I've pretended for a very long time that this was one of my favorite songs. Why? Because this happened to be the song an ex played for me on his guitar when he was still trying to get me to come undone for him. I'd always thought it was a bit of a wanker song because the singer was just wishing-and-hoping-and-thinking-and-praying that someone would read his mind and do the things he wanted. What happened to communication, right?
Today, when it played on my alexa, I realised Mr Extreme was me and every other person left hanging after a "Let's catch up" text that had no further follow up. And the reason this song is so popular is because there is absolutely no shortage of No Plan Dans in this world.
A No Plan Dan needs no explanation. He opens a conversation with "When are we catching up?" and continues the conversation without even suggesting a date-venue-time or even an activity, leaving the onus of the "plan" on you entirely even though he initiated it. Then he gaslights you with "But I keep asking you out!"
Lately I find myself infuriated with a couple of No Plan Dans in my life. And the reason it's infuriating is that.. well, they're also my friends and I wish they weren't so weak and wishy-washy. If they actually asked me out, I'd say yes or no, and it would be the end of that particular conversation line. Instead, I have an insidious little worm in my brain that wakes up every time I'm hit by the "hey" message.
"Saying I love you is not the words I want to hear from you..."
No shit, sherlock. There are only so many times you can say the words without action. Don't tell me how great I am, or how much you care for me and then do the "how about we catch up" and then... nothing. How about we don't catch up? Ever. Would that significantly change your life or mine? Probably not. So then just stop.
Because words are easy. In the world of text messages and memes, saying things has become the easiest zero-accountability activity in all of time. Anyone can say anything - complete lies have gotten people elected to powerful offices! - and have zero meaning.
The downside to all this is - doing something often enough creates a habit. So if I'm getting used to not believing you, or going out with you, because you're 'Dan'ning it up regularly, then that's a neural pathway that is being worn down deep in my brain. Next time you ask me "how about a movie?" (even if now it's a specific movie), my reaction would be an immediate walk down that specific pathway to the "no". Unless the plan becomes a group plan in which case, your specific presence is never important. And the neural pathway gets deeper.
However, on the flip side of No Plan Dan is the Haranguing Harry.
As the name suggests, HH is the one who thinks the polite refusal is a "maybe". He doesn't think about why there's a refusal to begin with, only that the 'maybe' can be changed to a 'Yes' if he's persistent enough. Ofcourse, he thinks that the reason it was a no to begin with is because the no-sayer doesn't really mean it, doesn't know her own mind, can't visualise just 'how much fun!' it would be to hang out with HH. He doesn't notice that if only he put a fraction of the effort he puts into haranguing the no to yes, to actually making a yes-worthy plan to begin with, he'd hardly ever get a no.
"... how easy, it would be to show me how you feel..."
The fact that after HH has worn down the polite woman's will, so that she says yes just to shut him up, by the time she starts that event with him, she's already wishing it's over. She resents him, and with every passing moment of 'so much fun!', she's thinking of how to never ever go out with him again, how she will always say she's out of town or busy with someone else whenever she sees his name in her chat list, while mentally preparing herself to be downright rude if needed, because politeness landed her in this shitshow to begin with.
And that's where No Plan Dan and Haranguing Harry meet and exchange notes. No Plan Dan is frustrated that the woman won't go out with him, that he's such a nice guy and still she's always meeting other men and HH will talk about how all women be bitches, how she tried to pay for her half as if he wasn't man enough, then didn't even sleep with him for picking up her tab! The audacity!
"Now that I've tried to talk to you and make you understand..."
... it won't make a difference. The gang of NPDs and HHs will go forth and share the hurtful wife / girlfriend jokes and the ball-and-chain and the doesn't-know-her-own-mind and meant-to-be-in-the-kitchen podcasts and interviews and memes and the multiple other ways of blaming the women for the absence of women in their lives, instead of changing their approach, and this will lead to the creation of more NPD and HH archetypes until sooner or later one or many of those will decide to 'teach women their rightful place' through violence and... We have the present day world.
Recently I read somewhere that heterosexual women are the only people who have to date their natural predator. Is it any wonder then that more and more heterosexual women are choosing singlehood and celibacy - and leading reportedly happier lives - than those shackled to the Not-the-One?
At the end of the day, it needs "...More than words to show you feel that your love for me is real..."
And somehow, almost everyone missed the memo.
5 comments:
Never thought of it quite that way - that heterosexual women are the only people who have to date their natural predator.
Hard hitting and an uncomfortable truth.
As violence becomes normalised, and living standards take a plunge, as stresses increase and people feel increasingly powerless, as law enforcement becomes more "random" and justice loses its meaning - how long before anec-data becomes the trend, and then the norm?
I'm believe that the reason violence is becoming normalised and law enforcement and justice more meaningless is BECAUSE anec-data has become the norm instead of science-backed studies. The "post-truth" and "deep fake" era offer us the perfect excuse to not seek out solid information since 'nothing is real' anyway.
Did you feel that I was a denier or in denial?
I've been fortunate to have never seen violence either first hand or through the lived experiences of friends or family, so I don't have a very high tolerance.
Yet, from your reply, I get the sense that violence at home has not reduced in any meaningful way over the years. What a fool I was to think that greater awareness, the ubiquity of recording devices, the increased focus on equality, equity and the proliferation of helplines/ngos online/offline would have some impact....
Truly a defiled age!
Anon, violence at home is probably the same it's ever been but because of the many reasons you stated, it's become obvious that that "same" was always very very high. But before blaming the failures of law enforcement and justice, one has to examine WHY are men beating on women? And why has that been considered okay, why is that how things have always been, why is it that to be a bystander in the face of such violence and say 'it's not my business' is a perfectly socially acceptable response? Because it's the same people who are condoning it that are also populating positions of power, no? Yes we all know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away from the very awful norm.
I don't have the answer probably because there is no easy one. I suspect it's to do with the inherent strength of the feminine vs the masculine that was recognised early by the "cave dweller" and led to the manufacture of different constructs to ensure this "truth" was not widely recognised or accepted. Violence is an easy way of ensuring the revised status quo. Complicity in violence is also easy. I remember reading somewhere that rape is more about the exertion of power than sex. And that there is an atavastic desire in man to commit violence...
Education and self-awareness leads to evolution, the absence of which has led to its being somewhat stalled/regressing for our species.
Post a Comment