I just had a nice dinner with my friend JR, also a blogger, and we discussed some frustration with the whole blogging model. We both want to write in an exploratory fashion in our blogs in order to find whatever "hook" that we would need to make it a good "blog." So JR has resisted rude calls to change her blog, and I will resist my internal urge to force another experiment - not that I'm giving up on my six months of Rulebreaker's Rules entirely, just that I have not yet done enough self-observation and exploration to launch into that kind of policymaking exercise.
So my blog is currently in limbo, uncertainty, without such a major defined purpose. Such disorder usually makes me uncomfortable, but I need to learn to live in the gray.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
OK, I finally read the damn thing
Pressing pause on the whole "what is this alleged new six months supposed to be about" dilemma for a moment to tie up some loose ends from my original six months.
Sick of having my arguments against "He's just not that into you" (see, e.g. http://sixmonthsofrules.blogspot.com/search/label/hesjustnotthatintoyou) undermined by having to admit that I never actually read the book, I actually read the book.
I felt more or less about it how I expected to. "Greg" (the self-righteous male author) condescendingly schools us poor hot-but-misguided women how Men are a certain way, brags about his pussy-whipped marriage, and backs up his evidence with shamelessly anecdotal polling of the total douchebags he probably hangs out with. "Liz" (female author) talks about how annoying Greg is, but this ultimately proves a straw man, as it's obvious she's selling it too. And even under the guise of empowerment, the book continuously portrays women as helpless victims by default, always in the role of the dumped and discarded. Not even a mention of the fact that women can be crazy bitches who treat men poorly too? This book makes that seem like a sort of impossibility.
And can I digress for a second about how much I hate the sappy "Hey Gorgeous Woman (that's you!)"? I understand that we should all think of ourselves as attractive, worthy of love, etc., yada yada, but this particular device falls completely flat in this book. I don't want to be told how attractive I am by some smug married dude who has never seen me.
A few decent concepts *are* in there, albeit buried. "Greg" concedes implicitly that "he's just not that into you" is a basic working assumption so that you can move on from guys who, for whatever reason, aren't measuring up. For example:
"He may think he loves you, and maybe he does. But he's really bad at it. And it's exactly the same result as if he was just not that into you."
"He may be really into you, but he's certainly not really compatible with you."
"Mr. I'm Just Not Up For It is exactly the same guy as Mr. I'm Just Not That Into You. One of them may say he can't be with you, but it's still the same result. He isn't going to be with you. Don't let his personal complications confuse you into waiting around for him. He's not able to be really into you. And you deserve better."
So if it's just a mantra, I can dig it - but a less discerning reader might not catch that. I do think it is good to conceptually adjust to the idea of a guy not being that into you. I also think that some women need this mantra more than others. In general, I'm the opposite. I'm more likely to not put up with ANYTHING, and assume that the slightest tiny little thing means someone is just not that into me, throw a fit, threaten to break up, etc. etc. And this book veers a little too far into the realm of "if a guy doesn't do [INSERT ANY WHIM] for you, he's just not that into you." This gives neurotic chicks like me an excuse to go psycho and feel inadequate because no one is fawning over us and casting all of his own needs aside for our every wish. And I - still - think this is a Major Problem with injecting "he's just not that into you" into our culture.
So, maybe "he's just not that into you" just isn't for me - but there was one past relationship that I was constantly reminded of as I read this book. Perhaps only because it's relatively fresh, but I do believe that I diverged from my usual M.O. of "you don't love me because you won't do exactly what I want you to do all the time" to put up with a LOT more from this one guy than I should have. If I had actually allowed myself to believe this man just wasn't that into me - FOR REAL - at any point in the long, tragic path - I could have saved myself some serious pain, anxiety, lost time, pissed-off friends, etc....
Perhaps my favorite line, and the truest: "Your lost self-esteem may take longer to find than a new boyfriend, so prioritize accordingly."
Finally, although I do not buy into some of the generalized presumptions that underlie this book, it has prompted me to notice a few good things in my current relationship that I hadn't noticed previously. Not perfect, but good :) And it is nice to feel true appreciation for a good man who is, at least in some important ways, that into you.
Sick of having my arguments against "He's just not that into you" (see, e.g. http://sixmonthsofrules.blogspot.com/search/label/hesjustnotthatintoyou) undermined by having to admit that I never actually read the book, I actually read the book.
I felt more or less about it how I expected to. "Greg" (the self-righteous male author) condescendingly schools us poor hot-but-misguided women how Men are a certain way, brags about his pussy-whipped marriage, and backs up his evidence with shamelessly anecdotal polling of the total douchebags he probably hangs out with. "Liz" (female author) talks about how annoying Greg is, but this ultimately proves a straw man, as it's obvious she's selling it too. And even under the guise of empowerment, the book continuously portrays women as helpless victims by default, always in the role of the dumped and discarded. Not even a mention of the fact that women can be crazy bitches who treat men poorly too? This book makes that seem like a sort of impossibility.
