Posts Tagged ‘Relationships’

Horny, monogamous, glowing Hulks

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Great! I’m reading in The Economist that scientists have identified both the hormone for monogamy and the protein molecule that acts as a receptor. It is called vasopressin. They have already turned a certain “promiscuous” mice type into monogamous mice. And out of some reason (I’ve lost the thread here), the article continues explaining how scientists also managed to create mice which glow in the dark. So hey, we’re ready to go. But the article ends with “It may be some time before such interventions are available for human males, but women can always live in hope.” Which asshole wrote that article? Like all men are promiscuous and all women are not…

Anyway, I was trying to imagine they really invented a pill for monogamy. Would anyone want to take that pill on their free will? And if not, would we end up with WOmen  (this is not a typo) secretly feeding their men the pill….Then I came to the cocktail of pills they could also give their men to improve them a bit, if they have already invented the secret pill-feeding technique. A pill for monogamy, a pill for weight-loss, a pill for building muscles (do anabolica exist only as injections or also as pills?), a pill against hair loss, a little blue-pill called Viagra for… well, you know for what. We would end up with a world full of mad Hulks running after their exhausted wives with big hard-ons, glowing in the dark. How about a new game: “Recognise your Hulk by his… hmmm…glow!”?

Nay, let’s rather like our men the way they are. Like Austrian author David Schalko said, you can always forgive infidelity, as long as you don’t know about it.

The Economist article

Virtual Pollution

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Finally it is my time to bitch about Facebook! Our love relationship has turned into a love-hate relationship. I like(d) social networks. I am home in two different countries. Also, I went to an international school and an international university, and later worked in international business (woha, check this international chick out), so my friends are scattered all around the world. The networks are the the easiest way to keep in touch. So, I am everywhere: Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, Xing, Small World, Internations, Twitter and some other site whose name I forgot. And yes, I admit, I have 390 friends on Facebook. And no, I don’t know them all – some of them are my readers who have expressed the wish to become my virtual friends. Virtual. That part is slowly fading away. But it is important because that is where the problem hides.

Few weeks ago, I posted  my dilemma about switching to Mac on Facebook. Within only few hours, I had 29 comments. Passionate comments. People were arguing and kept returning to see what the others replied. Last week, I posted that I was stuck at home with swine flu. Comments? 0. Zero. Welcome to the world of virtual friendships.

There is one slight problem with virtual friendships. No, three slight problems. Or more… One: We are spending more and more time in social networks. Meaning wasting time we could be spending in the real world, and also wasting money. CNN estimates costs of $2.2 billion a year due to the loss of productivity caused by time spent on networking sites. Problem number two: we are getting seduced by virtual friendships, maybe even allowing them to weaken the importance of the real friendships. What I learned with my post on having swine-flu is what sociologists are calling the phenomenon of “weak links”. We think we have 388 friends who are sharing our lives. We don’t. We have 388 virtual pan-pals who are only here when they want it. “Strong link” is my neighbour Markus. He fed me through closed door (yes, like you would feed a beast) while I was ill.

And what struck me most is that the social networks are strongly changing the way we begin romancing (and eventually end up having sex), which has a huge impact how we view and present our lives. Last two guys I met (yes, I admit, they were [much] younger than me) asked me for my Facebook contact. Phone numbers, even e-mail addresses, are passé. Hello, this is a revolution in our dating pattern! We used to get in touch so that we could get to know the person and see if we like him/her. Now, everything is upside down –we first get to know (the virtual) person, then we decide if we like him/her – and then we get in touch, or don’t. We are making decisions based on the ones-and-zeroes identity of the person. Dangerous. Because in the virtual world, what is missing is… yes, the real thing. Everyone is more or less same, and everyone can create the identity they chose to (do you really think I look like my Facebook pic?). We start thinking of our lives in terms of how presentable they are online.  How alienating is that?

I don’t know. I just know I’m cutting this thing to a minimum. I have already trained myself to only log on once a day. And I’ve introduced Facebook-free days. Mostly I combine them with news-free days. They are fantastic – suddenly life seems so easy and uncomplicated! You only have to remove the rubbish of other people’s destinies… Sorry, we’re just too many.

little truths of life

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

My dad complaining against my new bangs (Stirnfransen/siske):

Dad: “I preferred you without bangs. You looked more serious. People look more intelligent when you can see their forehead.” (God woman, you look like a kid now. Grow up finally!)

Me: “Yes, it’s really interesting how people react differently now that I have bangs…” (Yeah dad, but you should see men looking at me since my new hairstyle)

Dad (smiles): ”Yes, men don’t like intelligent women” (Forget it, they’ll keep on running away)

Me, wondering: “Shit, is he reading my mind?”

