Ever complained that your guy was too insensitive? Then why did the ‘nice guys’ not turn you on? — Ever complained that your woman was too sexually disinhibited in public? Then why did you always want to nail the ‘sluts?’ …
Good afternoon! This is your Random Truth (RANT) bulletin with your random food for thought. Today’s topic: gender.
You know that persistent story going around about men and women being equal, as in ‘they’re the same,’ as in ‘they ought to do the same things and abide by each other’s rules to the point where it’s not about accepting each other’s wants and needs and standards anymore (a very reasonable expectation, by the way, when applied reasonably) but instead about giving in to, nay, embracing, nay, championing and encouraging every whim and fancy and deep-rooted instinct the other gender has in ways that goes against their nature?’
No?
Watch this clip, where the genders switch roles and attitudes. It’s funny, but you better not laugh, or find anything even remotely amusing in it. If you do, it means that something in that cross-behaving, transvexed video clip is reaching out of the screen and tickling your jibblies, and that means that something is coming across as funny or stupid or silly or hilarious, making you giggle and wiggle inside your brain, and that means only one thing: that you’ve spotted an anomaly.
And that’s code for ‘wrong’ or ‘ew’ or ‘gross’ or ‘lol’ or ‘har-har’ or ‘pffft’ or ‘OMFG!’ which is code for WE’RE NOT THE SAME!
Yep, annoying but true. Life’s a bitch and a bastard at the same time, and no matter how much some ideologues want to turn it into a hermaphrodite mannequin, it won’t happen, there will always be a bitch and a bastard in there, right next to the prince and the princess. The point is to have each side respect the other’s driving instincts.
Here’s how it plays out — rough examples:
Men generally don’t want to talk about their feelings or spend time with their female partners all the time. They’ll compromise if they have to, up to a point, and only up to a point. Deal with it.
Women generally don’t want to have sex all the time. They’ll sacrifice some of their time to put out even if they’re not in the mood, but there’s a limit to their sexual goodwill and understanding. Deal with it.
Men love sex and boinking, and if they can’t get it, they’ll become frustrated and sleep around, or behave like assholes. Deal with it.
Women love quality talk and a good snuggle with their favorite males, and if they can’t get it, they’ll become frustrated and nag all the time, or behave like assholes. Deal with it.
As you can see, both genders have issues with each other that stem from how both parties are unable to represent their needs, to each their own, ending up being owned by the opposite side.
Nailed it!
Having a problem? Find a way to solve the problem by addressing the issues in ways that don’t try to domesticate all males and dominate all females. Domesticate only some males (the domesticating kind) and dominate some females (the dominated kind) and let the water flow and life grow in the way it does. Because life ain’t fair. Life is function, and function is making things work, not fitting it inside slots that make no sense for those involved, just because.
There’s a cartoon going around about how shitty standardized education and aptitude tests are, because they don’t take into account the proclivities of each person involved.
If standardized education is meaningless and dysfunctional to those involved, so are standardized couples dynamics. They render worthless each person’s inklings and nuances, with the exception of those that fit the partial test, and couples — and the people who constitute them — end up climbing the proverbial tree when they could be running their relationships in a million other ways, to each couple’s own, depending on the individuals involved, their given proclivities, and their chemistry.
If you don’t get the analogy, don’t even bother, go back to sleep.
But even if we were to deem people more similar to each other than the above menagerie of animals are to one another, there is still no way to keep perfect equilibrium, nor should one be strived for, because it’s a nonsense concept where gender dynamics are involved.
Let me put in this way. No problem can be solved by both parties compromising by exactly 50% each. Relations are a give and take situation that never adds up, leaving one of the two parties dangling from the shitty side of the seesaw, or, to use more palatable words, adjusting more to the other’s demands.
So prepare for some uneven, unequal settlements.
Who do the scales favor? How do they tilt? It depends on the couple and its given dynamic, on each person’s personality and psyche, on their traits and talents and needs, and how they merge together in a given relationship. A good solution is an adjustment that brings about the greatest aggregate change in ways that makes people in relationships function and achieve things, not a 50-50 solution. A 50-50 solution is just a pile of impressive-sounding crap they sell in books and seminars and movies that are good to watch and talk about and make people feel good about life’s complicated setups, but which in reality are fluffy utopian claims that harm couples as much as the selfish and self-righteous attitudes that created the problems in the first place.
So prepare for some uneven, unequal, functional settlements. Get out of your little house on the prairie world and deal with the genders like you know something about them. Or try and twist everything into a twisted form of sameness and inflict pain on others, and deal with the pain they inflict back, as they justifiably react to your standardized expectations.
LOOKING FORWARD TO MOVIES AND BOOKS AND SEMINARS IN WHICH COUPLES ARE ENCOURAGED TO ADAPT MORE TO THE MAN’S OR THE WOMAN’S NEEDS, DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM BULLDOZE EVERYTHING TO A FLAT PIECE OF BULLCRAP.
From the RANT headquarters, Peace!
PS – Here’s that video. Don’t you dare find it amusing, Equality-Sameness Warriors. You better find it perfectly natural, because when you wish for women to think more like men and men to think more like women, this is what things would look like.
PS 2 – This is not what you want? Then please tell us what’s on your mind. Be sure to explain exactly how your version of gender equality would play out, outlining the validity of your argument. Explain how you simply want men to enable women’s whims and behaviors, and vice versa, a process that is more akin to preferential adaptation and very, very different from the notion of equality — that you only want one of the two genders to change, depending on where you stand, because that’s what it’s all about: a gender power struggle. Or deny it and keep up the charade.