Book Review: "Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man"

I know the book is over a year old, but I finally bought a copy and read it in two evenings.

I'm a huge fan of Steve Harvey's morning show, particularly the Strawberry Letters. So I couldn't wait to read the book, thinking Steve would be just as funny and insightful in the book as he is on his show.

Although some parts of the book made me LOL and he did say a few enlightening things (which I'll discuss later), overall, I was a little underwhelmed and wished I hadn't paid full price for the hardcover book. :-P In ALALTLAM, Steve's goal is to shed light on how men really function and think, what motivates them.

As someone who grew up in post-feminist America, some of what he said seemed a little too traditional-gender-roley for me. Steve is from my parent's generation, who generally courted during the 70's. Women's lives have changed a lot over the past 40 years. He talks a lot about "real men" being providers, basically restating the idea that men are supposed to "take care of" women and their families. As other feminists have pointed out, the idea of "men taking care of women" can lead to misogynism and keeps women in a dependent, vulnerable role. SAHM's are no longer the norm. Moms and dads work now. In many ways, especially in such an uncertain economy, the idea of one parent staying at home and not working (by choice) is frankly dangerous. Steve's statement that most men don't mind being the sole provider might have been true for his generation. However, I wonder how many men my age would be 100% okay with mom staying at home full time while he works.

However, although it's true that women's roles are slowly changing, I think boys today are still raised to believe that they will need to be the "provider" and "protector" of their future family. In my line of work, I constantly see parents, particularly parents of African-American boys, telling their boys to "man up," "stop crying like a little girl." Boys are still being socialized to hold in their feelings (which Steve mentions in his book, though he claims it's wired into men's DNA) and be "men." So when he talks about men not being ready for a long term relationship until they have defined "who they are, what they do, and how much money they make," I think that still holds true. I see it amongst my single male friends in their twenties. I've had male friends who were in long term relationships (relationships without sex, by the way), but didn't marry the girl. I wondered why, and reading Steve's book help me see a possible reason why.

He did have some useful tips too, such as 5 questions every woman should ask a man, particularly before she sleeps with him. He also says women should wait "90 days" before they have sex with a guy, to give enough time to figure out if he's worth being intimate with. I have a couple friends who should definitely take that advice! They jump in bed with their guys very quickly. He also tells women to have standards and reminds us that we are really in charge in relationships. We define which way the relationship goes. When a man is really "into" a woman, when he wants more than sex from her, he will follow her terms in a relationship.

So I guess it's not all so revolutionary or new, and definitely not as funny as the Strawberry Letters segment. However, I think it's worth a read if you can excuse his more traditional statements. After all, he's a product of his generation.

I just wouldn't pay $24 for it if I were you.

Shortest crush ever

Last Thursday, I went for some drinks with a few old friends from college. One young man who attended was “Eric.” He is a year older than me, and we were in a few student groups in college together. Therefore, we have many mutual friends and hung out (in groups, never one-on-one) regularly in college, but seldom see each other since he graduated. We exchange small talk at parties and when I used to take public transit, I ran into him on the train a few times. I also saw him at a protest that I passed while riding my bike. So we still run into each other, actually. :-P He’s very sweet, a bit introverted (which is a turn-on for me), very passionate about his political beliefs, but not self-righteous. His political activism is fueled by his religious convictions. We’re both practicing Catholics, FYI.

In college, I had no romantic interest in Eric. Although he is “in my league” in terms of looks (we’re both nerdy), I never found him particularly attractive on the outside. Plus, a friend of mine had the hots for him during freshman year, and I have this policy of not chasing after guys that my friends like. I hesitate to even do it eight years after she supposedly got over her crush on him. I say “supposedly” because I think she still likes him a little. What kind of friend am I if I pursue a guy who I know one of my best friends likes?

However, Thursday, I was in the mood for a little flirting. Sadly, I’m not particularly good at it. I was happy to see Eric, genuinely, platonically happy. But then it morphed into a more romantic interest. He appeals to me more now than he did in college, and in all honesty, I have toyed with the idea of us together. I sat next to him at the bar, but of course, didn’t talk much to him. A boisterous young man at the table held more of my attention. Bars are too loud for meaningful conversation as far as I’m concerned anyway. Also, in a group of about half a dozen, I become more of a listener and daydreamer. “Eve” had to bring me into her conversation.

So I missed my opportunity to flirt with Eric, but because he was attending a party after our bar outing that wasn’t too far, I offered to give him a ride. I was driving Eve home too, so what did an extra five minutes matter? The three of us exchanged small talk and a few jokes in the car. As he left, my goodbye was extended, and my voice jumped to a higher, more girly pitch. Eve caught my higher pitch and said, “You like Eric, don’t you?”

