognize that this isn’t as big of deal as it feels like. I’m more familiar with concrete stressors triggering mental illness: lack of access to meds, financial stress, violence, a debilitating self-loathing. But apparently rich people need to know that people like them with or without money. For the record, I don’t like rich people because of the way the system exploits people, and I don’t believe you can accrue a fortune without the exploitation of others.

I came home last night to my roommate’s texts about our bathroom flooding and the maintenance guy asking her (for the 100^th time) are you sure? Guys might not get what that means. “Are you sure there is a problem?” Subtext, well you present as cis gendered women so you can’t possibly know if something is wrong. *head desk* I wish K had said, well there is water on the floor so yeah pretty sure there is a flood, but if you’d like to come over and explain to me why I shouldn’t be concerned then by all means. So my afternoon to do list includes calling and yelling at this dude about his condescension and ignoring our concerns. With the added bonus of knowing we have to move in May.

I read this article and came home to the flood after listening to a person talk about killing themselves before their partner kills them. Lack of resources when your husband is the breadwinner, isolated from family and friends, and a lack of access to resources. But some people with a lot of money feel lonely. I’ll be exiting stage left and barricading myself in my apartment for the rest of the week, but this is only Monday, and I can’t imagine what the rest of the week is going to look like. 

White Pride vs. White Privilege, a bar adventure

I have a friend who has been trying to get me in the same place as one of her friends for months. She wanted nothing more than for me and this kid to go rounds on whiteness and racism. I’ll admit I made some mistakes, like assuming he had done minimal research on the subject of racism in the context of the US and social constructs (spoiler, he hadn’t), but I was also in that buzzed state where everything is funny until it isn’t anymore. As a result I can’t remember specifics, well that isn’t entirely true at one point he conceded I was right about something and because I’m an asshole, I had to respond with “I know.”

Sometimes I forget how insular my groups are. Even those friends I have who disagree with me can usually recognize the value in what I’m saying, and honestly it has been a long time since I’ve had a through conversation with any conservatives. People who read this blog and disagree with me usually disagree on far left politics, which white privilege and racism aren’t. I want to organize this in three parts: social constructs, whiteness as a race, and the summary of the real issue.

I’ve written about social constructs before. And now I remember when he conceded my rightness. C made assertions that race is biological and gave an analogy about chickens sticking to their own (by color) on his family farm. They stick with one another because of comfort, expectation, and fear. He noted that we as humans should be above that (presumably because of higher thought), but it is base and instinctual (bonus points for anyone else who started humming “All about that bass”). I pointed out that doesn’t make since because we’re biologically inclined to strengthen the gene pool by breeding with people genetically different (SCIENCE, drops mic), that these distinctions are social constructs. Race only means something because we’ve decided it should, and we know this because it means different things in different places. For example, there are white people in Mexico, who would be people of color by the US’s standards. I noted that gender too is a social construct which we know because while the US (and the West) have been slow to get on the bandwagon, gender isn’t a binary, and some places like India has recognized a third gender for a long time (even if not legally till recently). And like gender, race is evolving as well, with the inclusion of Celtic and Jewish people (among others) in the white race. I continued to make the argument that whiteness becomes more inclusive when white power is perceived to be in jeopardy, and that the inclusion of some races in whiteness pushes for the stratification of race between the racial binary of white and black, which adds to racial tensions among people of color who may for obvious reasons within a white supremacist society would want to distance themselves from blackness, the perceived opposite of whiteness. This can play out in the model minority myth. This is particularly interesting when it plays out because white supremacy is a zero sum game; you’re either part or you’re not. However, minority groups drawing distinctions between themselves to seem less like the opposite of white doesn’t make them perceived as more white. In the struggle to end oppression this isn’t an effective strategy instead it is a participation in white supremacy to continue to inflict oppression. Personally, I think this is because for whiteness to mean something, which is essentially it means to have power and privilege, then we need to have the numbers to be in power, but also for it to be a restrictive group i.e. everyone can’t be white for the system of oppression to work; this is aided by intersections of privilege and oppression.

