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.