And can I digress for a second about how much I hate the sappy "Hey Gorgeous Woman (that's you!)"? I understand that we should all think of ourselves as attractive, worthy of love, etc., yada yada, but this particular device falls completely flat in this book. I don't want to be told how attractive I am by some smug married dude who has never seen me.
A few decent concepts *are* in there, albeit buried. "Greg" concedes implicitly that "he's just not that into you" is a basic working assumption so that you can move on from guys who, for whatever reason, aren't measuring up. For example:
"He may think he loves you, and maybe he does. But he's really bad at it. And it's exactly the same result as if he was just not that into you."
"He may be really into you, but he's certainly not really compatible with you."
"Mr. I'm Just Not Up For It is exactly the same guy as Mr. I'm Just Not That Into You. One of them may say he can't be with you, but it's still the same result. He isn't going to be with you. Don't let his personal complications confuse you into waiting around for him. He's not able to be really into you. And you deserve better."
So if it's just a mantra, I can dig it - but a less discerning reader might not catch that. I do think it is good to conceptually adjust to the idea of a guy not being that into you. I also think that some women need this mantra more than others. In general, I'm the opposite. I'm more likely to not put up with ANYTHING, and assume that the slightest tiny little thing means someone is just not that into me, throw a fit, threaten to break up, etc. etc. And this book veers a little too far into the realm of "if a guy doesn't do [INSERT ANY WHIM] for you, he's just not that into you." This gives neurotic chicks like me an excuse to go psycho and feel inadequate because no one is fawning over us and casting all of his own needs aside for our every wish. And I - still - think this is a Major Problem with injecting "he's just not that into you" into our culture.
So, maybe "he's just not that into you" just isn't for me - but there was one past relationship that I was constantly reminded of as I read this book. Perhaps only because it's relatively fresh, but I do believe that I diverged from my usual M.O. of "you don't love me because you won't do exactly what I want you to do all the time" to put up with a LOT more from this one guy than I should have. If I had actually allowed myself to believe this man just wasn't that into me - FOR REAL - at any point in the long, tragic path - I could have saved myself some serious pain, anxiety, lost time, pissed-off friends, etc....
Perhaps my favorite line, and the truest: "Your lost self-esteem may take longer to find than a new boyfriend, so prioritize accordingly."
Finally, although I do not buy into some of the generalized presumptions that underlie this book, it has prompted me to notice a few good things in my current relationship that I hadn't noticed previously. Not perfect, but good :) And it is nice to feel true appreciation for a good man who is, at least in some important ways, that into you.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Rule brainstorming
OK, I tried writing two Rulemaking posts and seem to have hit a bit of a wall. What is the point of this? My Rules blogging experiment seemed so easy to apply - this just seems like silliness at best.
Why make rules I know I'm only going to break? This was sort of the spinoff idea I suppose, based on my original Rules thing - those Rules already existed, I knew I would suck at them but tried them anyway. Here it seems like so far I'm making up principles with no rhyme or reason that are loosely based on challenges I've experienced. To me that sort of seems basically like "okay, I'm bitter - here's all the shit I did wrong - DON'T DO IT AGAIN." That seems neither healthy nor conducive to future self-confidence.
On the other hand, if I make rules that are more descriptive, that is, Rules I actually manage NOT to break (example: make your bed every day), do I really need to write about that? I mean sure, if I thought other people could be somehow assisted by that, but by and large I still consider myself a mess, so I don't think people should really be modeling their lives after mine.
Also I think my numbering placement scheme based on gematria is tarded ("tarded" is a quote from the movie "Idiocracy," which is why I don't consider its use here offensive).
So I think I'll brainstorm a little on what I want to have rules FOR, and how I want to figure out applying them, before I spend too much time on the ruleMAKING. I also think I'll do a little Rules reading again, because I really do aim to tie the original Fein and Schneider Rules into this - the Rules *did* help me, they were an important lily pad on my way across the pond, and now I'd like to find a way to incorporate the "real" Rules in addition to setting my own.
some brainstorming that may not make any sense to readers....
-respond, not react
-taking space
-moodiness
-creating drama
-exercise/taking care of self
-getting outside head
-focusing
-overpurchasing
-balancing friendships
-calm leadership
-forgiveness/letting go
-clutter
-obsessions
Why make rules I know I'm only going to break? This was sort of the spinoff idea I suppose, based on my original Rules thing - those Rules already existed, I knew I would suck at them but tried them anyway. Here it seems like so far I'm making up principles with no rhyme or reason that are loosely based on challenges I've experienced. To me that sort of seems basically like "okay, I'm bitter - here's all the shit I did wrong - DON'T DO IT AGAIN." That seems neither healthy nor conducive to future self-confidence.