Let me be clear because there seems to be some kind of confusion: white is a race. I know we’re the default race which can give the illusion we are not raced, but we are. We have a socially constructed meaning. At some point in the conversation C wanted to know why we can’t have white pride. *Wait for it.* On the positive side of things at least he knows we have a race. On the negative that is a very awkward thing to say if you’re not a member of the Klan. He was referencing that other races have pride in their race, but he claims society says we should be ashamed of our race. I don’t know what society he’s living in. But yes, there is a pride movement for minority groups in the US whether it be racial or sexual orientation. Marginalized groups are grabbing onto the reasons they are being discriminated against and saying fuck you to those in power and attempting to generate their own. He wants people to feel that about being white. I argued that we are the dominate culture and thus we can’t because we have power already so we can’t look for it in the ways that the oppressed have to. If you want to see white pride turn on the television or open a book because we’re the default, we’re the norm, and that is pride and power. Don’t get me wrong, we should liberate ourselves from participating in the oppression of others. Of course, our mutual friend baulked at his use of the phrase white pride, and it was awesome to watch. He claimed that it shouldn’t have the racist connotation, but that is like racism because people have preconceived notions about white pride like they do about people of color. To which we can only all shout NO very, very loudly. These are not the same, and the social connotations are not the same. Honestly, cry me a river that you want to be proud of your race and you’re afraid people are going to think you’re a racist, well that is the price you pay for participation in a racist society built by the exploitation of others. I then made a comment about “white people, man, we’re terrible.” And he said that pisses him off when people say that because it means all white people are terrible. I countered with no, pointing out that the group is not representative of individuals. However, taking issue with the statement because it feels like I’m distancing myself from whiteness is legit, not the intention, but a legit criticism.

This brought us to the real issue. No matter how many times I said, I’m not calling you a racist. That is what he heard. At one point it dawned on me that was the issue. He was taking everything personally. We weren’t talking about racism and structural oppression; we were talking about his feelings. He asked me if I had seen the John Stewart interview on white privilege from last week, which I hadn’t because John isn’t left enough for me so I don’t often watch. And I don’t need him to explain white privilege in four minutes. It is too complicated. C proceeds to explain the argument that by claiming white privilege exists means he didn’t work for what he has, that is some kind of handout. As a person who studies welfare and has heard all about how we don’t need affirmative action because it makes people lazy and unwilling to work this actually made me laugh in his face. I pulled myself together, and explained the easiest player setting analogy. Having privilege doesn’t mean you didn’t work hard it just means you didn’t have to work as hard as someone with a more difficult player setting. Not your fault, but true nonetheless. Also, I pointed out that everyone who participated in the patriarchy participates in the oppression of others. Remember my definition of patriarchy includes racial, class, etc. implications. The patriarchy can only exist if racism, sexism, and classism exist. These systemic oppressions are used to prop it up and center power with a specific group of people. I participate in racism by not taking to the streets and overturning the criminal justice system, which is built on racism. Letting these oppressive structures exist is enabling them and participating. It sucks, but it is true. I participate in classism by buying goods. In order to live in society as it is means to participate in the structural oppression of others. I’m not letting anyone off here; if you’re not tearing the system down then you are enabling it. There is no way to engage with society with participating to a degree. We have to do what we have to do, but don’t sit across from me saying you do nothing to participate that you're a helpless bystander because off all people white men have the most agency within our society. That said participating isn’t the same as being a racist. [Aside, he argued that the systems in place were racist, but are no longer so because we’ve taken the racism out. I argued that isn’t possible that the racism has become less overt and more wrapping in the cloak of classism. This is when I figured out he has done nothing to research his views just decided he believed this stuff. I made several recommendations for reading including the New Jim Crow and “The case for reparations” both of which he had a visceral response to. I had to explain “The case for reparations” argument before he would agree to look it up.] Finally, at some point he argued we can end racism with education, which I said impossible with the racism already engrained in the educational system…I don’t need white people teaching black kids about racism. I think they already know. The education needed in schools about racism is how to tear down oppressive structures, and I don't think the state is going to fund that.

The real problems here are 1. He took no time to investigate where his views and beliefs were coming from (fear), 2. He takes everything personally because he is afraid to have contributed to oppressive systems (and be called racist, so he's on the defensive), and 3. He is completely invested in keeping the system as it is because it worked for him so it can work for anyone. If this is what you’re bringing to the table then you’re not going to participate in the overturning of oppressive structures. When it comes to oppression we all mess up. Sometimes you’re going to directly hurt people and sometimes it is going to be more indirect. Recognize it, own it, prevent it from happening again, and move on. Do the work. In the end, we know you can't change people's minds through argument so I'm sure he went home thinking I'm nuts, but *shoulder shrug* there are zero fucks to be given. 

