Women, Beauty Standards…and Men

Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

I don’t like choice feminism.

If real feminism were a fruit, choice feminism would be artificial fruit candy, or maybe Fruit Loops cereal. Not nearly as good for you, but much easier to digest…and sell.

By choice feminism, I mean the idea that anything can be an act empowerment if it was freely chosen. Nothing is more important than choice. I’m not advocating taking choices away by any means, it’s just the only criteria for a good choice cannot be that it was a choice.

Maybe after centuries of women being told what to do all the time, the movement designed to help them doesn’t want to start doing it too. Maybe it’s due to feminism becoming mainstream, and too many people are chiming in who don’t want to think critically. But surely if we want to help women we have to be able to talk frankly about choices and consequences.

This is especially evident in the beauty industry, perhaps because of the amount of money at stake. If it makes you feel good, it’s good, even if it’s painful plastic surgeries that mutilate your body and threaten your health. But sometimes feeling good is just fitting into patriarchal beauty standards. It’s not bad to enjoy that; it’s understandably pleasant. But let’s not pretend all joy is your soul self-actualizing and reaching nirvana.

A short walk through any mall reveals ads using phrases like “express yourself,” “be you,” or “empowering” to describe shopping, often for entire categories of products that men don’t even buy. I guess they’ll never get to experience the satisfaction of being themselves or having rights. Or maybe I don’t need to buy pants made by a sweatshop worker in India to express who I am inside. Maybe makeup doesn’t somehow reveal my inner beauty by covering up my actual face.

There’s no way forward when people refuse to say anything is inherently harmful. Empowerment is not simply feeling good. It’s about gaining actual political, economic, social, or personal power. Feminism wanted to create a better world for women than the one where they only power they had was through being sexually attractive to men. It isn’t real power, and it doesn’t last. No one would patronize a man by saying he was empowered when he put on a nice suit or got a haircut. No one would expect them to be satisfied with something so inconsequential.

I recently followed an account on Instagram called @notyourmanicpixiedreamcurl. Helen doesn’t shave, wear makeup, or dye her hair and is critical of the idea that we should. While I don’t see myself giving up makeup anytime soon, I scroll through her content fascinated. One, it’s refreshing to see someone stating a real opinion, and two, she makes a lot of sense. Why is it that the natural female body is seen as disgusting? Why is it that women are told they’re expressing themselves through makeup when they’re actually changing themselves? How is painting on a new face everyday not a message to your psyche that your real one isn’t good enough?  

I’m not sure I’m willing to sacrifice my own attractiveness at the altar of these principles, but the principles themselves are logical. In the end, the thing I most have an issue with is not women trying to be as attractive as possible. It may not be good for us, but it’s understandable, perhaps even instinctive. It was probably completely harmless in hunter-gatherer days because we didn’t have the option to surgically alter our entire bodies. My issue is with pretending this is an empowering, feminist choice just because it’s a choice.

When men care as much about their appearance as women do, it’s strangely unattractive. Many women would be horrified if their husbands started wearing makeup. Why? I’ve heard one theory that it reflects our hatred of women. Men who act like women are making themselves less because women are less. This is possible, but it seems odd to make wearing makeup such an integral part of being female when it hasn’t been for a long time. My theory is that it seems pathetic for a man to put so much weight on his physical appearance because he should know he’s worth so much more than that. But for women, it’s okay because it’s accepted that how they look is the most important thing about them. In a world where that kind of thinking is prevalent, imagine how damaging it is to believe your defining quality doesn’t even exist anymore after you wash your face at night.

If any men are reading this, I’m willing to bet many of them are nodding along agreeing, saying they’ve always said women shouldn’t wear makeup. Theoretically, I should like these men. In reality, I usually don’t. The more often they mention how much they don’t like makeup, the worse they usually are.

Many of them aren’t coming from a place of concern for how makeup affects women. They don’t believe it’s unnecessary because most women are so beautiful without it. The reason they don’t like makeup is because they think women shouldn’t pretend to be more attractive than they are.

It’s not totally illogical. But if no women wore makeup, we would get used to it and the standard would adjust to reflect that. The women you think are attractive with makeup would probably still look attractive. I once heard a man say he thought men were better-looking than women because they don’t need makeup. Newsflash: No one needs makeup. It’s something that exists, people use it, our expectations have adjusted accordingly. The man who hates makeup and expects women to be beautiful without it is so often toxic because our current beauty standards reflect the number of artificial means for enhancing beauty that are available. Without realizing it, makeup-hating men expect women to look that way without any help, which in my opinion is just cruel. The most beautiful women in the world wear makeup and get photoshopped. Most men can’t even tell when someone is wearing makeup. They genuinely don’t realize how unrealistic their expectations are, because very little of what they see around them is totally natural. I would prefer to be around more traditional misogynists who complain about women not putting in any effort to look good because at least they realize an effort is required.

In this strange reversal of common sense, men are giving themselves feminist points for criticizing and shaming women who are trying their best to get by in a world that values them most on things they can’t control. Whenever they try to take some level of control, they’re criticized for being artificial. But it’s hard to forgo the opportunity to be more attractive when going natural usually results in being asked by everyone if you’re sick. I’ve had people stare and even gasp when they see my natural face. I am apparently such a convincing portrait of illness that if I want to skip work, all I need to do is come in the next day bare-faced, and no one questions it. This strategy was once so successful my own students told me it was okay if I wanted to go home and take more time off.

I don’t think I’m an unattractive person, but incidents like these make me wonder. Sometimes I think we have forgotten what natural faces look like. In a world without makeup, my made-up face would be the shock, not the real one. But then I think I’m only telling myself this to feel better, that somehow I’m the only one who looks this way, who manages to masquerade as attractive with the right disguise but falls into hideousness without it. As much as I am defending the human frailty that leads us to paint our faces and even operate on them, beauty culture is still extremely damaging and this is one of the reasons why. Women have become more and more isolated in their insecurities. Just like men, even we don’t know what other women really look like anymore. We only see our own face, with all its flaws, and feel alone and ashamed. Although I wouldn’t put body hair removal in the same category as makeup, it often has a similar effect. Women grow up secretly ashamed of how much hair they have, believing they are a special, defective minority. But the truth is, when everyone removes their hair, no one knows what normal is anymore.  When everyone wears makeup, filters their photos, and dyes their hair; when celebrities almost ubiquitously get nose jobs and Victoria’s Secret models get boob jobs, people forget what natural beauty looks like. They don’t even recognize it as beauty anymore when they see it.

