Dictatorial or Democratic Decision-Making in Relationships: The Do-It-Myself Woman

Mom, you may not want to read this one. Dad, you can probably handle it, but prepare yourself.

I recently read two articles in The New York Times having to do with love, dating, and relationships. The first article was titled, "The Demise of Dating" by Charles M. Blow, published on December 13, 2008. The second article was titled, "The Accidental Breadwinner" by Karen Karbo, published on December 14, 2008.

At first glance, the two articles have nothing to do with one another. Two totally different articles dealing with two totally different issues.

"The Demise of Dating" is about the death of dating and the rise of "hooking-up." Blow defines hooking-up "for those over 30 years old" as "a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment," calling it "a one-night stand with someone you know."

His point is simply this: "dating is dated." In other words, he's waggling his finger at youngsters today who value casual sex over relationships. His old model of dating echoes that of the rhyming chide from our childhoods – first comes love, then come marriage (and sex), then comes baby in the baby carriage. The new model of dating, according to Blow, looks more like this: first comes hooking-up, then comes more hooking-up, then comes a relationship, maybe.

In the new model, there is no talk of marriage or babies or baby carriages.

Moving on to article number two, "The Accidental Breadwinner" is more or less a track record of Karbo's significant past relationships – all of which led her to conclude that women "should never marry or mix their money." She discusses four different men and how the role of "breadwinner" affected them all.

Guy #1: Guillaume. A French guy who paid for everything, all the time. Karbo didn't love him, but she was happy. She was happy until Guillaume showed up at her house one night, catching her in grungy sweatpants, and expressed that since they were in a relationship, he thought Karbo "should always look [her] best, as if [she] were a babe-on-call, ready at all hours to be seductive and kittenish." Annnd… next!

Guy #2: James. They lived together "for a ridiculous amount of years" before getting married and having a daughter. Karbo kept making money, furthering her career as a writer while her husband stopped working and started living off her paycheck. They divorced. Annnd… next!

Guy #3: "Cuddle Bum." The more money Karbo made, the less inclined her husband felt to contribute. His idea of staying home as the "househusband" included "pouring a bowl of cereal for each child before school, playing video games for 10 hours, and then grudgingly making dinner at 6:00." This meaningful union ended with Karbo's husband asking for alimony, child support, and the house she has paid for with her hard-earned money. Annnd… next!

Guy #4: Jim. Karbo and Jim have lived together for seven years and never married. Jim pays his own way (including a monthly "rent" to Karbo… it's her house, after all) and Karbo pays her and her daughters own way. Jim always pays for both of them when they go to the movies, including popcorn and candy. She's happy, saying "we laugh a lot, have regular sex, and never call names when we argue."

The moral of Karbo's story? Money always matters more than romance.

At first glance, the two articles have nothing to do with one another. Two totally different articles dealing with two totally different issues.

At second glance, the two articles seem to support the same argument: women are stepping into the dominant, decision-making role in romantic relationships, whether they are getting married or hooking-up. Women are calling the shots, making the decisions, while men scratch their balls and play video games.

Now before you click that "x" in the top right corner of your screen, let me say this: I do not think that all men are ball-scratching video-gamers.

But for the sake of this argument, for the sake of comparing these two articles, it is safe to assume that women fill the dominant, decision-making role in romantic relationships not by choice, but by necessity.

Women are initiating everything from the first date to financial management. They're planning the night on the town, they're dictating the terms of the relationships (or the hook-up), they're initiating communication, and they're bringing in the bacon and balancing the check book.

I'm not necessarily complaining. And I'm definitely not suggesting that women revert to the "apron and cookie pan" role in life. My point is to note that the social norm is changing. Fewer and fewer women, whether or not they want it, don't expect a man to provide for them.

As Karbo says, "Growing up, boys assume they're going to make the money, or at least half the money. Rare is the boy who imagines that marriage will spell a free economic ride and so nurtures his incredible hotness to that end."

And she's right. In fact, I would take it further to say that a male's role in society isn't changing so much – I would say 95% of all men still expect to be the main (or at least a major) breadwinner for their future family. But, the women's role is changing, for sure. Women are preparing for a life of breadwinning and child rearing. Climbing the corporate (or small business) ladder and popping out a few kids along the way and paying for their daycare. Women, all the while, not needing a man, but probably wanting one. Which means, to use Karbo's terms, women still have to "nurture" our "incredible hotness."

