Dear Wendy
Dear Wendy

Friday Links

Here are a few things from around the web that may interest you:

canstockphoto17166964

Why Men Paying For Dates Isn’t A Money Issue [via Creative Money]

Anne Lamot, beloved author of Bird by Bird and other great reads (I loved Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year when I was pregnant with Jackson), has a new book out coming out next week called Small Victories: Spotting Improbable Moments of Grace. Here’s an interview with her on Salon, where she talks about “about messed-up attitudes about grief, mid-term elections, and the joys of 60.” [via Salon]

“NYC Marathon: ‘A Race He Would Have Loved’: For 26.2 miles of the NYC Marathon, she carried with her the remains of the man she planned to marry.” [via Zelle]

Real love amounts to withholding the truth, even when you’re offered the perfect opportunity to hurt someone’s feelings. — David Sedaris “11 David Sedaris Quotes That Will Change Your Life” [via IFC]

An essay about living in foster care, being rejected, and the case of the Ohio woman suing the sperm bank who sold her sperm that produced a biracial baby: “To Be Made Whole.” Beautifully written and worth reading. [via Manifest-Station]

I love solitude so much. “The Luxury Of Solitude” [via NPR]

Pretty sure this will be a familiar issue to some. “Jian Ghomeshi and the problem of narcissistic male rage” [via The Star]

I believe marijuana should be legalized and taxed nation-wide. The tax revenue, not to mention the money saved from trying and imprisoning marijuana-related crimes, could do a lot of good. We’re getting there, slowly (too slowly), but surely: “Oregon, Washington, D.C. legalize marijuana” [via CNN]

“Contemplating Brittany Maynard’s Final Choice” [via NPR]

Thank you to those who submitted links for me to include. If you see something around the web you think DW readers would appreciate, please send me a link to wendy@dearwendy.com and if it’s a fit, I’ll include it in Friday’s round-up. Thanks!

Follow along on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

15 comments… add one
  • Fabelle

    Fabelle November 7, 2014, 3:11 pm

    “A bunch of shitty justifications for clinging to my outdated ideals about dating” -working title for the first link GOOD GOD THAT WAS AWFUL IN SO MANY WAYS

    Reply Link
    • Miel

      Miel November 7, 2014, 4:01 pm

      You can just take all of her arguments and spin them the other way:
      .
      -Signals respect and values : When a partner is interested in the other partner, it’s normal to pay for the meal as a recognition that they view the other person as special. This is why partners should alternate inviting each other so they are both demonstrating their interest. One partner paying more often than the other would demonstrate that one partner is clearly less interested about the relationship.
      .
      -Prevents men from overgiving: For the first 20 years of my life my dad took the tab in every restaurant outing that I had, and when I would be out with friend we would pay our own separate tab. It is time that I make a clear distinction between my dad, my friends and my boyfriend, so for once I will invite someone to the restaurant as a sign of my love for them.
      -Reassure men that they don’t need to be the Boss 24/7: Since I enjoy having a partner that feels like my equal, we both make decisions about our daily lives and our outings, and we both enjoy having some time where we don’t need to be “on”. That’s why we both invite each other on dates, and alternate picking the tab.
      .
      -Makes women feel like decent human being: The energy of decent human beings is attractive and can make a date better than it was without it. When a human can sit back and enjoy its time with another human, they can both relax, have fun, and alternate in picking up the tab, since they are both equally decent humans.
      .
      Come on, those arguments were weak…

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 8, 2014, 7:13 pm

        Not to mention that she totally proved the point of the author that she was disagreeing with. The author said that women are pushing back harder than men against this, and that in this particular case, women are reinforcing the traditional gender role. She didn’t like that, so she wrote an entire article attempting to reinforce the traditional gender role. Way to go.

        Link
      • avatar

        SpaceySteph November 10, 2014, 4:00 pm

        “Makes women feel feminine”
        How do you write that sentence and also “does not emphasize traditional gender roles” in the same post? The idea that there is a specific thing that makes you feel feminine or a specific feeling defined as feminine… that endorses gender roles.

        You know what the definition of feminine is, according to google: “having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness.”
        If having a man buy you dinner makes you feel delicate and pretty then, newsflash, you are supporting traditional gender roles.

        This whole article makes me feel gross. When I was dating, I would always offer to pay on the first date. (At this point it wasn’t really a test– and it wouldn’t affect whether there was a date 2.) If he paid on the first date (which happened every time, I’m pretty sure) I would insist on paying on date 2. At this point it was a test– either you see me as an equal or you see me as the little woman. I actually dumped a guy once because he never let me pay. I knew my husband was a keeper when he let me pay on date 2. While dating we didn’t keep exact score, but it was very “You got dinner, I’ll get the movie and popcorn” or “you paid last time” and we’d try our best to alternate.
        Now that we’re married, we consider it all our money, so it doesn’t matter who pulls out their credit card. In fact, because we’ve been slow to combine finances and we live in the house which was mine before we married, I pay most of the house expenses from my bank account where my paycheck goes, and we use a credit card tied to his account for most other purchases, so it comes out roughly equal.