In all of this, people seem to have forgotten that if the most important thing to you about a woman is her appearance, you have missed the point entirely. Looking prettier than you really are is only a crime when looking pretty is terribly important. It’s better to say women don’t need to wear makeup because they don’t need to look good. Men who are afraid of makeup think they’re entitled to a beautiful woman and deceiving them is like robbery. But what if we didn’t care what women did to their faces because their faces just weren’t that important anymore? We don’t live in this world yet—we probably never will—but if we did, it wouldn’t really matter if women wore makeup or not. It wouldn’t damage their self-esteem the same way, we wouldn’t think showing your unadorned face is showing your true self because it isn’t the self at all. Before we criticize something, it’s worth considering why we think the matter is so important in the first place. It all hinges on the idea that women are defined by their appearances, what they do or don’t do with them.

Sometimes, when I feel unattractive, I think about two things to feel comforted. One, it’s God’s fault I’m ugly not mine, so He should feel bad not me. Two, I remember that if the way I look is the most important thing about me, and the best thing, I have truly failed. I have succeeded in something that will surely fade, and failed at everything that really matters. I can’t control what the world values, if people are more impressed by my painted-on face than my personality, but at least I can decide how I value myself. How I feel at night in bed with my eyes closed is more important than anything I see in the mirror.

You’re Not Spiritual, You’re Just an Asshole

Zac Durant on Unsplash

Ten years ago, if I had met someone who told me they were on a spiritual journey, I would have been enthralled. Now, I’m more likely to run the other way. It’s not that I hate spirituality. I think it’s amazing. I even follow @theholisticpsychologist, although sometimes I wish I didn’t. It’s just that when I think of a spiritual person, I think of someone humble, deep, and capable of experiencing life on a whole different level. What I usually get is someone who hates their father and is too busy finding themselves to commit to lunch plans.

It just seems like spirituality has become a trend, and while a helpful philosophy becoming popular should be a good thing, that tends to not be what happens. Whenever something becomes mainstream, it automatically loses a lot of its nuance. It has to in order to be accessible to average people who haven’t looked at the subject in depth and probably aren’t interested in making radical changes to their lives. Susan who practices five minutes of daily mindfulness wants to reduce her anxiety, not find the source of all human suffering.

It’s not bad to simplify concepts to help a normal person live a better life. But we have to be careful. While we acknowledge that religion can easily be misused or misapplied, spirituality isn’t regarded with the same suspicion (despite spawning its own fair share of sexual predators).

One of the first problems with the current discourse around self-help and spirituality is that the same messages are being sent to very different people, who may not have enough self-awareness to determine what applies to them and what doesn’t. There is a lot of focus on being yourself, saying no, and not being responsible for other people’s feelings. That’s exactly what some people need to hear. However, it’s not as many people as you might think, despite the vast number who will tell you their toxic trait is “being too nice.” After all, the problems in our lives tend not to be caused by having too many unselfish people around us. Many people would benefit from being less self-centered—being encouraged to help others and think less about their own desires. When only the first message is circulated, everyone picks it up, and what happens is much like when a narcissist or psychopath sees a therapist. They don’t change, they just learn how to dress up their self-centered behavior in fancy words that make it harder for others to argue with. Disagree with someone like this and expect it to be labeled gaslighting, shutting down all further discussion because a difference of opinion is now a psychological manipulation tactic. Expect a certain standard of behavior from them, and you will be treated like you’re codependent, trying to change them, or too attached to whatever aspect of the conventional world best dismisses your point. To the toxic woke person, the only emotionally healthy people are those who don’t ask anything of them.

The second big problem is that the spiritual quest is often seen as seeking your authentic self, but what gets left out is that the authentic self in a spiritual sense is the part of you that is closest to God or a higher power. It’s not your personality or anything we mean by the self in the usual context. Monks and nuns sometimes practice cultivating an inner and outer silence in order to more clearly hear the voice of God in their heads. You probably know the voice they’re referring to even if you wouldn’t describe it as God. Essentially, the personality needs to be subdued for the higher self to emerge. This means abandoning your ego and surrendering to something greater than yourself. When this distinction about the meaning of the true self is lost and you remove the connection to some type of higher power, even if it’s just the universe, the result is a radical change in purpose. The end goal becomes you and figuring out what you want. But the destination at the end of the journey should not be you. It should be letting go of you.

This isn’t because it makes you a better person or more pleasant to be around, although it does both of those things. It’s because this is how spirituality will make you happier in the end. The person who goes for a walk in the woods or sits by the ocean and feels lighter and freer feels that way because they’ve been reminded of how unimportant their own worries are compared to the vastness of the universe. They feel small and insignificant, but not in a bad way, because they are also a part of the world that has just left them wonderstruck. This person has just let go of a bit of their ego and felt connected to something more important.

These are the things that bring a person peace–connection to something more, seeing our problems with perspective, feeling that we bring something of value to the world, loving and being loved, and being in control of ourselves. None of these things are easy, but any path towards fulfillment that doesn’t include them is going to be incomplete.

For some reason, spirituality has a reputation for being Religion Lite—all the fuzzy feelings associated with it without the annoying parts. No rules, only vibes. In reality, spirituality is the purpose behind the rules of religion. In his book The Perennial Philosophy, Aldous Huxley discusses the concepts all religions have in common, and it’s not things like having one god or respecting your parents. It’s that rules and spiritual practices like praying and fasting are designed with the goal of diminishing your ego so that you submit to the will of God. All religions are meant to achieve this. People would rather argue about what the rules are or whose rules are better than look at the big picture, which is that the rules are there to teach you discipline. This matters more than the rules themselves.

