theworldofdale

Posts Tagged ‘women’

the battle of the sexes

In Communication, News and Politics, Relationships, Science on April 28, 2011 at 9:32 pm

In the battle of the sexes, men are the superpower. They are the United States, or the USSR, or China. They have the resources. They have the inherent advantages of size and strength and speed. They get to go around doing pretty much whatever they want without regard to the collateral damage.

Women are Afghanistan. We seem like we’re weak. We seem to lack resources. We seem like we can’t fend for ourselves and we’re kind of bat-shit crazy. Everyone wants to take care of us. We are, in short, a mess.

But we can’t be beaten. Even Alexander the Great, who suppressed enough of his sexual urges to take over half the planet, still couldn’t conquer Afganistan. Do you think if he had a Josephine he wouldn’t have ended up with a Waterloo? Give me a break. Men have power, but the real super power belongs to women. And it’s in our pants.

My favorite comedian, Louis CK, has said that the most amazing thing about women is that we can decide to not have sex. Right in the middle, we can just decide not to do it anymore, and we can stop. Men don’t have this luxury, and therefore are required to do our bidding once the plateau has been crossed. I have no problem when a man thinks of me as a sex object. While he is thinking with his dick, I’m thinking with my brain and all of a sudden, he’s helping me move that weekend. There is a power in sexuality and to pretend there isn’t is as much a feminist manifesto as making sandwiches in the nude.

Men are awesome, women are awesome. Relationships are awesome. Love is a beautiful, genius thing. But like many things of beauty and genius, it’s fucking crazy.

Advertisements

putting the period in periodical

In Communication, Health and Wellness, News and Politics, Relationships, Technology on February 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm

I have subscriptions to a lot of magazines. Like, 8. And that doesn’t include the 2 subscriptions I share with my mom, or the free subscription I have to Martha Stewart Living. Granted, I’m pretty good at getting deals on them- I pay about $5/year for 26 issues of ESPN Magazine. But still. For an environmentally-sensitive person like myself, it’s a bit extreme, but I can’t help it. I love magazines.

My periodical collection runs the gamut from girly (Cosmopolitan and Lucky) to issues that appeal to my more masculine sensibilities (Esquire). To illustrate what a frat boy I can be, I used to also subscribe to FHM and Maxim. I even had a letter to the editor published in FHM (PS – I got paid $50 for it!). Granted, they thought I was a dude (if they knew I was a chick, I would have only gotten $38.50).

There has always seemed to be something a bit off about women’s magazines- something that bugged me, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was. Finally, when I was trying to come up with details about what I would do differently (besides just create a female’s version of Esquire), I realized that every magazine whose target demographic was female was comprised only of advice on how to overcome our innate deficiencies- of character, ability, worth, and beauty. As far as Glamour, Cosmo, and Marie Claire are concerned, there isn’t anything wrong with you that a 6-week exercise regimen, new beauty product, and personality transplant can’t fix. Cosmo gives explicit directions on how to shake hands with people (make eye contact, grasp firmly, slight smile- those explicit directions are generally repeated in another type of Cosmo feature).

Conversely, men’s magazines treat every man like he is perfectly fine the way he is, but just in case he was wondering how to find good scotch, fine suits, and loose women, they have some suggestions. Esquire does not have quizzes for their readers to determine if they are too much of an attention-seeker. GQ may recommend their readers use moisturizer, but they certainly won’t condemn you if you don’t. It has never occurred to an editor at Details to give step-by-step instructions on how to meet women (then again, I’m not sure Details‘ readers are all that keen on meeting women). Men’s magazines treat each reader as a whole person, who doesn’t need a mate, perfectly groomed eyebrows, or a home that is welcoming to the opposite sex in order to be happy.

Men’s magazines also tend to respect the intelligence of their reader more than their counterparts. There are stories that involved research and investigative journalism and aren’t just about women who are being repressed. Hey, I’m all for stories about repressed women, don’t get me wrong. But women need to read about men who are oppressed. They need to know what their government is doing, and to assume we only care about that affects our uterus is insulting. For the record, my uterus will remain under my jurisdiction no matter what the Republican Party says.