A love letter to all my ex’s

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

Yesterday, I was driving in my car and I heard a very heartbreaking song by a guy who was dumped by a girl and was completely devastated. His heart was on the floor, his life worth nothing, suicide, same old, same old. And it dawned on me that I have never really been completely devastated because of a man (yeah, one evening of crying and drinking a bit too much of Vodka, but that’s not really what I would call devastation). Maybe because it was usually I who broke up (yes, it might be that I suffer from a “runaway girlfriend” syndrome, but don’t really want to go into that). But maybe also because I learned from my parents how to stay a strong individual and always continue building my world, even when in a couple. So I have something to hold on to when I stay alone.
And right now I had a conversation with a friend whose boyfriend dumped her after 6 months of a very serious and perfect relationship which seemed to promise to lead to an altar. She was so broken she needed psychiatric help. And that made me think again. I went through my relationships and suddenly felt fantastic – I have never, ever been treated really badly by a man. OK, maybe once, by Mr. P. It all started like “sex only”, but then I fell in love and wasn’t aware of it. We continued the “sex only” thing while he had real relationships with other women. It went on for years. I was very hurt by not being “worth” of being his girlfriend but too much in love to give him up. But then again: mea culpa – I was consciously playing with.
So, after I have realised how well my guys actually treated me (no betrayals, no games, no false promises, no disrespect), I had a horrible urge to scream to all my ex-boyfriends/lovers/affairs:
THANK YOU GUYS, YOU WERE GREAT!!!!!!

Next!

Consuming Love, or What is Left of It

Friday, January 30th, 2009

From The Vienna Review, February 2009

In two seminal books, Eva Illouz analyses the influence of modern capitalism on love and romance. A perfect topic for Valentine’s Day. Ana Tajder met Eva Illouz in Vienna.

Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism

Will you be celebrating Valentine’s Day? Will you buy roses, go for a dinner in a luxury restaurant, buy a little teddy bear with a big red heart? Or will you boycott that kitschy capitalistic product of American culture, condemning it as a crass celebration consumption?
Or will you simply be ambivalent?
Well, don’t be. As Eva Illouz shows in her two books about the impact of capitalism on romance and love, the topic is too interesting for ambivalence.
Professor of Sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Center for the Study of Rationality Eva Illouz is ready to challenge the most intrenched cynic. Her earlier book, Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1997) created a milestone in research of love and romance in capitalism. Following up on the topic was the 2007 Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism, a sampling of her ‘Adorno’ lectures.
Whenever you finally meet a person you had found fascinating by reputation, you will be surprised about how much bigger you often imagine them than they really are. Our brain projects the size of our fascination with the person on their physical dimensions.
When I meet Eva Illouz, this surprise stretched even further, to the nature of her personality. Her books are so well researched, so strong in their analysis, conclusions, theories and findings that you expect a very powerful, maybe even insistent personality. A rock. The reality is quite different. Eva Illouz is petite, gracious, and with the most gentle expression in her huge blue eyes. Contrary to my expectation, she does not project, in fact, at all; she absorbs. Still, the gentleness of her appearance cannot hide the immense intellectual power working in the background.
A lot has changed in the ten years between the two books, Illouz confessed, and with it, a major shift in perspective. “Choice!” she exclaimed. In her first book, she explained how the economic ideas of choice emancipated human relationships and gave them new possibilities. Commodities did not corrupt relationships and feelings, she believed but served as a way of enhancing and transmitting those feelings. But then came the Internet and a culture of choice.
“The problem is, people don’t know how to deal with choice,” she said. “Studies have shown that choice creates confusion, apathy and a shift from being a satisfier, a person who is happy with good enough, to a maximizer, a person who always wants more and better.
“The problem is that we do not have a natural mechanism to stop the processes of maximizing our life choices.”
In her lecture on Jan. 26 at the Bruno Kreisky Forum, Ambrustergasse 15, in Vienna’s 19th District, Illouz analysed the disenchantment and rationalization of love that were central to the discussion in Cold Intimacies. Three cultural phenomena are principally to blame for this, she said: The Internet technology of dating sites and social networks that has exploded choice; the emergence of popular science that influences our picture of love, and second-wave feminism that blames romantic love for deepening the divide between men and women.
“Feminism tore down male chivalry and female mystery, taking the enchantment out of love,” claimed Illouz.
So is it back to pre-18th century mode of arranged marriages? No, modern rationality is different, Illouz said. Two hundred years ago, parents made the decisions, based on a few basic criteria: good health, social class and an ability to provide. Sentiment and reason were kept safely at arms length.
Today, this rationality comes from ourselves and hinges on a long list of criteria – including emotional compatibility, sexual compatibility and social compatibility. It is ideal that cannot be reached, one that gets us stuck in a rut of endless refinement.
“We don’t have the cultural resources to reach the ideal.” Illouz says.
The problem of choice cannot be emphasized often enough. While in pre-modern times, love was accidental and the object of love not subject to substitution, now the sheer volume of choice forces rational and analytic criteria. Choice also gives potential partners the characteristics of consumer goods and partners can always be “upgraded” for someone newer and better.
So while choice has given us freedom, especially improving the position of women in our society, now that freedom again puts women at a disadvantage. While men still have the socio-economic power and love is still the way for women to gain a piece of this power, the disadvantage lies in the dimension of time.
Men can profit from the choice their whole life long, especially if they are well situated. Women have a choice up until their early thirties. But at that point, if they want children and family, they must take the first choice that is “good enough”.
Eva Illouz is currently a researcher at the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin. The topic for next book is “Why love hurts.” Now that’s a perfect Valentine’s present.