If it’s possible to blush on the inside, that’s exactly what I did. I’m a contradiction. I want to flirt, but don’t want anyone else to know that I’m flirting. :-P I was caught! I stumbled over my words and told Eve I have thought about it, but I was just playing, having a little fun. But that observation of hers started a whole weekend of me daydreaming, fantasizing and wondering, “What if?” I looked through old photo albums on facebook and on my bookshelf, trying to piece together a story, trying to see if there was ever any hint of something brewing between us. I hate when I obsess over a guy, so I made a deal with myself: “One weekend. I’ll give myself the whole weekend to daydream and fantasize to my heart’s content, that’s it.”

I’m happy to say that the crush that had been sizzling all weekend has fizzled. Although typing this blog entry has got me daydreaming a little again, I’m definitely not where I was this weekend. Plus, I had a bad week at work, and I think I needed a couple days of daydreaming about a boy. So I thank Eric for giving me a needed distraction. Although I certainly wouldn’t turn him down if he ever asked me on a date, I recognize that the likelihood of that is low to nil. We’ve known each other eight years and not once has he asked me even to get coffee with him. Clearly, he’s pegged me as a friend and has no romantic interest in me.

But that’s okay. It really is.

Partying: Catholic style

A new free magazine aimed at Catholic singles, Tobias, recently began distribution. As a single person who frequently feels invisible at family-centered Masses, I jumped on the opportunity to subscribe to a free magazine that focused on people like me. Some articles are uber-Catholic (i.e. an article that basically said the best sex is sex within marriage), but others have insight that is useful to all single Catholics, traditional and non-traditional.

One article this month, I suppose, was based on the assumption/stereotype that singles love to partay. It was called something like, "Catholics throw the best parties," and said how "Catholic" it is to throw big celebrations. Also, it mentioned that the Catholic church has built in days of celebration throughout the liturgical year and to have a boring party is to be very un-Catholic.

Although the author made some good points, one might argue that it was trying too hard to appeal to singles and perhaps missed the mark on what Catholic singles, particularly the ones who would read Tobias, actually care about. I don't know if the drunken, party-hard Catholics (or former Catholics) would pick up that magazine.

One point in that article I took issue with was when the author said weddings are supposed to be big. He used the wedding at Cana as an example. Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine. According to the authour, Jesus' first miracle was about keeping the party going and celebrating. Firstly, I question if Jesus' intent really was to keep everyone partying and drunk or if turning water into wine had more to do with the Eucharist and the sacrifice he would be making later. Also, the author used the example of a "typical Southern Baptist" wedding as being un-Christian. According to him, in Southern Baptist weddings, the ceremony lasts only 20 minutes and then everyone goes to the church hall to have non-alcoholic beverages. The author felt that was totally "yawn." OK, that wasn't the author's wording, but that was the connotation.

I never went to a Southern Baptist wedding, but actually, that wedding description sounded way more Christian than some of the other weddings, Catholic or not, that people throw. The wedding at Cana might have been a big deal where everyone in Cana came, sure (I mean, what else was there to do?). But that was 33 A.D. There was no multi-million (perhaps multi-billion) dollar wedding industry telling brides they need to spend tens of thousands of dollars for their wedding to be special, to be perfect. Brides didn't have to go multiple times to the bridal shop to have their wedding dress fitted. Banquet halls and DJs didn't have to be rented. Brides in 33 A.D. didn't spend hours agonizing over what color the centerpieces on their table should be, how high heels to wear, what year of wine to serve. Today, couples get so wrapped up in all that pomp and circumstance of weddings that the actual sacrament gets forgotten, not to mention corporations eating up a couple's hard-earned money.

I agree that some Christians need to learn to "party more." However, first and foremost, a wedding is about a couple coming together in God's name, asking the community to bless their union. Many couples today are opting for smaller, cheaper, more intimate affairs (heavily influenced by today's economy), trying to spend under $10,000 on their wedding. That already sounds like too much to me, but anyway. We are supposed to celebrate seasons of the Church and seasons of our lives, but not at the expense of the original message, the original intent of the celebration.

Hard Truths

Recently, I attended a baseball game with my young adult group. Within our section were other groups affiliated with the diocese. In front of me were two gentlemen near my age I never met. I paid no mind to them, but the young adult group leader, who was sitting next to me, said that she sold a ticket to one of them, "Al." She was comparing the two men and said that Al was cuter. I agreed, but I honestly hadn't checked them out before she commented. Al was sort of a cross between Chace Crawford and David Cook. Moreso Chace. Then she mentioned that he and I had the same occupation. I gave some sort of reply, and thought "Oh boy, now she's playing matchmaker." Another young man sat with Al and his friend. My young adult leader again whispered that she thought Al was the still cutest of the three. I agreed and she added, "Those other two look like nerds." I responded, "Well if they're nerds, those are probably my choices!" One resembled this guy, but with brownish black hair.

