Blue Notes from a Red Zone

Do Nice Guys Finish Last?

The past few weeks have been amazing. I watched my younger daughter get married, and it was one of the happiest events I have ever attended. I wasn't even the only one who thought so. All the wedding guests were dancing, laughing, hugging, crying. We are full of confidence and hope for the new couple.

The week after that I attended a state-wide conference and received the award for "outstanding advocate" working on behalf of victims of sexual assault in Florida. This is the only award given to professionals in the field, so that was pretty overwhelming as well.

Then I came back home, and started back to work. This was not such an uplifting experience. Rather, it was more along the line of opening an over-stuffed closet and having everything fall on your head.

Still, I'm back, and I'm writing. All must be well in the world. Well, except for Bill Nelson's stand on the estate tax, which he proudly took on the side of the uber-rich. Fortunately, enough other Democrats have sufficient compassion to worry more about the uber-poor, and the measure was defeated. However, it will rise again in the near future.

As is often the case with my blog posts, this one is based on various discussions I've had with friends and acquaintance. It started with the age-old question: I am a nice guy, I respect women, I would not dream of hurting anyone or forcing sex where it was not wanted (or even if there was a question of failure to consent). Why am I single, when all these thugs out there seem to have women hanging off of them?

This question comes up a lot, along with the companion question: I am a nice girl, intelligent, competent, caring. Why am I alone? These questions are asked frequently because they touch a nerve. There is a lot of truth to them.

The first time I heard the male version was from a man attending one of our domestic violence offender groups, which I thought a rather odd setting. He clarified the situation by adding: "It seems like women only respect you if you rough them up some," thus showing his confusion between the definitions of fear and respect.

However, since then I've heard it repeated by men and women who are truly lovely people: attractive, intelligent, kind, unassuming and full of good humor. They have every quality one would list if one were dreaming up an ideal mate. Except that they don't have a mate, nor any prospect of one.

If there is an expert answer to this, I don't know what it is, but I have my suspicions.

First, the men who do truly respect women are aware that many men do not. They assume women realize that large numbers of men hold women in low esteem. Women may recognize this, but when it comes to the men they know personally, they don't think it applies. Sure, John may not respect women in general, but he respects me. Thus, I am singled out and special. Other women may think that yes, men don't generally respect other women, because they are catty or petty or unattractive. However, I am intelligent, attractive, and sparkling, so they all hold me in high regard. Other women are just oblivious. They respect men and women as individual human beings with something positive to offer, and can't concieve that other people may think differently. The men who genuinely treat women with respect view respect as a rare and desirable trait, while the women who are receiving the respect are taking it as the norm, and thus, nothing to boast about.

Second, we start determining who attracts us and who does not somewhere early in middle school. This is a bad starting place. No one in middle school has much in the way of self-confidence. Even the most healthy, well-integrated personalities fall apart under the pressure of the pre-teen and early teen years. Yet everyone is desparate for self-confidence, and to be accepted by their peers. They are highly attracted to persons who seem to have already conquered these goals.

So who are these highly desirable people? Generally, it's the people who "have the confidence" to break rules, take action with little regard for consequences, and to be hurtful to others. To an uncertain 11-year-old, these peers are the ultimate of cool. Thus, the boys and girls who are callous toward others, and bully those who are weak, tend to be the most popular in school.

This standard haunts us as we grow older. Eventually most of us discard the idea that people who are deliberately hurtful are glamorous, but we still cling to the idea that we can identify the leaders, those with confidence and surety, by external standards. We become attracted to people who are decisive (how good the decisions are is irrelevant) and self-centered enough to use others to further their own goals. Women too often see these qualities as indicative of strength, and thus feel protected and safe with the very people they are most likely to need protection from. Men can view women with these qualities as dangerous and exciting, and thus highly attractive.

So should "nice" men and women change, and become rougher and selfish? Obviously not, as they would be betraying their own values and attempting to become something they are not. Facades are rarely convincing over the long term, and people who create them do not enhance their appeal. What they can do, however, is change their attitudes as to why they date, and who. People who date others for the pleasure of getting to know another human being, as opposed to starting an affair, can have the fun of exploring lots of personality types, and eventually finding one that clicks. And along that line, perhaps seeking women and men to date who are intriguing as opposed to "hot" or sexy might lead to more interesting results as well.