Bindungsangst

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

My big excuse to those who don’t speak German! But this is very interesting. It is the description of Eva Illouz’s lecture on fear of commitment.

Eva Illouz’s Kolloquium “Es liegt nicht an Dir, sondern an mir”:
Bindungsangst als Problem der Soziologie
Die Suche nach Liebe ist eine schwierige Erfahrung geworden, die nur wenigen modernen Männern und Frauen erspart geblieben ist. Trotz des weitverbreiteten und fast kollektiven Charakters dieser Erfahrungen besteht unsere Kultur darauf, dass sie das Resultat einer gestörten Psyche sind. Die freudianische Kultur, von der wir durchtränkt sind, vertritt die starke These, dass sich sexuelle Anziehung am besten durch unsere vergangenen Erfahrungen erklären lässt und dass Liebespräferenz in der frühen Kindheit durch die Eltern-Kind-Beziehung geprägt wird. Die Annahme Freuds, die Familie bestimme das Muster der erotischen Karriere, war bisher die Haupterklärung für die Frage, warum und wie wir daran scheitern, eine Liebesbeziehung zu finden oder aufrecht zu erhalten.

Die zentrale These dieses Projekts lautet so: Wenn viele von uns “eine Art bohrender Angst oder Unwohlsein” in Bezug auf die Liebe haben und das Gefühl, dass uns Liebesdinge “aufgewühlt, ruhelos und unzufrieden mit uns selbst” i zurück lassen, so deswegen, weil Liebe etwas an sich hat, das man als “Gefangensein” des Selbst in den Institutionen der Moderne bezeichnen kann; auch spiegelt und verstärkt sie dieses Gefangensein. In einer berühmten Passage formuliert Karl Marx: “Die Menschen machen ihre eigene Geschichte, aber sie machen sie nicht aus freien Stücken, nicht unter selbstgewählten, sondern unter unmittelbar vorgefundenen, gegebenen und überlieferten Umständen.” Wenn wir lieben oder schmollen, greifen wir auf kollektive Ressourcen zurück und tun dies in Situationen, die wir nicht selbst gestaltet haben; genau diese Ressourcen und Situationen möchte ich in meinem Projekt untersuchen. Ich erläutere diese Strategie anhand eines Beispiels: der “Bindungsangst”.
i Harry Frankfurt, The Reasons of Love, Princeton University Press, 2004, p. 5.

Am I human or am I dancer?

Monday, January 26th, 2009

Fitting my research on romance/love/relationships & modern capitalism (I am preparing an interview with Eva Illouz for today), here a few lines from the last Killers song “Human”:

pay my respects to grace and virtue
send my condolences to good
give my regards to soul and romance
they always did the best they could
and so long to devotion,
you taught me everything I know
wave good bye, wish me well

I actually looked the lyrics up because I couldn’t believe he is really singing “are we human or are we dancer” – but he is. So, as a dancer, I wonder why I am not human?

“Every one belongs to everyone else”

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

Here a few excerpts to illustrate how Aldous Huxley predicted a decline of monogamy in Brave New World (our world?). I believe that “How can you be stable if you are feeling strongly?” says it all:

Family, monogamy, romance. Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channelling of impulse and energy.

“But every one belongs to every one else,” he concluded, citing the hypnopædic proverb.

The students nodded, emphatically agreeing with a statement which upwards of sixty-two thousand repetitions in the dark had made them accept, not merely as true, but as axiomatic, self-evident, utterly indisputable.

……………………

“But after all,” Lenina was protesting, “it’s only about four months now since I’ve been having Henry.”

“Only four months! I like that. And what’s more,” Fanny went on, pointing an accusing finger, “there’s been nobody else except Henry all that time. Has there?”

Lenina blushed scarlet; but her eyes, the tone of her voice remained defiant. “No, there hasn’t been any one else,” she answered almost truculently. “And I jolly well don’t see why there should have been.”