        Link
    • mylaray

      mylaray November 7, 2014, 4:06 pm

      Oy, and all the comments reaffirming the article made me cringe.

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      scattol November 9, 2014, 9:55 am

      That’s right. I was expecting copper pots to appear in there somewhere!

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    Vathena November 7, 2014, 3:42 pm

    The Jian Ghomeshi link – this guy is kidding, right? I’m just…what? What?! Men are assholes because their mommies didn’t mommy them properly? What?!

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      Taylor November 7, 2014, 4:53 pm

      Ok, good, I’m not the only one. I actually logged in to ask someone to explain this to me:
      “The rage against women is rooted in what the late feminist scholar Dorothy Dinnerstein identified as the “female monopoly of early child care,” where an isolated woman is seen by the child as the sole source of nourishment, physical soothing, and emotional support. In a mobile and economically unstable society, it falls upon an individual female to become the entire world for the child. The male child, finding his needs frustrated, develops rage. As the brilliant Canadian psychologist Gordon Neufeld points out, “frustration is the engine of aggression.” Rage against the mother later becomes generalized into rage against women.”

      Is this a thing that has been shown? I hadn’t heard it before, and kinda went whaaaaaaa?

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 8, 2014, 4:09 pm

        I would imagine it’s just a theory. I’ve never heard it before either. And the whole article is crap anyway, because he claims that having parents who are “not present” makes the child narcissistic and stops them from developing properly. So I guess we’re just going to ignore the fact that for the vast majority of human history, parenting has been pretty catch-as-catch-can. The majority of humans, ever, have had to work really hard to survive. They didn’t sit around for hours on end gazing upon their children, the way we’re expected to now. That only came around recently. Even our grandparents didn’t do it. My mom tells me how my grandma would just stick them in the playpen with a few toys, and she’d do her chores. Housework was a full-day job back then, you couldn’t just sit and play with the kids.

        Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 8, 2014, 4:17 pm

        And the rage against women is just an effect of being disenfranchised. The angry men are the ones who keep hearing about “male privilege”, and they look around and see that they’re not privileged, so they get upset. They don’t understand what the term means, and they don’t see the privileges that they have as privileges, because they don’t have anything to compare it to. If you can walk down a street at night without being afraid of being raped, you don’t think “wow, I’m privileged to not be afraid”. If you can send out a resume and be more likely to get a job because there’s a male name on it, you don’t think “oh I’m so privileged, I’m not going to be judged on my gender”. So there are all these invisible privileges that they don’t even realize they have, but their lives are crap, so they get angry when people tell them they’re privileged.

        Also, it’s typical behaviour that if you’re pretty low on the totem pole, but there’s a group lower than you, you want to keep them there. Otherwise you’re the lowest. It used to be that no matter how shitty a man’s job, or how awful his life, he could go home and have someone that he has power over. And, if he’s a violent kind of person, he’s got someone to kick around and punish. When that’s no longer the case, and “society” tries to put that person at the same level as you, people will push back.

        Link
      • Portia

        Portia November 8, 2014, 5:06 pm

        Well, that’s kind of frightening… And very true, but looking at domestic violence like that, oh boy.
        .
        But yeah, I agree that when people who others called “privileged” hear that, they get mad because they don’t see the invisible privileges. There’s been a couple of good articles I’ve recommended over the last few years to anyone who says they’re not privileged, as they’re written by exactly that type of person who’s “seen the light,” for lack of a better phrase. Because it seems to me that really going through that process lets you see why you have this leg up, even if it doesn’t feel like it.

        Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 8, 2014, 6:52 pm

        Do you have links to any of them? I’d be interested in reading them.

        Link
      • Portia

        Portia November 8, 2014, 11:39 pm

        Sure! I think one (or two) of these have appeared on here, but can’t remember. Anyway, they’re mostly first person narratives about how people accidentally confronted privilege. My favorite is by the guy with the name “Kim.”
        .
        http://whatwouldkingleonidasdo.tumblr.com/post/54989171152/how-i-discovered-gender-discrimination
        .
        http://jezebel.com/man-poses-as-woman-on-online-dating-site-barely-lasts-1500707724
        .
        http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/programmer_privilege_as_an_asian_male_computer_science_major_everyone_gave.html

        Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 9, 2014, 12:23 pm

        Thanks!

        Link
      • avatar

        RedroverRedrover November 9, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Ugh, don’t read the comments on the third one. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to leave the internet.

        Link

Leave a Comment