I don’t say this to glorify religion. I just say it to illustrate that the idea of the spiritual path being easier than the religious one is based on a misunderstanding. Spirituality is the ultimate goal of religion and choosing it means taking responsibility for your own development instead engaging in rituals mindlessly. This is actually harder than just being religious. The spiritual person prays because they know it’s good for them. The religious person prays because they think God will punish them. For most people, threats are much more effective.

Spirituality that brings you only to yourself and your desires isn’t real. Any philosophy that results in you focusing on your own feelings all the time isn’t going to make you a better person. It can be necessary somewhere along your path to go through a period of self-absorption, but the purpose of understanding your trauma and emotions isn’t so that you can indulge them—it’s so that you overcome them. The next step should be moving forward.

If that next step isn’t reached, if the goal is focusing on the self for its own sake, you will get the problems we see around us. People will break commitments because being authentic to their (passing) feelings takes precedence. They will mis-interpret self-acceptance as an excuse to never grow, and a reason why no one should ever criticize them. Boundaries will be set from a place of avoidance instead of courage.  You might have met examples of this in real life, perhaps in friends who think they should never be uncomfortable, or men who tell you how unenlightened you are when you ask them to stop sleeping with other people.

This type of spirituality involves avoiding discomfort rather than facing it, except perhaps the discomfort in cutting off relatives who vote Republican. I think we should bring back the type of spirituality people have to suffer for. What happened to meditating forty days under a tree, giving up your worldly possessions, or taking a vow of silence? Some monks clean as a form of meditation. In certain convents nuns are not allowed to look at themselves in the mirror to discourage vanity. Most people now would say, “There’s no real point to doing these things,” not understanding that the whole point is that it’s difficult. Doing hard things changes you, or at least teaches you something. I don’t believe you need to go to these lengths to develop a beneficial level of spirituality in your life, but if I’m going to be taking advice from someone, I’d rather take it from the person who spent a year challenging themselves than the person who spent a year doing whatever they wanted.

Human beings are better off when they don’t make themselves their own gods, usually because they aren’t very good at it. Much like children, we are happier with limits than when we follow our every whim. Relying on a consistent set of principles frees you from the burden of constantly evaluating your inner state to determine what to do next. And understanding how little we can control, even about our own futures, puts us in the frame of mind to accept what happens with grace. Religious people are often happier because they have given up the burden of believing they are the ultimate authority on their lives. Whatever is planned for them may be what’s best, even if it isn’t what they thought they wanted.

In the end, the easy way out is never real. Selfish people will always find a way to continue being selfish if they want to, so perhaps blaming it on poorly explained spirituality isn’t going to change them. But maybe looking at a more nuanced perspective will help the people who encounter them. Don’t be impressed or guilted when someone hits you with words that could have been picked up from the explore page of Instagram. Instead look at their actions. Is their life a good example of strong values? Has their brand of spirituality changed them for the better? Perhaps more importantly, has it affected the people around them positively? If not, smile, nod, and run the other way. The wolf who admits he is a wolf can be dealt with. The wolf who believes himself to be a sheep is impossible.

Why You Need to Beat Your SmartPhone Addiction

Gian Cescon on Unsplash

We live in an era marked by addiction, whether it be to opioids, pornography, Instagram likes, or plastic surgery. We view addicts as outliers, and characterize addiction as an illness. But what about the most common addiction of all—smartphone addiction?

            No one is shocked if you announce you’re addicted to your phone. If anything, it’s more shocking to not be addicted to your phone. We accept it as a fact of life, something that everyone tries to fight but inevitably fails at. It’s easier to ignore than other addictions because the effects aren’t as dire as drugs or alcohol, so fewer people hit a rock bottom that forces them to change. Parents don’t campaign in the streets after losing their child to an iPhone. But that doesn’t make the issue less serious—it makes it insidious, slowing taking over our lives before we know what’s happened to us.

            The statistics paint a disturbing picture. The average American smartphone user spends 5 hours and 24 minutes each day on their phone, checking it once every ten minutes. Phone time  increased 39.3% from 2019 to 2022 and continues to rise. While some phone usage is increasing because it replaces other technology (for example, people now spend more time on their phone than they do watching TV), the addictive nature of the phone leads to more screen time overall. People now use their phone to browse the internet more than a computer. In 2011, average internet usage was 43 minutes on a computer and 32 minutes on a mobile phone. In 2021, the average on a computer was 37 minutes. A slight decrease, but phone internet access increased to a whopping 2 hours and 35 minutes. So, while people use computers and T.V. less now, what’s really happening is all of this screen time and much, much more is being done on their phones instead.

            But how concerned should we be by these figures? Technology in and of itself isn’t bad; on the contrary, it’s usually very good. If people 100 years ago were told they would be able to access all the world’s knowledge from a device in their pocket quickly and easily, they would be hard-pressed to imagine any downsides. (And if they did come up with some, they probably wouldn’t have been the ones we’ve ended up dealing with.)

            Unfortunately, the data on the effects of screen time is worse than most people realize. Brain scans show being addicted to a screen literally changes the structure of your brain, diminishing grey matter in parts of the brain responsible for cognitive abilities like long-term planning and impulse control. Children exposed to more than two hours of screen time per day (the recommended safe maximum) “score lower on language and thinking tests.” Not only that, research has linked language delays in young children to screen time, with every half-hour of additional screen time resulting in a 49% increased risk of having a delay. Perhaps some of the most damning evidence against devices and children is that iPhone inventor Steve Jobs would not let his children use iPads because of their addictive nature.

            But what about adults? While some of the highest developmental risks are for children and babies with high screen time, adults are still affected negatively. Screen time negatively impacts sleep, mental health, and attention span. Not only that, time spent in front of a computer is time not spent doing something more beneficial, which is why high screen time correlates with less time spent outdoors, exercising, or socializing.