From there, the conversation basically continued with her saying that I shouldn't settle for one of the nerds and I replied that in adolescence, you figure out who your choices are, and guys as cute as Al don't go for women like me. She asked, "Well, haven't you moved on from adolescence?" I said that I have, but others haven't.

A recent show on Discovery Channel talked about attraction and how humans select mates. People generally go for people equal in attractiveness as themselves. Also, in adolescence, you learn by trial and error where you rank in terms of attractiveness. Guys as cute as Al have never been interested in me. The only guys who have been were, well, nerds...like me...

It's a hard truth to face: I know some guys are out of my league. Yes, sometimes oogly guys marry beautiful girls, but I never see men date women less attractive than them. It's not that I don't think I deserve an attractive man, but I'm not naive. I know a little bit about how men function despite never being in a relationship! I know I'm not a "ten." I know I'm the nerdy "girl next door." I know that it's a waste of time going after Chace Crawford-looking boys. They won't date me, and why would they when they figured out they could get someone prettier? Nevermind my great personality traits, nevermind the qualities I have that are important for good girlfriends. If there is no sexual attraction, then I'm just a friend.

Some (meaning a couple coworkers of mine) might argue that maybe I should work harder, girl-ify myself more. Dress sexier, wear makeup, dye and perm my hair, flirt more, get contacts, show off more skin, and then maybe I would get more attractive guys (or more guys period). I'm not good at pretending to be someone I'm not, and what's the point of putting on an act? It'll be a hard reality check when I reveal that I'm actually a makeup-less, four-eyed, khaki and cardigan nerd girl. By the way, I understand I need to dress nice on dates (and have some revealing clothes), and I do own some makeup and high heels for special occasions! But that's not daily.

My young adult leader did go on to say that sometimes people are all looks, no substance. We really didn't know anything about any of the three guys. I concurred that that's usually true :-P . She said she still would try to invite him to a young adult meeting. I'm not holding my breath.

Mutual Disinterest

It's so nice when the feeling, or lack thereof, is mutual! No drama, no worrying about what to say, how to dress, whether or not to call, what to do on a second date, how to let the guy down easy if he likes me and I don't care for him in that way...

Nick hasn't called me back, which is fine with me. I waited until Tuesday of last week, and then I sent in my feedback to elove.

What's difficult about elove's feedback requirements is that they want you to be honest, be specific, but not be critical of the referral. I understand that "he's boring and ugly and undateable" is useless feedback, and you want to focus on the date, not the person. But then, how can I "be specific" without being at all critical of the guy? "There was just no chemistry," is not helpful feedback either for a matchmaker. They can't guarantee chemistry and therefore there really is nothing they can do if you just don't "feel it" with the guy.

Well, my membership includes 12 referrals, I believe. So there's 11 more chances, 11 more guys I have yet to meet. They really did do a good job on their first try. Hopefully among their male members is someone who is boyfriend material for me.

Not your type? Just right...right?

Yahoo's Shine site recently had an article about dating outside your type. It had advice from Andrea Syrtash, author of He's Just Not Your Type. The idea was that women should widen their scopes and not be so focused on "checklists" for their dates. Also, women should not freak out if they fall for a guy who isn't their type.

Having never been in a relationship, I don't know what my "type" is. I can't seem to click with anyone. :-P I have a checklist of sorts, but lately I've dated guys who don't fit everything on my list. Actually, I've loosened up a lot having decided to be childfree. It's already "picky" enough to say, "I will not date a man who wants children." I still have a somewhat negative approach when it comes to figuring out my type, as in "my type is not..." I don't want to date Atheists, political extremists, sexual deviants, gangbangers or drug addicts. I have also dated guys who were just, well, dull, and was not interested in a second date. Perhaps that's the sort of man I should pursue according to her? Someone who goes to work and goes home every day? Someone who isn't more than his job, who mostly hangs at home when not at work is who I should consider?

Because I am childfree, I am not in a race against time. I don't need to hurry up and get married and have children because my fertility will stop dropping within a few years. Some estimates say women's fertility can start dropping as early as twenty-seven years old. I come from a long line of Fertile Myrtles, so I don't know if that's true for me. However, I don't need to "settle" as they say. I don't need to settle for someone who's boring but stable and father-material. I can hold out for the type I really want.

Now, I know that exciting guys can be high maintenance and intense, and that might not work for me either. I guess I want someone who's a happy medium. I don't want someone completely average, but I don't want a party animal, daredevil type.

I guess I just need to read the book to see what Syrtash means by dating someone who isn't one's type. I just don't see how a radical, Atheist, BDSM druggie would work for me. :-P

Girls Aloud - Life Got Cold

This was one of my favorite songs in undergrad. I heard it on an online French radio station. However, looking back, I think it contributed to my staying single for so long, particularly the lyric, "I don't believe in Romeos or heroes anymore."

The video is a let down. They're just walking around looking sultry. So close your eyes and just listen :-P