“Oh, she jolly well doesn’t see why there should have been,” Fanny repeated, as though to an invisible listener behind Lenina’s left shoulder. Then, with a sudden change of tone, “But seriously,” she said, “I really do think you ought to be careful. It’s such horribly bad form to go on and on like this with one man. At forty, or thirty-five, it wouldn’t be so bad. But at your age, Lenina! No, it really won’t do. And you know how strongly the D.H.C. objects to anything intense or long-drawn. Four months of Henry Foster, without having another man–why, he’d be furious if he knew …”

……………………………

“Of course there’s no need to give him up. Have somebody else from time to time, that’s all. He has other girls, doesn’t he?”

Lenina admitted it.

“Of course he does. Trust Henry Foster to be the perfect gentleman–always correct. And then there’s the Director to think of. You know what a stickler …”

Nodding, “He patted me on the behind this afternoon,” said Lenina.

“There, you see!” Fanny was triumphant. “That shows what he stands for. The strictest conventionality.”

…………………….

Lenina shook her head. “Somehow,” she mused, “I hadn’t been feeling very keen on promiscuity lately. There are times when one doesn’t. Haven’t you found that too, Fanny?”

Fanny nodded her sympathy and understanding. “But one’s got to make the effort,” she said, sententiously, “one’s got to play the game. After all, every one belongs to every one else.”

“Yes, every one belongs to every one else,” Lenina repeated slowly and, sighing, was silent for a moment; then, taking Fanny’s hand, gave it a little squeeze. “You’re quite right, Fanny. As usual. I’ll make the effort.”

……………………………..

No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy. What with mothers and lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, what with the temptations and the lonely remorses, what with all the diseases and the endless isolating pain, what with the uncertainties and the poverty–they were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly (and strongly, what was more, in solitude, in hopelessly individual isolation), how could they be stable?

Internet Networks & Love Life

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Eva Illouz, author of “Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism” and “Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism” will be speaking at Bruno Kreisky Forum on 26 February.

Here a few sentences from an interview about how internet networks influence our love life:

“Internet networks develop a culture of freedom, which is a culture of “choice”. Everyone can look out for everyone, everybody gets endless possibilities to search for a partner. This technology of choice has a very negative influence on emotions. It leads to high rationality in love life and leaves no space for intuition.

The problem with the idea of consumerist “choice” is that one assumes that consumers know what they want. But that is absolutely not the case. Human beings do not know what they want – there are studies which prove this. Even more so: the more choice they have, the more confused they are about their wishes. They know even less what they want. And when this consumerist behaviour infects love life, it doesn’t make life any easier.

The level of disappointment, especially in the world of internet dating,  is very, very high. Even when in relationships, people are on the look-out to test their market value. Because maybe, they could find a more “valuable” partner. They zap like TV channels.  Additional to that, the repetition turns them emotionally blunt. Goethe’s Werner wouldn’t commit suicide today, he would just go to the PC and zap himself to the next affair.”

To read the whole (very interesting) interview (in German), go to Robert Misk’s site: www.misik.at

Ana’s Ode to Manhood

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Yesterday, I attended a lecture by Erich Lehner, an Austrian gender scientist. The promising topic of the lecture was “Man: the neglected sex”. The first shock was that Mr. Lehner, although very sympathetic, managed to turn this exciting topic into a sleeping pill. The second shock was his main message: save the poor men, help them, they are in crisis. We expect them to be manly but also have soft skills, be strong but also understaning, go on maternity leave, look like George Clooney, be rich like Bill Gates, etc., etc. WE don’t! It is the media that makes you feel we do. We want men to be men, to respect us and to be reliable (plus: we want chemistry, of course). This was so heartbreaking that I immediately wanted to hug all men in the audience and tell them how fantastic they are. Is manhood really suffering a crisis? I didn’t notice that. I mean, yes, all that shaving of breast hair and tons of cosmetics and the quest for a six pack are….well…..not really necessary…… But hey, today’s men are fantastic! They care of their looks (didn’t I write about those muscles few weeks ago?), they are hard working, they are great lovers, they are more open to women and their complex nature (and needs), they can cook and change diapers. And come on, they are still the bosses (in Austria only 6% of top management positions are occupied by women)! So where the hell should a crisis come from?

This got me a bit sad. First, we have women in crisis. Then we have “Frauenpolitik” (women’s policies). Now we should have men in crisis… Männerpolitik? Isn’t our society just totally absurd? I mean, this should be the simplest thing in the world. It is just that we managed to make it so complicated.

And finally, Mr.Lehner mentioned a very interesting statistics: 3x more women attempt suicide. 3x more men are successful in it.

Guys, get your act together. You’re fantastic!