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.

Nice Guys Rape, and other things we already know

So the second in this week’s series, so this is a thing now? I read this article, and all I could think was no shit. Nice Guys rape, and we’re going to talk about it. Now, many of you know how much I detest the phrase “Nice Guy.” Jezebel did a little post on dating Nice Guys this week, and this is the best part:

When using the phrase 'Nice Guys' with a capital NG, I don't mean a man who happens to be a genuinely kind person. Hooray for kind, caring, conscientious people! I mean the sort of Guy who has declared himself to be Nice, and thus deserving of positive (usually sexual) attention from the female of his choice, upon whom he has often projected an elaborate fantasy of perfection and willingness that rarely has anything to do with the subject's actual feelings or desires. When a Nice Guy is romantically rejected by a woman he wants, he lashes out at her, wondering why that dumb cunt won't go out with him. After all, he has been Nice!

Yeah, wrap your mind around that, but of course we’ve known this for years. When I was a sophomore in college there was a post going around from College Humor about the Nice Guys and how hard it is to be them. But this post isn’t actually about them. Though I did look up a few months ago the response I wrote to that…epic, and my voice mimics the original, which was cool for baby me.

So the article, Nice Guys Rape too, by Alyssa Royse and posted on the Good Men Project pretty much breaks down that some men commit rape and do not realize it. This was also a discussion on the Reddit thread a few months ago. I find this so interesting because a) duh and b) it borders on rape apology and holding rapists accountable. Royse is a sexual assault advocate, and after speaking at a Take Back the Night Rally she received a call from her male friend who said he was accused of rape. After a few awkward “am I really asking you this” minutes it was decided: he raped this girl. He penetrated her while she was passed out without her consent. He inferred consent, and he felt he had a right to her body.

Now, Royse takes on the term date rape as a way to make some rape sound less bad. But everyone reading this blog knows all rape regardless of what you call it is bad. Royse spends a lot of time talking about the mixed signals being sent and being received. She draws the conclusion that a lack of discussions about sexuality are the cause of this noting that it doesn’t absolve her  friend of committing a rape, but contextualizes it. Also, the lack of communication and miscommunication contributed to the rape. I disagree with this. People have the right not to be raped regardless of their actions. A lack of ‘no’ doesn’t mean ‘yes.’ But here is what Royse says:

The problem is that no one is taking responsibility for the mixed messages about sex and sexuality in which we are stewing. And no one is taking responsibility for teaching people how the messages we are sending are often being misunderstood.

However, the lack of communication is a problem, and that needs to be addressed. One of the more frustrating things about this article were the comments, because the Internet is where goodness goes to die. Now all of them weren’t bad, but there is a general lack of understanding of how rape works and rape apologizing going on.

But this is a really hard conversation to have, right? Asking someone if they have been sexually assaulted is hard enough, but asking a friend, ‘hey, did you victimize someone?’ is really bad. Because if the answer is yes, then they are the bad guy, and no one wants to be the bad guy. The post talks about what happened with the friend and the girl he raped. The girl writes Royse off for presumably taking his side, though that isn’t what she did. And the friend leaves town, but even afterwards, when someone would bring him up there was always the ‘oh, yeah’ whisper, whisper, whisper.

I believe we have to have these conversations. Some men commit rape and feel remorse and some don’t. But we have to engage in these conversations in order to understand how these things happen. How does a good guy rape someone? How does he ever know he’s done something wrong if we never say it?

Sometimes I deeply regret my awareness of language. I’ve never been one to use the term rape or any term with connotations like it lightly. To be raped is to be a victim/survivor, but it also makes someone a rapist. Language is powerful, which is why we need to employ it to get past situations like this one.