On the other hand, if I make rules that are more descriptive, that is, Rules I actually manage NOT to break (example: make your bed every day), do I really need to write about that? I mean sure, if I thought other people could be somehow assisted by that, but by and large I still consider myself a mess, so I don't think people should really be modeling their lives after mine.
Also I think my numbering placement scheme based on gematria is tarded ("tarded" is a quote from the movie "Idiocracy," which is why I don't consider its use here offensive).
So I think I'll brainstorm a little on what I want to have rules FOR, and how I want to figure out applying them, before I spend too much time on the ruleMAKING. I also think I'll do a little Rules reading again, because I really do aim to tie the original Fein and Schneider Rules into this - the Rules *did* help me, they were an important lily pad on my way across the pond, and now I'd like to find a way to incorporate the "real" Rules in addition to setting my own.
some brainstorming that may not make any sense to readers....
-respond, not react
-taking space
-moodiness
-creating drama
-exercise/taking care of self
-getting outside head
-focusing
-overpurchasing
-balancing friendships
-calm leadership
-forgiveness/letting go
-clutter
-obsessions
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Rule 261: Avoid relapse
An absolutely ridiculous percentage of my relationships end up in what Jerry Seinfeld terms in one episode "the backslide," and describes as follows:
As funny as this Seinfeld episode makes it, the backslide has been a huge problem in my life. The date --> break up --> move on model has been all but completely foreign to me. And I'm not talking about finding myself lightheartedly back in bed with Puddy. My relationships are giant monstrosities of coke machines that pick up momentum as they sway violently back and forth toward fatal impact.
And while on some level "regret" does not jive with my belief system, on another, I do not believe that I gained from my backsliding. In every case, I had enough information at the time of the first breakup. In every case, I still insisted on beating my head against a wall until I had the same conclusion plus a broken skull.
Not that there is anything per se wrong with breaking up and then getting back together. But you see, that is not what I do. I relapse. I get addicted to something - not the person, but something I associate with being with the person - and then I am powerless to make any decisions at all about it. Something takes over me and I fall into it, or let myself be pulled in, or pull him in. This impairs my ability to move on and to be happy in general.
Related rules/concepts:
-not being a drama queen
Challenges
-as I may get deeper into later, mental illness
-figuring out the right combination of heart and head for interacting with a former significant other
Breaking up is like knocking over a coke machine. You can’t do it in one push, you got to rock it back and forth a few times, and then it goes over.
As funny as this Seinfeld episode makes it, the backslide has been a huge problem in my life. The date --> break up --> move on model has been all but completely foreign to me. And I'm not talking about finding myself lightheartedly back in bed with Puddy. My relationships are giant monstrosities of coke machines that pick up momentum as they sway violently back and forth toward fatal impact.
And while on some level "regret" does not jive with my belief system, on another, I do not believe that I gained from my backsliding. In every case, I had enough information at the time of the first breakup. In every case, I still insisted on beating my head against a wall until I had the same conclusion plus a broken skull.
Not that there is anything per se wrong with breaking up and then getting back together. But you see, that is not what I do. I relapse. I get addicted to something - not the person, but something I associate with being with the person - and then I am powerless to make any decisions at all about it. Something takes over me and I fall into it, or let myself be pulled in, or pull him in. This impairs my ability to move on and to be happy in general.
Related rules/concepts:
-not being a drama queen
Challenges
-as I may get deeper into later, mental illness
-figuring out the right combination of heart and head for interacting with a former significant other
Monday, September 5, 2011
Rule 1771: Banish Hollywood-induced doubt
First, some housekeeping. I'm still working the kinks out of this new experiment. I'm supposed to be making my own rules, right? And rules are supposed to have numbers, right? Does that mean I start with #1? I don't think my life experiences are necessarily going to create rules in the order I would like to inscribe them fully. So what I'm doing is numbering my rules by typing a word or phrase into this nifty little gematria calculator: http://www.gematrix.org and using the "Jewish gematria" value. This is a placeholder, then if this set of six months ever turns into something coherent I can always renumber it. Note: I do not know anything about gematria, it just seems as good a way as any to number my Rules.
Alright, with that said...
Tonight I saw "The Adjustment Bureau." It has a thought-provoking concept that I enjoyed, and overall I think I'm glad I saw the movie even though (a) I am relatively confident that this movie and others like it contribute to the loneliness, anxiety, and general discontent of Gen X and younger (b) its ostensible message is among the most dangerous I have ever seen and (c) it reminded me of a movie I thought I really liked (Serendipity), instilling in me a newfound disgust for that film too.