            Smartphones are designed to constantly trigger dopamine, the hormone of motivation, which in turn leads to addiction. Addiction is inherently harmful because it diminishes your ability to enjoy time not spent on the addiction. Social media feels more rewarding than real socializing because it’s found a way to turn validation into neat, exciting dopamine triggers—notifications. Real-life doesn’t offer quick rewards, and we end up with shortened attention spans because we’re unable to delay gratification long enough to focus on anything challenging. Because of the way technology hijacks your brain’s reward/motivation center, overuse can lead to ADHD-like symptoms. Children with increased screen time have a 7.7 times higher chance of exhibiting ADHD symptoms, and anecdotal evidence shows adults who “dopamine detox” can radically improve their ability to focus and stay motivated to complete difficult tasks. While some research suggests that screen time does not cause these issues but instead is more likely to be used by people with ADHD, this only reveals another sinister side effect of technology: The most vulnerable are the most susceptible to being harmed by it.

            All forms of addiction are related to a difficulty being present with your current reality. Life feels like too much to handle without something to soften its blows. “The world looks so dirty to me when I’m not drinking,” Kirsten Clay says in The Days of Wine and Roses. Any addict can relate to that statement. If their addiction were lifted out of their life, a big, frightening hole would remain in its place. Even when your drug of choice is your phone, life without it feels like a depressing and scary prospect. You are left without anything to save you when you feel bored, lonely, or sad. You have no safety net to help you numb yourself or unwind when things get bad. No more entertainment or satisfaction without putting in effort. It’s like taking a pacifier away from a baby.

            Giving up an addiction might be one of the hardest things you’ll ever do, especially when it’s something you can’t cut out of your life completely. But it’s definitely not impossible. Instead of trying to shame yourself into using your phone less, use the following tips to develop a strategy to get your screen time down to a healthy amount.

1.  Prepare substitutes.

Nature abhors a vacuum. You can’t remove screen time and put nothing else in its place. You need alternative forms of entertainment, and you need to make them as easy to access as possible. Buy books, take up a hobby, or try watching a movie. Even though it’s still screen time, it doesn’t fracture your attention span the same way. When you’re waiting somewhere with nothing to do, bring out a book or a magazine, or even some knitting. The key is to make this as enjoyable as possible. Now is not the time to force yourself to read Shakespeare. If you like romance novels or Cosmopolitan magazine, read those. If use your phone to look at Instagram or Pinterest, look at books full of photographs on whatever topic you’re interested in. Start with something easy for you to get into and make it available.

2. Fill your time with something else.

            People naturally use their phone less when they participate in activities that engage their interest.  Many people notice a sharp decrease in screen time when they travel. Make yourself busier, and you’ll naturally be less tempted to use your phone. Think about what you’d like to spend your free time doing and find ways to put these things in your schedule. For people who are heavily addicted and likely to cancel plans or activities to stay home with their screen of choice, find ways to hold yourself accountable. Involve a friend in your plans, book an activity in advance that you have to pay for, or at least change the scenery. Going to a different location can give you the push you need to focus on something else.

3. Physically make your phone harder to reach.

            When screen time is over, put your phone in a box across the room. Yes, you can still walk over there and get it, but people are lazy, and it also gives you an extra 30 seconds to think about whether getting your phone is really the decision you want to make right now.

4. Use different hacks to make your phone less enjoyable.

            Some people put switch their phone to grayscale (in Accessibility settings), finding it takes the joy out of using it. Others use a variety of screen time limiting apps that can ban you from accessing different apps after a time limit has been reached. Think carefully about how you use your phone, and delete apps that are the biggest offenders—the ones that waste your time without providing any real value to you. You may not want to deactivate social media entirely, but deleting the apps on your phone and using them on your computer instead can help you reduce the time you spend on them. First, computers aren’t as addictive, and second, you can’t take them out every 10 minutes. This can be a good compromise for people who feel terrified by the idea of not using social media completely.

5. Be intentional about your usage.

            Your phone can be an amazing tool, and it would be a shame to stop using it completely. Don’t aim for that—aim to make your screen time count. Every time you pick up your phone, set an intention for what you’re going to be using it for. This can help reduce mindless scrolling. You can also arrange for designated phone times after completing tasks throughout your day as a reward. This reinforces your ability to delay gratification and makes the actual time spent on the phone more satisfying. During a period where you don’t touch your phone, you can write down random things you want to look up or do on your phone on a notepad instead of actually doing them. Then, you have a list of tasks to help you stay on track when the phone comes out.

6. Use more technology.

            It might seem counterintuitive, but using the right technology can help you use technology less, just like how aimless browsing is reduced on a laptop. Many people report that having an Apple Watch or other smart watch helps them reduce their screen time because they can check their notifications without going into their phone. Smart watches are designed to be functional, not addictive. They allow you to leave your phone out of sight without worrying that you missed an important phone call or message.

7. Schedule your time.

            Many people get sucked into their phone and lose track of time. Some of the people most negatively affected by phone addiction struggle with some level of time blindness (often a symptom of ADHD). Many people struggle to calculate and visualize time the way their more punctual, organized counterparts do. Shaming yourself to be better tends to only make things worse, so instead tackle the issue in a productive way. Find ways to make time more visible to you. Set screen time reminders or task reminders on your phone. Create a schedule for your day to help you avoid spending hours on your phone, possibly using Google Calendar, which will keep you on task by sending reminders to your phone. Many people simply make to-do lists, which is not effective because it still leaves it up to you to decide when everything must be done. Reduce the number of choices you need to make on the spot, because more often than not, you’ll choose whatever lets you stay on your phone longer.

8. Remember that the real world is not in your phone.

            The more time we spend on our devices, the more the world inside of them starts to feel like reality. It can be hard to reduce social media because of FOMO. But the truth is, the only people who are missing out are those who spend their time on their phone instead of engaging with life. Your phone is not real. Images on Instagram are not real. The lives people project on social media are not real. The people who cancel celebrities on Twitter are just flawed human beings in real life who would probably get cancelled themselves if all their private business was aired. The way people act online isn’t even how they act in person. It’s all an illusion. Your physical health, mental health, productivity, and motivation are not worth sacrificing for an illusion.

            Technology is a tool that gives us unparalleled opportunities, but with that comes opportunities to abuse and misuse it as well. It can be hard to see just how much we are now capable of achieving because our brains are not evolved to handle the complexities of modern life, but we live in a time where it is truly possible to become whatever you want to be. But the first step to all of this is freeing yourself from addiction.