About money and relationships

I prefer to keep my finances separate. I get that sometimes it comes up like if one of you make a lot more than the other, well partner B might not be able to afford everything partner A wants thus compromise and a direct conversation about it. This comes up with partners and friends, and somehow we all navigate this just fine. Of course, when it is an intimate partner relationship, things get unnecessarily complicated. But my father taught me never to give or loan people more than you’re willing to lose so if you need something ask for it and let’s move on. There is a lot we could say about relationships and money. As a woman I’ve dealt with partners obsessing over how much I make in comparison to them (one fight ending when I lied just to put an end to it—might have contributed to the disaster that was that relationship) or how some people feel they can purchase your time and attention through implicit contract when they send you drinks you didn’t ask for (I have all the feelings on this). However, I want to talk about a blog post, “If you don’t make money, I won’t date you,” I read earlier in the week when I was laid up sick. It was written by Elle for YourTango.com, but I read it on blogher.com. And I guess all of this was in response to someone else’s post about not wanting to date men who make under s certain amount.

Immediately I went through the oh hell no emotions, then I figured I knew where this is going, and I was right because of course I was this is my blog. All that said, the blog is about how this woman writing is very successful, and that success has put strain on any relationship she has with men outside her economic social class. She is looking for her financial equivalent. I don’t know about her data, but anecdotally, her view is that she has had more successful relationships with men in the same economic zone; meaning “Similar socioeconomic class=better match.” She argues that less affluent men are intimidated by her because she is successful. She continues to argue that when the man she is with has similar means then he has to show her who he is without his possessions and status interfering. She makes some large assumptions about men in her economic status—and by extension herself, which we’ll come back to. She concludes by arguing that she isn’t shallow.

So here is my dilemma (and insecurity), I come from a working poor family in a low-income neighborhood. There is nothing super shocking there. That said, I have academically surpassed most (if not all) the kids I grew up with, and without taking into account cost of living (much cheaper in Ohio) I probably out earn all of them too. On one hand that doesn’t matter at all right? Except, I can’t have conversations with a lot of them anymore. Our conversations circle gossip and the superficial because we don’t care about the same things. The flip side of this is that sometimes I date men who have no idea what they say with their PhDs and “important jobs” like the chemist who thinks poor people bring poverty on themselves. Sometimes I find myself sitting there thinking “this is not my life” “what am I doing here? This dude is making such unintentionally aggressive and boarding bigoted statements.” Any woman reading this knows what I am talking about because you’ve probably been out with a man (friend, partner, whatever) and he has said something really sexist. You can just tell he has no idea what he has said, and now do you start an argument over it or not. I also imagine most people of color have had this experience with white friends or strangers or all white people. These are called microaggressions, the often unintentionally verbal and nonverbal slights that lead to negative feelings, perceptions, etc. to persons of a specific marginalized group. A good example for women, a man saying, “You’re not like other girls.” Is there something wrong with being like women? For a person of color, “Wow, you’re articulate!” Anyone else having flashbacks to the 2008 Presidential campaign? Because obviously black men aren’t articulate so you must be the exception. In these examples these statements are intended as compliments, which to me always makes them worse.

I know everyone can’t be aware all the time. I was talking with a friend of mine about microaggressions against black people at work. She sees them when I sometimes don’t because I’m white and my privilege can blind me to things. Once she mentioned them, I knew she was totally right, and I couldn’t believe I didn’t see it. Then others were way more obvious. All that said, microaggressions are often reflections of institutional and systematic oppression.

All of this brings me back to some of the assumptions about class the author of this post holds:

Wealthier people are more invested in the future

Wealthier people are stable

Similar education is related to similar intellectual capacity

Hard work and economic yield are related. For example, if I work hard I make more so if my partner works hard he will make more.

When you pull these out you see immediately why they are problematic and classist. There are also boarder implications for example, the standard being used here is the white privilege standard. We know the pay gap exists between races as well as genders, and obviously social economic access. I believe Hispanic women make the least compared to white men. When you put it in those terms if financial gain or expectation of that gain then isn’t the author dating down? I mean she would have to control for pay discrimination in her calculations on whether a partner would be a good match. Really this argument could be made for dating outside of any socially constructed group. I reject it. Let me be clear, I’m a dating disaster, and I have a type (tall, skinny, thinks he is the smartest person in the room—that’s the guy I’m into every time), but I don’t intentionally rule people out because of social constructs. There is of course room to discussion gender presentation v. sex here, but maybe another time.