I'm not going to spoil what I find to be the worthwhile parts of the movie, but I do need to give away a few plot elements (including strong insinuation at the ending) to make my point here. Stop reading if you don't want to know. And to reiterate in case you throw up in your mouth after reading this, the underlying concept of the movie is extremely cool and fun to talk about - other than to someone with whom you're in nebulous romantic territory, but that's another story.
Here is the bit of dialogue I think best captures my grievances about the movie:
Now, of course, at the time Not Kate Beckinsale decides not to get married because of Matt Damon, she had spent all of twelve minutes with him?
Not Kate, if you don't want to marry the guy, don't marry him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You might not even know why you don't want to marry him. Fine. *Don't marry him.* But to delude yourself into thinking that the true sources of your doubt is the fantasy you lived out on a city bus and in a men's bathroom (where you were hiding from the authorities for a transgression that is portrayed as adorable and intriguing but in reality would probably come across as deranged) - that's some serious projection.
But the thing is, those transparently-absurd moments romance in mediocre scripts not only inject doubt into the mind of the not-particularly-compelling character - they inject doubt into our minds too. Even if our conscious minds know better. Recognizing this reality disconnect is the first step. Where to go from there? Here are some initial thoughts:
How to banish:
-Watch something that has nothing to do with romance.
-Watch Fiddler on the Roof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
-Think of your favorite down-to-earth happy couple.
Challenges:
-Banishing these negative and unrealistic portrayals while also allowing yourself to be inspired by depictions of love
Related rules/concepts:
-Don't compare yourself to other people's relationships
Alright, there goes my first Rulemaking entry. Stay tuned, and feel free to give thoughts...
Alright, with that said...
Tonight I saw "The Adjustment Bureau." It has a thought-provoking concept that I enjoyed, and overall I think I'm glad I saw the movie even though (a) I am relatively confident that this movie and others like it contribute to the loneliness, anxiety, and general discontent of Gen X and younger (b) its ostensible message is among the most dangerous I have ever seen and (c) it reminded me of a movie I thought I really liked (Serendipity), instilling in me a newfound disgust for that film too.
I'm not going to spoil what I find to be the worthwhile parts of the movie, but I do need to give away a few plot elements (including strong insinuation at the ending) to make my point here. Stop reading if you don't want to know. And to reiterate in case you throw up in your mouth after reading this, the underlying concept of the movie is extremely cool and fun to talk about - other than to someone with whom you're in nebulous romantic territory, but that's another story.
Here is the bit of dialogue I think best captures my grievances about the movie:
Matt Damon: Was it serious?
British actress who is not Kate Beckinsale because that would have been too obvious, but who played a minor role in a couple of other American movies including "Dan in real life": We were engaged.
Matt: So, not really that serious?
[she laughs]
Brit: Right.
Matt: Well, what happened?
Brit: Do you wanna know this?
Matt Damon: Yeah.
Brit: Um...he was a great guy. Brilliant choreographer and dancer and...we had the same group of friends. We'd known each other a long time.
Matt: He sounds great. Why didn't you marry him?
Brit: Because of you. I'm not hopeless romantic. I'd never allow myself to be that way. But once I felt, even for a moment what I felt with you, you ruined me. I didn't want to settle for less.
Matt: I know the feeling.
Brit: Scares the shit out of me.
Matt: I'm not gonna hurt you.
Brit: You don't need to say that.
Matt: I'm not gonna hurt you. This is the first time in...in twenty five years that I don't feel like I'm by myself.
Brit: Ooph! That's an awful lot of responsibility for me. I don't know if I'm quite comfortable with that.
[they both laugh]
Matt: Too late.
Now, of course, at the time Not Kate Beckinsale decides not to get married because of Matt Damon, she had spent all of twelve minutes with him?
Not Kate, if you don't want to marry the guy, don't marry him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You might not even know why you don't want to marry him. Fine. *Don't marry him.* But to delude yourself into thinking that the true sources of your doubt is the fantasy you lived out on a city bus and in a men's bathroom (where you were hiding from the authorities for a transgression that is portrayed as adorable and intriguing but in reality would probably come across as deranged) - that's some serious projection.
But the thing is, those transparently-absurd moments romance in mediocre scripts not only inject doubt into the mind of the not-particularly-compelling character - they inject doubt into our minds too. Even if our conscious minds know better. Recognizing this reality disconnect is the first step. Where to go from there? Here are some initial thoughts:
How to banish:
-Watch something that has nothing to do with romance.
-Watch Fiddler on the Roof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_y9F5St4j0
-Think of your favorite down-to-earth happy couple.
Challenges:
-Banishing these negative and unrealistic portrayals while also allowing yourself to be inspired by depictions of love
Related rules/concepts:
-Don't compare yourself to other people's relationships
Alright, there goes my first Rulemaking entry. Stay tuned, and feel free to give thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)