When hustling doesn’t work for you

For better or for worse, hustle culture has fallen out of fashion recently. The idea of living and dying for your workplace no longer seems like a virtue but a scam created by the billionaire overlords. The covid-19 pandemic showed many people how much of their job is really necessary and how much is simply to prove they’re suffering for their paycheck—and with cultural shifts emphasizing work-life balance, mental health, and anti-capitalism, the resounding message is to prioritize yourself and your well-being over anything else.

It’s not that these messages are wrong. They’re valid, important, and exactly what many people need to hear. But they’re based on the assumption that everyone’s natural instinct is to grind till they die. When a quick Google search of “hustle culture” primarily brings up articles about how to save yourself from it, the underlying message is that it’s the default. You need to be told to stop hustling, or else you might accidentally hustle forever. For many of us, this is really not the case.

“You don’t need to be productive!” a typical anti-grind tweet might advise. “Instead, go for a walk and pick flowers. Make yourself breakfast. Write a poem.” The workaholics may have a hard time believing it, but that’s actually a very productive day to some people. A home-cooked meal? Exercise? Fresh air? Poetry? It’s not just good—it’s an achievement.

For all the overly responsible hard workers who feel too guilty to take sick days and cope with negative emotions by keeping busy, there are almost as many with the opposite problems. They want to get things done—in fact, most of them have big dreams—but they can’t stop procrastinating, they can’t focus, and they can’t manage their time. A bad day might mean they can’t get off the couch or stop scrolling through their phone. To put aside their feelings to get something done might be one of the hardest things they’ll ever do.

Sometimes depression, ADHD, or a similar issue could be a factor here, but even when these conditions are treated or managed, certain tendencies can still remain. For some people, getting things done is just natural. For others, it’s the single biggest barrier to their success and happiness. Many are somewhere in between.

The idea that the pressure to be productive is a capitalist construct to be discarded isn’t usually helpful either because many people genuinely want to accomplish things. It can be one of the greatest contributors to their self-esteem. The message, “Don’t try so hard,” means very different things depending on who it is directed at. “You are so much more than your job,” is great when you need to slow down, but it doesn’t address the genuine need a person has to express themselves and be useful—and how bad it can feel when you’re somehow unable to do so.

Ironically, some of the biggest sufferers of this problem are people who once seemed to have the most potential. Children who were “gifted” or “high achievers” often find themselves hitting a wall as adults, unable to flourish in the real world. A quick look through the r/aftergifted subreddit shows a pattern of depression, difficulty focusing, lack of motivation, and technology addiction. The alternatives presented to hustle culture aren’t helping these people, and hustle culture itself just isn’t compatible with their personalities. They want to get things done, but this way of trying to do it doesn’t work for them. Why not?

It may have something to do with how they respond to negative emotions. Some people can be motivated by competition, jealousy, or insecurity. These feelings push them to try harder and do better. The idea of working to prove people wrong fuels their fire, and trying to be the best is energizing, not demoralizing. For other, less type-A people, while they could be just as prone towards feeling competitive, the idea that their self-worth is on the line feels absolutely paralyzing. Taking any action becomes infinitely harder because the possibility of doing it wrong has such serious consequences. The additional stress creates a freeze response instead of a fight response.

By  now many people are familiar with the idea that procrastination is often not about laziness but perfectionism. The desire to do a task perfectly creates so much pressure that you avoid it completely. There’s no way to live up to your own expectations. But in addition to perfectionism, new studies point towards the theory that “procrastination is a problem of emotional regulation” in general. At the heart of it is a reduced ability to deal with negative emotions, although what those negative emotions are depends on each individual case. They could be anxiety, insecurity, or even boredom. Dr. Fuschia Sirois of Univeristy of Sheffield describes it like this: “People engage in this irrational cycle of chronic procrastination because of an inability to manage negative moods around a task.” Some of the ways that high-achievers motivate themselves, like focusing on the competition and their dissatisfaction with the current situation, don’t work for these people because all they do is increase those negative feelings that they struggle to regulate.

To avoid seeing this as just another way that procrastinators are inadequate, it might be helpful to reframe the issue as a heightened sensitivity to negative feelings. While sometimes this can make it harder to get things done, it can also be a powerful source of creativity. Some of the most profoundly talented artists and writers have struggled with similar problems. All James Joyce’s could manage to write each day was only around 90 words, and even the prolific Meryl Streep describes herself as “an extremely undisciplined person.” The tendency to ignore your feelings and get to work, while necessary sometimes, has its own share of downsides.

Work that matters to you can sometimes be harder to do. Thomas Mann defined a writer as “a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.” Caring more can be both a tremendous asset and a barrier to overcome when it comes with anxiety and perfectionism. Some people struggle to motivate themselves to engage in any work they don’t care about, which, while it can lead to work other people consider important being undone, can give them incredible drive and passion in areas they prioritize. It can be their greatest strength and their greatest struggle, depending on how they use it.

Although it has been established that people who struggle with procrastination and getting things done are dealing with negative emotions around whatever work they avoid, it may be unclear what else they have in common. There seem to be big differences between someone who avoids work because of crippling anxiety and perfectionism and someone who avoids it because it doesn’t interest them enough. But actually, caring too much and not caring enough are two sides of the same coin. In both situations, the problem is in the emphasis placed on the end goal. Anxious procrastinators are intimidated by the end goal. They fear they won’t be able to achieve it to a satisfactorily level and become demotivated. On the other hand, disinterested procrastinators cannot overcome their lack of interest in the process just because the end goal should be worth it to them. The abstract final destination isn’t enough to spur them into action. What the two have in common is that focusing the outcome doesn’t motivate them in a consistent way.

According to research, procrastinators “are motivated by factors other than achievement.” This might seem strange, even to procrastinators themselves, because most really would like to achieve things. It’s not that they don’t care about achievement—it’s that it doesn’t motivate them to complete tasks the way it might someone else. Most of them have wanted to be accomplished, successful individuals their whole lives but keep falling short not because they don’t want it enough, but because that’s not the type of approach that works with their brains.