Rape detecting nail polish because telling women it is their responsibility to prevent rape is how we roll

First, rape is most often committed by someone you know. Second, the used of substances is low when controlling for alcohol. So maybe rape detecting nail polish like the already invented straws, cups, etc. is going to be less effective at preventing rape than TELLING MEN NOT TO RAPE?!? Someone write in the comments “not all men” I dare you. See as a white person I’m constantly telling other white people to stop doing racist things, so why isn’t the responsibility of men to tell other men who are or would be rapists not to rape, and god help the person who says you don’t know who is capable of rape. You know! I knew! We choose to ignore the signs. Especially because most rapes are committed by a small portion of the population. But these people are serial predators, which is one more reason nail polish might not help so much.

Look I’m not picking on the guys who came up with this. But insisting women change their behavior, outfits, or look to prevent rape give rapists a pass. Add to this, the assumption this nail polish will be for sale. Capitalism’s solution to rape: pay for this thing that protects you from a hypothetical small number of rapes. Rape solved.

I won’t be using this nail polish. I’ve been told my whole life protecting myself from rape is my own responsibility so pass. But I have to wonder if boys get the same. Real question gents, did your mom ever sit you down and tell you not to rape? Because my dad was gentle about it, but left us with the impression you have to be in charge and responsible for you and your own safety. The man did his best with three daughters who all share the same charming attributes.

Once again, we’re making women take responsibility for rape. I saw a picture on Twitter that said, “If you’re promoting changes to women’s behavior to ‘prevent’ rape, you’re really saying, ‘make sure he rapes the other girl’” attributed to @itsmotherswork. This becomes even more difficult to digest when you consider the profitability of this nail polish. Then the other girl becomes a woman with limited means, because you know they are already disproportionately affected by rape and violence. I do get the kneejerk reaction to this nail polish, the “yeah, we’re doing something about rape,” but we’re reacting to a problem that is small in comparison to the real epidemic of rape—committed by someone you trust. I read this on Thought Catalog, and I hate them too, but just read it. It outlines how rape can happen, and how difficult every aspect can be.

I’m over this weird men’s lament phenomena

I read this blog post Wednesday morning, and it took forever because I kept having to stop reading it because I was so angry. I had no idea why. Then I read a piece of clickbait on Slate about parental rights of fathers, and it occurred to me: fuck these guys; they want to control the women around them.

The blog post by Jeff Reifman is all about “cutoff culture.” First, I didn’t know what this was because I’m old. Second, I don’t think there is anything wrong with this. So “cutoff culture” is when you close the door on an ex and end all contact. I should begin by saying Reifman is pretty clear and upfront about his recent emotional pain, but he lacks any understanding of his previous partner or better yet, an understanding of his own entitlement. Maybe a refresher on what your ex (or anyone) owes you before, during, or after a relationship: nothing.

Reifman wants friendship because they were friends. Preach brother. Well, I should probably state I’m friends with a lot of my exes and have no contact with several. What I know about relationships is both of these options initially blow. Either you’re pretending the guy who cheated on you is fine and nothing bothers you because FRIENDS or you drive yourself to madness wondering what you did because INVISIBILITY CLOAK (M, B, and L can tell you all about my crazy). Ok, clearly if any of my exes had an invisibility cloak, I’d have stolen that. But it sucks to end relationships, and people have to do what is best for them, and when that relationship ends what is best for your partner takes a backseat.

Now, let’s have a gendered conversation. Reifman’s perspective is very man oriented. I suspect his relationship with “Emma” was very much about him, adding the fact he mentioned there was a large age gap between them, indicates there was a power differential here. Women (to generalize) are conditioned to put relationships before themselves, which probably conditions men to expect that they are the priority. So when this changes because the relationship is over and the guy is just a guy again, it probably stings a bit. The goal and value for many women as dictated by society is the relationship/marriage/etc. so that has to be preserved, but once a relationship is over then *shoulder shrug*.