Hearst, Conde Nast, Meredith, ACP, and all you other publishers: Women are smart and capable and just fine the way they are. Give them more credit.  For pete’s sake, even Playboy treats women like they are beautiful creatures instead of works-in-progress.

But if you do find any fat-melting foods, will you let me know?

i’m just a girl

In Communication, Entertainment and Nightlife, Home, Relationships, Sports on January 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm

I am not a girly girl.  There are some aspects to my personality that are decidedly feminine.  I love makeup and fashion.  I watch HGTV all the time.  I still get giggly and play with my hair when I’m flirting with some dude.

But then, I’m a sports fanatic.  I know more about baseball than most men – not just trivia but strategy.  I was 4th overall in points in my fantasy football league this season.  One of the top 3 moments in my life is being on the 18th green when Tiger Woods came back to win the Memorial Tournament in Dublin, Ohio.  My dream job is General Manager of a baseball or football team.  (Mike Brown, did you hear that?). 

I hate chick flicks.  I would rather poke myself in the eye for 90 minutes than watch The Notebook.  If I can sit still long enough to watch a movie, it better have sophomoric humor, car chases, and/or guns.  Pineapple Express, thy name is Trifecta of Awesome. 

I have zero desire to get in touch with my feelings.  In fact, the further I can push them to the back of my brain, the better.  I’m a commitment-phobe to what is probably a disturbing degree.  I have had essentially one boyfriend, and it lasted about 4 months, tops.  My only long-term relationship has been with Verizon Wireless (12 years, going strong!).  While I expect to eventually get married, I imagine it will be more of a “hey, let’s get married.”  “Okay, is the courthouse open?”  And, we’re married.  And maybe I’ll tell people at some point.  But I don’t want a diamond and I don’t want a dress.  A honeymoon would be nice, though.  And I ain’t gonna tell you about that, either.

It’s not easy being such a dude of a girl.  For some reason, guys are not always excited about girls who win arguments about sports.  Girls don’t trust me – I guess they see me as enemy territory.  Like I will lure away their men with my arguments for changing NCAA football to a playoff system.  I don’t dislike girly girls.  I just don’t get them.  I don’t get being mad at a guy who doesn’t like me.  I don’t get caring what someone says about my body.  I don’t get wanting to watch a movie knowing it will make me cry for 6 hours.  I don’t get how a vampire and a brat makes for a fairy tale.  I don’t get giving a shit over Valentine’s Day.

But still.  I enjoy being a girl.

don’t hate the player; hate the game

In Communication, Entertainment and Nightlife, Food and Spirits, Health and Wellness, Relationships, Technology on December 2, 2010 at 12:06 am

Men get a lot of flack for treating women like objects.  Which they do.  But women treat men like objects too.  Just not a sexual object.  Honestly, we have to keep our minds OFF of you if we want to have sex.  You’re a hairy ape, okay?  But I digress.

Women treat men more like game pieces.  To women, every man is just a game of Jenga, where we push and pull and see what comes loose until you’re completely destroyed.

Louis CK first brought this to my attention where he pointed out that men are always destroying things.  Whether it’s a toddler knocking over someone’s Legos or grown men at war, men think anything less than annihilation is acceptable.

Women, while still set on creating havoc, have a different method and target.  Women, and I am including myself in this statement, crush men’s souls by nature.  As prone as a man is to spread his seed amongst the womenfolk, women are set to trap one of those men and make him ours.  We have to make you fall in love with us on the off chance we need protection.  You are our bodyguards, and we are Britney Spears.  You are the Secret Service, and we are the president.  Woman = baby-maker, man = guard dog.  It’s elemental, but I don’t think men or women realize it.

I don’t think it’s out of malice that women are destroying men’s souls.  Just like men aren’t thinking of women as sexual objects not because they don’t have respect for them, but because sex is their favorite thing.  Women need to be loved, and if you can’t do it on your own, we’ll help you.

I’m not saying women are bad for destroying souls or men are bad for wanting to fuck everything.  But I don’t get so worked up about relationships when I remind myself of this fact.