The good news is that there is another approach that does work. Instead of being result-oriented, the solution is to be process-oriented. This might not sound ground-breaking since many of us have been told to “fall in love with the process” before, but that’s because most people don’t take it far enough, and they don’t realize how helpful the concept can be when it’s taken to the extreme. It works for both types of procrastinators, although it may need to be implemented in different ways.

Let’s look at the anxious procrastinator first. When the most common, research-backed advice for getting things done is to set goals, the idea that goals are the root of this person’s problems seems counterintuitive, but it’s true. Remove the goal and most of their anxiety will go away. End results can, even should, be ignored completely. Instead of deciding to learn a skill, write a book, or even to lose weight, this type should ask themselves what habits they would like to adopt. They might decide to “become a person who writes” as a goal, setting aside time in their calendar to write however they feel most comfortable, with no required word count or pressure to create a finished product. Telling themselves, “Now is the time to finally write that bestseller everyone told you you could write in high school,” is the surest way to create a writer’s block so strong no wrecking ball could break through it. Instead, anxious procrastinators should take inspiration from Emily Dickinson and Vincent van Gogh, who became great successes only after they died. Nothing quells their fears and removes the paralyzing pressure they’ve placed on themselves like the idea that they can be a complete failure in this life and yet somehow go down in history as a genius.

This type is filled with so much shame that the ways other people keep themselves accountable can just seem like bullying to their sensitive psyches. For example, if they want to get in shape, weighing themselves or closely monitoring gym progress might only remind them how far they fall short of their own (likely unrealistic) standards. This triggers a shame spiral that makes them more likely to order a pizza than go back to the gym. A smarter approach would be to decide, “I want to be a person who goes to the gym,” and then allow themselves to do whatever they want there. The fear of failure is removed because the only way to fail is not show up. Once you’re there, you’ve succeeded. For people who hate failure, an easy, built-in success is addictive. The self-acceptance required to put results to the side goes a long way towards reducing the shame that creates this perfectionism in the first place.

These strategies will be helpful for most procrastinators, but for those who avoid tasks they find boring or unpleasant, a few additional techniques might be necessary. A lot of advice will be geared towards making the activity fun or interesting, and while that may work, sometimes it serves only to drag out task longer than necessary. People aren’t dumb. They know that cleaning their room is never going to be as fun as a video game, and they know that whatever reward they promise themselves at the end they can just take now. A better approach is to try to make the task go as quickly and painlessly as possible.

First, consider the best and easiest way to accomplish it. The job may seem overwhelming because you don’t know what it involves. Break it down into steps and look for things that can be eliminated or made easier with technology. Do some research, either online or by asking people in real life how they work. Some of their shortcuts may surprise you. The most organized people don’t endure hours of tedious work their “lazy” counterparts can’t handle. They plan in advance so they never have to do that at all. Procrastinators are actually some of the hardest workers of all—because they make their work so much harder than it needs to be.

Next, create a plan that will be as easy as possible for you to follow. Make it so easy you could follow it on your worst day. A plan like that means minimal effort put in more often, so you will need to start early. If you’re used to pulling all-nighters to complete an assignment, instead start three weeks early and work for 10 minutes every day. Set reminders on your phone or create a digital calendar, because you absolutely cannot be relied on to do it otherwise.

For both long-term projects and simple, tedious tasks like housework, utilize timers. Work expands to fill the available time, so challenge yourself to see how much you can do in a short period. Focus on quantity, not quality, because it’s better to do something poorly than not at all. Going back later to improve it requires less mental energy than creating it from scratch.

Consider also whether the actual task at hand is really so bad, or if you share traits with the anxious procrastinator. Maybe what’s so off-putting is how much work there seems to be between you and your goal. Learning a new language, for example, might feel very unpleasant, but memorizing five vocabulary words a week isn’t difficult for anyone. What’s difficult is sitting there thinking about how much you still don’t know. But when you genuinely release your attachment to the result and see the habit as an end to itself, the process can become enjoyable—which means you’re much more likely to stick to it. You won’t speak Spanish tomorrow, but you might in a few years, whereas if you put too much pressure on yourself it’s more likely you’ll never learn it at all.

People may laugh at you if they find out you set such small goals. You might be laughing at yourself, embarrassed that you can’t “just do things like an adult.” But you shouldn’t try these methods to be “nice” to yourself or do things the easy way. You should try them because they work. You didn’t choose your psychological makeup any more than the person who thrives on competition and naturally wakes up at 6 AM. You won’t change it by fighting it. You wouldn’t treat a cactus like a rose bush, so stop following advice that isn’t designed for you. A square peg has just as much to offer as a round one, in the right place.

Some people fear that self-acceptance will remove their desire to improve, but really, the opposite is true. It is only when you embrace where you already are that real, lasting change is possible.

The Burden of Womanhood

With the murder of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent Iranian protests taking the world by a storm, many people have spoken up not only against forced hijab but also against hijab bans, like those in France. Whenever an oppressive law is put in place that affects women, the explanation given is always that men want to control them. And in a way, that makes sense. It’s not hard to find men who want to control their wives, sisters, and even mothers. And while that’s not necessarily an incorrect interpretation of what’s happening, it’s also not the full picture.

I live in a conservative Arab country. I don’t think I have to mention the downsides to this, but an upside, if you could call it that, is a better understanding of misogyny. I like to think that the years of suffering have at least given me insight. And my conclusion is that the deeper problem in all of this, more than just control, is that in most cultures and ideologies women bear the burden of representing the beliefs of men more than the men themselves do.

Men in most places get to behave pretty much the same way. They wear the same clothes at the beach. No one tells them not travel, work, or seek an education. People tell them not to have sex but no one is really surprised when they do anyway, except their mothers. What defines the openness of a society is the role of women. The Victorian Era was so repressive that legend has it people covered the legs of their chairs to avoid provoking sexual thoughts. And yet, they had a terrible prostitution problem. What happened then is the same thing that happens in the Middle East now. Respectable women don’t have premarital sex, so respectable men just have it with someone else.