So, if women don't like filling the dominant, decision-making role, why don't we just relax and take a back seat? Why don't we let our big, strong men drive? Why don’t we just stop initiating and stop trying to do everything ourselves?

My over simplified response? We've tried that and it didn't work out.

Women do it all themselves because we're tired of relying on a man only to be let down, every time. It's easier for women to just "take care of it" rather than try to get a man to contribute to the situation.

And so, with all of our capabilities, with everything women are expected to manage, with the pressures of being the dominant, decision-maker in every other part of our life, why would we not assume the dominant, decision-making role in our romantic relationships?

However, action rarely avoids some type of consequence. The consequence of women becoming more active is that men are happily retiring into passivity.

Let's go back to Blow. He says, "Under the new model [of dating], you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date." This, according to Blow and his sources, "removes the negative stigma from those who can't get a date… now, you just hang out with your friends and hope that something happens."

I'm sorry… hope? Hope that something happens?

I can hear the guys now, "Wow, I was hoping for a while that we could hook-up. I knew you would come around if I just sat on my ass and played video games long enough."

And I guess you could make the argument that women are only encouraging passive behavior by approaching men and initiating the "hooking-up." But really, as one of my co-workers recently said over a candid lunch, "mama's got needs."

"Hooking-up," as Blow defines it, is one way women can take charge of the lack of male initiative and "get off" the dreaded so-we've-been-on-three-dates-and-I'm-really-not-that-into-you train. The hook up, Mr. Blow, allows women to avoid wasting three perfectly good Friday nights and just getting to the point… or the spot. However you like to look at it.

Do women want to be wined and dined? Of course! Do we want to matter to someone? Definitely! Do women have high standards for the men we want to be in a relationship with? Yes.

And that, my friends, is why women hook-up. Very few men are willing to wine and dine. Very few men make us a priority. Very few men meet our standards. So we can waste our time dating men we don't want to hook-up with, or we can hook-up with men that don't date.

Let me put it more bluntly: women want to date the guys they hook-up with, but we don't want to hook-up with the men we date.

It's a problem.

So what are our options? What is a take-charge woman supposed to do in the romantic arena?

In "The Accidental Breadwinner," Karbo tells a rather disturbing story of a woman who married, took a temporary leave from work (which later turned into a permanent leave from work), attended yoga classes, walked her dogs, and found out that her doctor-husband was having an affair with a nurse.

Did this woman leave her husband? No. She didn’t think she could get a job that "would pay enough." Karbo makes one extremely important clarification about this woman: "enough," in this case, referred to the amount of money this woman needed to continue living the way she had become accustomed to.

This woman is still married to her husband, and I’m guessing, still tolerating the little nurse on the side.

So, I guess that is one alternative to being the dominant, decision-making person in a romantic relationship… roll over and make room in your bed for a nurse.

From what I've seen in my short 23 years, women approach the relationship dilemma one of three ways:

1. They roll over and make room for the nurse. In other words, they settle. Women lower standards and expect less. If a guy says he just wants to have sex and he's really not interested in a relationship, the women will shrug her shoulders, bend over, and say, "well, at least I'll feel wanted for a few minutes… that's better than not feeling wanted at all." But the problem is that most of the women that choose this scenario seem surprised and tragically hurt when "their man" moves on to someone younger, hotter, better… whatever the reason. So these women really don't loose the expectations… they hide the expectations. These women curb their expectations and then bring them out later, damning "their man" to hell and calling him a prick because he did exactly what he said he was going to do.

2. They disengage. This role is a defense mechanism, in my opinion. The disengagement scenario involves a woman who closes herself off from any and all possibilities of being happy with a man. She doesn't date (and when she does she finds something wrong with every single guy… down to the type of drink he orders at the bar). She doesn't hook-up. She is sort of this asexual being who walks around not really wanting a man, not really missing a man. The woman in this scenario exists in her own risk-free world, a world that doesn't involve a man that can hurt her or make her happy.

3. They wait. The woman in this scenario waits, not with baited breath, not with an air of urgency, but rather she waits with the hope that yes, there is a decent guy out there for me, and no, I'm not willing to settle or sacrifice my innate needs. This woman will take a chance, she'll date, she'll make some bad decisions and some good decisions, and she'll try to figure out just exactly what it is she wants out of a relationship. This woman also lives in constant fear that she will wind up alone at 39, childless, with no prospects.