There are no guarantees to the above. While I have many job descriptions, dating counselor is hardly one of them. I've been married 33 years, so I'm as far removed from a dating scene as one could get. Still, getting to know a variety of human beings can't be a bad thing. You can never have too many friends, even when you are 40 years out of middle school.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 4:29 PM 2 comments

Democrat by Name; Republican by Everything Else

I was skimming through the news (though why I think this will help me get to sleep I don't know) when I noted that Senator Bill Nelson is planning on voting for the repeal of the estate tax, or the alternative "compromise" that would exempt estates of $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, and place a lid of 15% on the amounts beyond those limits for estates greater than those amounts.

There are a lot of crocodile tears about the "death tax" and its effect on family farms, but in point of fact no family farm has had to be sold due to estate taxes, and only 50 in the nation would be affected by this legislation. This is purely another demonstration of greed by the Bush administration and its ultra-wealthy base, providing a tax break to only .01% of the population (and a significant tax break to only those persons with over $2 million a year in income), while adding another $70 billion to our national deficit.

It's interesting that the offsetting tax hike was a $1 billion levy designed to increase taxes on teenagers' college savings accounts.

Senator Nelson is virtually unopposed this year, since Katherine Harris is more of an asset to his campaign than an opponent. He does not have to cower in fear of the Republican Party, which has very little respect and strength left in Florida. He has defended his record in the past by saying that he has to be "Republican light" in order to stay in office, but at this point in time there is no reason not to vote his principles. It would be a shame to think that his principles include transferring ever increasing amounts of wealth to the capital class, at the expense of 99% of the American people, their children and grandchildren.

Senator Nelson is typical of many Southern and Mid-western Democratic leaders (and the Democratic Leadership Council) that think the best Democratic strategy is to out-
Republican the Republican Party. I can't imagine why these people think that voters would prefer a faux-Republican over the real thing. If you must have a Republican, might as well go for the real deal. And yet, this remains the prevailing conventional wisdom among Democratic leaders, and it has led to such appalling sights as Hilary Clinton sponsoring an amendment to ban flag-burning, a completely non-existent crisis. It's pandering at its worst (well, maybe not as bad as McCain hopping in bed with Jerry Falwell, but it's pretty bad).

When the nation was almost evenly divided, this may have made sense. The idea was not to offend anyone who might vote for you, as each vote was critically important. The idea didn't work, but at least it had some logic. The polls were the Democratic Bible, and we swore an oath on every one that came out.

This year, however, these same Democrats who coached the life out of John Kerry based on focus groups and opinion polls, are acting as though they haven't seen a poll in months. They are still plotting to bring down the strength of the Republican Party, and have overlooked the detail that such strength no longer exists.

Republican incompetence, greed, disdain for anyone who has to actually work for a living, concern over loss of civil liberties, and most of all dogged insistence on more of the same in the appallingly disastrous war in Iraq has thoroughly decimated the Republican Party. The Harris poll puts support for Bush at 29% and Cheney at 10%. I don't think we need to worry about ticking these people off any more.

This year the Democrats have two concerns: ensure the accuracy and credibility of the electoral process (no more non-auditable counts) and then get out the votes by hammering on the difference between Democrats and Republicans - because a difference is what people are looking to find.

The one poll result that legitimately brings concern to the Democratic leadership is that the public is not a great deal fonder of Democratic control of Congress than Republican control, though the tilt toward Democrats is growing ever stronger. But the reason why it remains weak and soft is that the public is uncertain that the Democrats are any more likely than Republicans to get us out of Iraq, restore fairness to the tax code, reduce the deficit, place spending where it needs to be to protect the vulnerable and fragile members of society, and start restoring our civil liberties.

One small leap in that direction could be made by Senator Nelson, as he breaks ranks with his Republican friends, and votes as a Democrat against the estate tax repeal. It would send a message that Democrats are unified, and ready to defend the vast majority of hard-working Americans. Not a bad message to send, if we ever hope to truly effect change.

posted by Lenore Wilson @ 12:13 AM 3 comments