Women are the battleground of everyone’s conflicting beliefs. Muslim men believe in modesty, so they want their wives to cover up. The French hate Muslims, so they ban hijab. In both situations, women are the ones who end up struggling. It’s true that in many cases Muslim women are forced to cover by men (even though there are women who cover by choice), but bans on hijab don’t do anything to punish these men. They just further limit the freedom and access to education of the women who need it most. Even in the Arab world, there are beaches that ban hijabis, often because they don’t want conservative people making everyone in bikinis feel uncomfortable. But what’s the metric used for banning conservative men? How will they be marked in public?

This doesn’t just apply to the Middle East. Conservative Americans don’t want abortion, another issue that miraculously only applies to women. Whichever side of that debate you fall on, at the end of the day, women have to deal with either the consequences of getting pregnant or those of an abortion. Neither is easy, despite what some people like to pretend. People argue that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal tomorrow. But if the sins of men showed up on their own bodies instead of on women’s, the entire structure of our world would change.

The real measure of a man in the Arab world is not himself but his wife. A liberal man and a conservative man may appear exactly the same until you see the type of woman they’re willing to marry. And the more hypocritical the man is, the prouder he is of his culture and religion. If he were less proud, he wouldn’t bother clinging to values he consistently fails at. No one seems to realize they’re proud of something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. They are saved from being what they hate by women, whom they also hate.

I don’t mean to say there are no genuinely religious or conservative men. There definitely are. But they’ll never be the majority because it’s just too difficult for most people, male or female. Restrictive societies often end up encouraging people to do the opposite of what they preach. When nice girls aren’t supposed to have relationships with men, men end up being more promiscuous because they are forced to have casual sexual encounters if they want to have any at all. Women learn that the only way to survive is to lie. And few things threaten the sanctity of your marriage like barely knowing the person you’ve committed to spending your life with.

It’s only natural to fail in these circumstances. As Nathaniel Branden points out in The Six Pillars of Self Esteem, when the values you’re taught don’t allow you to be human, hypocrisy is the only way to survive. I don’t fault men for failing to live up to the ideals of our society. I fault them for expecting women to.

They want their women to do what they could not, as if that is their last chance. Maybe their ideals can still be realized then. On women, everything shows. Pregnancy, virginity, modesty. On men, almost nothing. So maybe, if she’s succeeded, somehow everyone else has too.

Maybe we should stop expecting women to represent anyone other than themselves. Or maybe we should look at the ways they really are a reflection of their men. It’s not their bodies. They don’t represent your purity. But their oppression represents your ignorance, their suffering your selfishness, their torture and murder your complete and utter failure as human beings.

Men do want to control women, but not usually for the sheer pleasure of it. They control women because it’s easier than controlling themselves. The behavior of women is not the problem. They are only a mirror held up to the rest of society, the hidden sins of everyone else made visible. If you don’t like what you see, change yourself.

Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard and the Contradictions of Cancel Culture

If nuance and subtlety were rain, the internet would be a desert. This has never been clearer than in the recent Johnny Depp v. Amber heard court case. 

The reality of the case seems to matter much less than what it appears to symbolize—although what, exactly, that is depends on who you support. Somehow this case is both a victory for abuse victims and a blow, a step towards recognizing men can be victims of abuse but actually a step backwards because it shows how misogyny will always win. At different times throughout the soap opera of Heard and Depp, we’ve been told it’s a moral duty to condemn an abuser and also that we can never know what goes on behind closed doors, depending on who happens to look bad at that moment.

Let me break down the trial as simply as I can. Most people who watched it found Heard’s testimony strange and inconsistent and were shocked by the evidence of her violence. While Depp’s team may not have proven without a doubt he never hit her, I do think they showed she was the primary aggressor and most of his actions were probably reactive or in self-defense. Depp did lose his UK libel suit, but the situation was very different, and I personally agree with that verdict. You can’t punish a newspaper for publishing what they believe to be true.

If Heard had claimed Depp hit her a few times over the course of their marriage and stopped there, she might have won. She has some evidence of that. But she talked about incidents of abuse so horrific that it’s impossible they left only a few bruises that could be covered by makeup. Heard’s problem is not that no one believed her evidence. Her problem is that her evidence does not match her own version of what happened.

Mainstream media still portrays Amber Heard as a victim, and supporters of Depp are confused that standing up for an abused man is not only not part of the Me Too movement, but apparently makes them politically right-wing instead. It’s almost like each side watched a completely different trial. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. But it is logical if you understand what’s going on. 

Me Too, and all social movements really, are not simply about correcting injustice. They are about fighting against widespread, unjust power dynamics. Me Too is less about supporting all victims of abuse and more about taking power away from abusive men, which may seem like a subtle difference, but it’s not. We live in a post-modernist world that is obsessed with privilege and hierarchies of power, which are both very real things, but sometimes the result is that the group you belong to matters more than who you actually are, an ironic effect of efforts to reduce racism and sexism. Amber Heard has been supported not because she is fighting against Johnny Depp the person, but because she is fighting against Johnny Depp the symbol of white male power. Depp is not supported by the liberal media because there is no social change in the triumph of a man maintaining his privilege and power at the expense of a woman. 

Celebrities as a whole are not cancelled because they’re bad people, but because they’re perpetuating whatever ideas are currently deemed harmful to the disempowered. This is why Amber Heard potentially lying about abuse claims means she’s an “imperfect victim,” whereas Depp’s misogynistic text messages mean he can’t be a victim at all. 

If Heard were a man and Depp were a woman, the interpretation of this trial would be completely different. And that alone tells you people are not looking primarily at the facts of what happened.

It also shows we don’t want to talk about why we don’t take women’s violence seriously. It seems inconsistent, but it’s not totally unfair. Violence by a man against a woman is not the same as violence by a woman against a man because, in most cases, the man is much stronger. That doesn’t make it fine for a woman to be violent—it just means that the situation is not equivalent. Worst case scenario, a man willing to hurt a woman to get his way, will get his way, and at a high cost. A woman willing to hurt a man is relying on him being too moral to hit her back, but still knows that if he does, she’s not coming out ahead. We should not, in a misguided attempt to bring about equality between men and women, insist that women are just as strong as men, because that ignores one of the main reasons there is such a power imbalance between the sexes in the first place.