And I guess there is a fourth option. I guess the fourth option is being happily married, at a relatively young age, to a man that respects and loves you.

And I know this can happen. My sister found it. Sophie has found it and will be a happily married woman on September 19. Anthony and Jess found each other and prove to be one of the best examples of a "healthy marriage" I have in my life – a marriage of mutual respect and love and sacrifice.

But again, in my short 23 years, I have to say that it's become quite obvious that the odds are not in my favor. The odds are not in favor of my single, beautiful, fabulous twenty-something friends. As we further our careers, move into bigger, well furnished apartments, and continue into our single, independent lives, we get better and better at being alone.

And therefore, being good at being alone now makes it easy to think that we will still be good at being alone ten years from now.

So I guess I'll take option four – the happy marriage. But then I can't help but go back to Karbo's article… she's been married twice, both failed, and now she is happily living with a man she never intends to marry. She is, on the most basic level, alone. Raising her daughter, alone. Managing her money, alone. Furthering her career, alone. I would bet that, even though she's been with this man for seven years, the fear of ending up alone isn't gone… it's merely muted.

So what? What is my point? And if you're still reading, you get three gold stars.

I would say that, by and large, women do not want to fill the dominant, decision-making role in romantic relationships. We're not looking to be a dictator – we want to exist in a peaceful democracy. We want a partner. We want a man that cares more about investing in a relationship than investing in video games. We want someone that will stand by us, stand up for us, and at times, stand behind us holding our weight.

I, for one, do not want love and then marriage and then baby in the baby carriage. Right now, I want you to take me out to dinner and make me feel special. Love and marriage? Maybe I'll think about that later. Maybe. Just be your own person. Be independent and respect my independence. Is that too much to ask?

And the hooking-up? Come on. Women are finally getting "ours" after so many years of society suppressing a woman's sexuality. Plus, let's face it. I'm as young and beautiful as I'll ever be. Why waste it?

Who wouldn't love a little Gingerbread?

So just in case you need a pick-me-up today... or just in case you are wishing it was already Friday at 12:42 on Monday afternoon... or just in case you love dogs half as much as I do...

Meet Gingerbread.

Tits the way it is

Men, if you glance at a woman's boobs while you're in the middle of a conversation with her, she will notice.

Sometimes I think men believe they have super powers. As boys, they obviously idolized Superman, Spiderman, and many other comic heroes I can't name off the top of my head. They may not be able to fly like Superman, or kiss a woman upside down like Spiderman, but damn it, they do have the REM power down.

Rapid Eye Movement.

And I'm not talking about the REM cycle of sleep.

I'm talking about grown-ass men, putting on an imaginary cape and black mask, thinking they can get away with checking out a woman's tits if they just glance down quick enough.

Rapid Eye Movement. Apparently, women cannot detect this super power. Apparently, women don't notice when eye-contact breaks, the eyes drop to the bust line, and within a mili-second return to the aforementioned eye-contact. Do I notice you greedily glancing at my boobs? No... of course not... your eye movement is much to rapid, you big, strong man. Let me just sit here and giggle with my manicured, acrylic nails in front of my mouth, batting my eyes. My goodness! Don't you have an enormous...

bicep.

The funny thing is that it happens EVERYWHERE. And it's not because I have my breasts on display like candy on a shelf. I could be wearing a turtle-neck... an over-sized sweater... a colored shirt... or a deep-v. I think boobs are boobs to men, whether they're covered up in a baggy sweatshirt or displayed in a bra.

The other day at work, I was having a conversation with one of our partners regarding a potential client. This man is known for liking the "young ones" and thinking his face is better looking than the Porshe Cayenne he drives.

"Oh hi, Meguire (REM). Did you happen to call (REM) that client to follow up with (REM) that proposal we sent (REM) over last week? We'd really like to get them... they'd be a great (REM) client."

Part of me wants to drop my left shoulder so that it's parallel to my hip and say, "Hi. This is what my eyes look like. They're brown. See?"

But if I did that, he'd probably just check out my ass as I bent over.

It's pretty funny. Because I don't even know if he's aware that he's doing it... but I certainly am.

Maybe I should glance down at his crotch every few seconds and see if he notices? When confronted about it, I'll just say, "Oh my gosh! Really? I had nooo idea I was looking at your penis every few seconds during conversation?! HA! Isn't that weird?"