Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Opinion – stop letting men get away with silence

The belief that another person will complete us means that many people are settling for the bare minimum in relationships, rather than taking the time to get to know themselves as an individual. For modern dating to work, we need to recognise the importance of reciprocal communication between partners and an equal distribution of all kinds of labour.

Before the evolution of the internet and international travel meant that you could fall in love with someone from the other side of the world, it wasn’t uncommon for people to end up marrying someone living locally, or maybe the next town over if they were feeling adventurous.

We see this in the charming familiarity of the boy/girl-next-door trope, romanticised by Taylor Swift and in films like The Notebook.

The other, not-so fairy-tale-esque, notion that this evinces, however, is the expectation that you’ll settle – that you’ll put up with less-than attractive qualities to avoid being alone or because you don’t want to endeavour to find someone else to build a life with.

@thepsychopomp Never Forget It. 🧩 #jigsawstory #thetruthhurtssometimes #neversettleforless #danielsloss ♬ JIGSAW – Yung Pager

Fitting the boy/girl-next-door into your jigsaw

As comedian Daniel Sloss posits in the Jigsaw Analogy, everyone’s life is like their own personal jigsaw but we’ve each lost the box, so we’re all just confidently guessing what it’s supposed to look like.

The border is made up of your family and friends, then you squeeze in a job somewhere and some time for yourself.

The final middle piece is reserved for a partner, who comes out of nowhere and makes you feel whole.

The obvious issue with this is that it promotes the belief that ‘if we’re not with someone, we’re incomplete.’ This is repeatedly pushed onto us by our relationship-orientated society, in which divorce is largely taboo and being single is ‘wrong.’

As a result, in our desperation to finish the puzzle, we cram in a partner-piece that doesn’t quite fit, simply to have that space filled and so we don’t have to accept that we shouldn’t have to change who we are to find love and that they too have a deep and complex jigsaw to piece together.

‘My generation has become so obsessed with starting the rest of their lives that they are willing to give up the one they’re living,’ says Sloss. ‘We have romanticised the idea of romance and it is cancerous. People are more in love with the idea of love than the person that they’re with.’

Given the ‘high-school sweetheart’ cliche didn’t materialise out of thin air, this does sometimes work out great for people in terms of their romantic attachments.

But as Sloss adds, ‘it’s not impossible to find love,’ just that with 90% of relationships that begin under age 30 breaking up, ‘you have not.’

@julieandcorey the confusion 🤣🤣 #trend #prank ♬ original sound – Julie B & Corey

The bare minimum

Maybe they don’t hit you. Maybe you’re ‘allowed’ to spend time with your friends. Maybe they help you co-parent. Maybe they don’t leave all the housework up to you. Maybe they even organise a date-night once in a while or finally take the reins and plan the holiday your both going on.

But how many older couples do you know who are still completely enamoured with one another?

Who’s found their ‘person’ and whose relationship continues encouraging them to grow, to have new experiences and build a life with the person they loved when they were 16?

The likelihood is that you’ve spoken to people who’ve answered ‘yeah, but they argue all the time’ when asked if their parents are still together or perhaps, like me, you’re a child of divorce.

It’s almost as though the imposition of an inherently patriarchal (and eternally-intended) institution onto the connection between human beings who are perpetually growing and changing is fundamentally flawed.

@cordelia.spresser #fyp #boyfriends ♬ i love you all – ☦︎

The infamous man-child

If you’ve embarked on your own romantic escapades, it’s possible that you’ve experienced having to mother a man-child who genuinely believes he’s contributing as much to the relationship as you are.

For example, you’ve excused his silence in social situations as him being ‘quiet around new people – but not me,’ even when those ‘new people’ are your family, and you always make an effort with his.

With this in mind, it’s baffling that men are rolling out content ‘advising’ women on how they should behave if they want to be girlfriend material or what men should be looking for in a woman (news flash: it’s someone to serve them).

And as feminists have been doing for years in the face of sexist gender expectations, women have responded to this by explaining what they actually want.

Some of the reasons why we, as women, ‘still want to bone’ our boyfriends, husbands, or partners are so bare-minimum that they have me rolling my eyes, however. These include not ‘trashing the house while you were away’ or that they ‘let you yap.’

This gender-specification poses a paradox.

By casting women either as men’s keepers or infantilising them as toddlers who spout nonsense that men are telling each other to zone out of, their vital contributions to discourse is made impossible.

Instead, women are silenced either as mothers of developmentally stunted sons, or as children of negligent paternal figures.

What’s more, many men are missing the opportunity for their own social and emotional development by seeing their partners’ ability to communicate as a detriment, rather than something that they could bring to their own friendships.

Who knows, it may even teach them that they need to ask questions as opposed to monologuing for hours straight on a date, believing that whatever they have to say is more relevant than the thoughts of the person sat across from them.

Why do we tell ourselves as women – ever the eternal optimists – that this is enough?!

That men’s silence is them giving us a chance to talk about our day, not a failure on their part to truly engage or reciprocate the emotional labour we put in for them because they never get deep?

Yet again, we’re back to women’s martyrdom in the face of the male loneliness epidemic.

Truly, the standard is on the floor.

@daniellewalter_ the before & after #datingstorytime #datingadvice ♬ original sound – Danielle Walter

‘Being single is not what sucks, dating is’

It goes without saying that I’m not speaking for all relationships here, but the idea that women enjoy going on dates not because of a man but because they are good conversationalists, able to provide entertainment and humour, as well as a level of emotional reception and reciprocity, isn’t new.

In fact, it’s been gaining traction on social media recently, with women expressing their realisation that the best part about their date was, in fact, themselves.

This echoes the sentiment expressed by many that the issue with not being in a relationship isn’t being single – which a lot of people find to be incredibly peaceful and rewarding – but having to date.

Especially if their sexuality has condemned them to heterosexuality.

So, what’s the solution?

As ever, better social education to teach everyone that until we learn to genuinely listen to each other’s needs, and to meet each other on a level of equal compromise, the future of dating is, quite frankly, damned.

Sure, this might be more difficult for men, many of whom are only now experiencing backlash towards being sold an idea of gender superiority if they prioritise provision and capital gain over equal opportunities and emotional engagement.

However, if the trajectory of feminism and women’s emancipation over the last several hundred years is anything to go by in terms of the far vaster opportunities for gender expression, it certainly doesn’t seem like compassion is the thing that’s been hindering women’s opportunities.

The trick then, it seems, is to talk and listen more, to prioritise compassion over capitalism, and to set higher standards both for ourselves and our partners.

That’s if we want to feel truly fulfilled – whether or not we choose to date.

Accessibility