However, combine this with that whole millennial have casual sex and the WOMENZ are enjoying it then you get kind of what Reifman is alluding to. After all, if he isn’t over it then she shouldn’t be either. I’m not making assumptions about Emma, what I am saying is that the traditional needs and assumptions about women have to change to keep up with the times. Disposable sexual relationships indicate the people those relationships are with are by extension disposable. I’m not arguing against causal sex by the way, what I am arguing is that unless everyone involved is explicitly clear, someone will probably get hurt. But really the underlying point is that women are still conditioned to seek value through a relationship, but they also are engaging in relationships in a traditionally masculine way. When you throw this together, you get more and more women employing the cutoff and ghosting.

Reifman is looking for the emotional support he received from Emma during and pre-relationship, which she no longer feels that she has to give. Really, this post is an interesting study in entitlement and masculinity. Reifman talks about trauma from his childhood that the cutoff from Emma brought back up, but I’m sorry get a therapist, it isn’t Emma’s bag. He needs closure, I get that, but she owes him nothing.

Reifman also slices text throughout the post that are attributed to Emma, which is unfair. First even if those are verbatim it is unfair to hold someone to something they said a long time ago without discussion. People change their minds. I remember so much of what my friends and partners say and do. I rarely bring up the things people say after the fact. There is no point. Additionally, it just sounds like justifying his demands. She must respond to him because once she said she would. People break and back out of verbal agreements like this all the time…of course, I doubt either party viewed this statement as a verbal contract, which is why I’m puzzled as to why it is relevant now.

At one point in the post, Reifman mentions that the cutoff is appropriate for relationships where there is violence or the threat of violence. This really hit home for me because “I’M A NICE GUY!” battle cry can kind of be heard in it. I mean, if he didn’t hit you then why not return his call? *sarcasm* Much like the language around the Nice Guy there is entitlement here and a level of discomfort for me. One of the statements that put this upfront in my mind was this:

“Emma’s last note included the phrase, ‘Apparently, what I want seems irrelevant to you.’ She didn’t realize the irony that what I wanted had long been irrelevant to her.”

 Just to unpack this a little, we come back to what is owed to whom in and after a relationship. Reifman wants contact with Emma. Emma does not what any contact with Reifman. The action being request is for Emma to put aside her discomfort and accommodate Reifman, which want to infringe on Emma’s boundaries because well he wants it. Emma’s asking for a cease in actions. So use this framework to reread the statement above: why does it matter that he ignores her boundaries?

Reifman then continues to try to draw parallels between cutoff culture and domestic violence. Note to anyone, if you ever think this is a good idea stop yourself. But let’s look at the text and feel my anger:

“I believe that most domestic violence is the result of men with trauma histories reacting to powerlessness in response to experiences with their ex, friends, or family. Certainly men are responsible for finding nonviolent ways to respond to feeling powerless, but culturally we need to understand the dynamics driving these kinds of situations if we’re to reduce them.

“Our culture needs to have more discussions about power and powerlessness in relationships.”

 First, no. Just no. Second, domestic violence is the result of trying to exercise control over a partner much like rape it has less about the physical assault as it is about control and power. Don’t get me wrong, I get the discussions and feelings of anger associated with a feeling of powerlessness. I have seen intimate partner violence or the consequences of it stemming from one partner feeling completely powerless within society due to race and class. I can’t make the jump that Reifman is making. There is no violence here except maybe his persistence in contacting Emma. But as I mentioned before there is a power differential here, but it skews toward him as a man and being older (we can’t really defer anything else about Emma). I know one person out there will be like but men aren’t always…Shut the fuck up, we’re talking structural oppression so check yourself. His age and his gender expression gives him more power in the relationship because we live in a patriarchy. This is evident by Emma’s threat to get a court order if he continues to contact her. That is extreme, and not exactly easy to get.

I particularly love when Reifman says women have power in relationships because it is culturally ok for women to be emotional a few paragraphs after using the word hysterical because emotional women are seen as hysterical. It has been used to oppress women and prevent them from things like voting and property ownership. I’m the first to tell you we need to reform masculinity. Interestingly, what Reifman describes is a need to reform friendships between men, but that also has nothing to do with Emma.

Reifman concludes with a weird, where do we go from here sort of thing. He notes he doesn’t blame Emma for her behavior, but when he accidentally bumped into her, she was visibly angry with him. Yes, because Reifman’s behavior left Emma thinking she needed a court order. He says he has empathy for Emma, but that is clearly not true or he wouldn’t have tried to force contact as long as he had.