This doesn’t mean violence is acceptable in a relationship from either party, or that the reaction to the trial is fair, but it’s worth noting that Depp seemed less concerned by Heard’s violence than by her slander, probably because that’s what traumatized him more. Even Depp’s supporters focus more on Heard’s hypocrisy than her physical brutality.

If you want to support Amber Heard because you don’t think women’s violence is very damaging to men, at least acknowledge it so that an honest debate can take place. No one wants to say it out loud because it sounds bad, but there’s no way Heard would be defended like this if a double standard didn’t exist. And while I understand why it exists, you don’t need to be able to kill someone in a physical fight to emotionally damage them. No one physically abuses without emotional abuse. Male victims still matter even if the specific aspects of the abuse that damage them the most are different from what would traumatize a woman.

So is this a victory for male victims? Perhaps. But really, Depp supporters are celebrating because now men can be believed, not because now they can’t be abused. It’s not exactly the same thing. Me Too was a reaction to centuries of tolerance of the sexual misconduct of men in power, and the pendulum swung to the other extreme when it was asserted that we must “believe all women.” And that’s what always happens, because what’s needed to cancel one extreme is a movement towards the opposite extreme. It’s not based on pure truth (I mean, try telling Emmett Till women never lie) but because we can’t fight against something horribly bad with moderation. But now the support of Depp and the distasteful, misogynist glee in the fall of Amber Heard is not solely about them. It’s a reaction to the fact that we were asked to suspend critical thinking skills when dealing with a woman’s story or else be labeled bad people. That’s not a rational or sustainable point of view. It only works as long as women have no power and only face negative consequences for speaking out, the very situation it’s trying to change. Once it succeeds, it stops making sense.

Regarding the trial, as much as we want to make it a symbol of something more, it may not end up being that. It’s not like the O.J. Simpson trial did anything to change the justice system’s treatment of black men. If anything, it showed us the error of making a case concerning individuals about the groups they belong to. True justice is not going to consider the implications of the verdict on others as a factor. It will look at the situation at hand only and the people involved as they are. It will not be swayed by ideologies, stereotypes, or agendas.

Is it true that the verdict will make it harder for victims of abuse to speak out, for fear that they can be sued for defamation? This depends on whether victims see themselves reflected more in Depp or in Heard. If they relate to Depp, they will see the trial as proof that everyone can be against you in the court of public opinion, but that it’s still possible to be vindicated. If they resonate with Heard, they probably will be less likely to speak out. But just because the majority of abuse victims are women does not mean they feel represented by Heard, especially if they actually watch the trial.

To be honest, it’s hard to feel represented by either person in this case. If I am ever physically abused, I won’t have the millions to pay for a powerful legal team. I won’t have the testimony of an entourage of bodyguards and personal assistants, and no one’s going to ask me to write an op-ed for the Washington Post. If I speak out about it, I won’t get sued for defamation because most people don’t pay any attention to what I say anyway. The whole situation is so far removed from my reality and the reality of the average person that I wonder if it will actually change anything at all. The main effect it’s had on me is that now I sometimes narrate my thoughts to an invisible jury and tell my husband I’m going to blackmail him whenever I get a bruise.

What is the real takeaway from the trial, then? Everyone will see something different in it, but I was struck by how times have changed in the sense that we crucify people for different things, but we still delight just as much as always in a public execution, and we’re still just as convinced we’re right, every time. Maybe we should consider instead that our opinions and values aren’t universal truths even if they feel that way. Maybe we should be aware that mainstream views are always overly simplified. And maybe, most importantly, we should recognize the harm in any ideology that shames others into thinking less in order to make them believe more.

How To Pick The Perfect Toxic Boyfriend For You

LETRAS.MUS.BR - Letras de músicas

I wanted to make the title gender neutral, but it wasn’t as catchy. I guess complaining about men just has a certain ring to it that’s hard to replicate.

That’s actually not my intention here at all, though. Everyone can be toxic; I’m just writing from my perspective because it’s easier for me. And this post is not about how horrible your boyfriend is. He may very well be pretty bad, but that’s an essay (or book) for you to write. My point is this: Someone else’s toxic behavior is not your fault, but emotionally healthy people don’t accept chronic mistreatment in a romantic relationship.

Are you emotionally healthy? Probably not. Do you want to fix that? Eh, maybe in theory. But on an unconscious level, that’s probably your worst nightmare! This fascinating video first opened my eyes to the idea that we purposely seek out toxic relationships so that we can blame something external for the pain we feel inside of us. The pain was always there, but now we don’t have to take responsibility for it. I don’t know about you, but that seems like the perfect arrangement to never face any of my own issues again.

On the other hand, going through one of the relationships detailed below is a great way to make literally everything else less frightening in comparison. Therapy, loneliness, and acknowledging your mother may have been right about you are usually terrifying prospects. But like most unpleasant things, they’re still much better than dating a psycho.

So, whether you want to remain in denial or seek out pain for the purposes of growth, keep reading. I will help you find the man who perfectly complements your own issues.

The Sadist (And Not In A Good Way)

This man has a diminished capacity for empathy. He would never describe himself as cruel, but when someone lets their feelings take precedence over everything else, cruelty is often the result. He probably prides himself on being brutally honest and having high standards. You will never live up to them. Eventually you will realize that he doesn’t live up to them either. He thinks it’s sweet when you give up things that make you happy because this means you really love him. His love language is blood and tears. But only yours.

He’s perfect for you if you have a victim complex. His behavior will fuel hours of complaints like, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and, “I’m so nice to him but he doesn’t appreciate me!” Eventually you and your friends will conclude that you just care too much. You’re just too nice. No one will suggest that this is actually a deep-seated issue and that you fear you have nothing to offer in a healthy relationship where both people are nice, or, God forbid, the other person is actually nicer than you. Cue Identity Crisis.

In general, deciding your problem is that you care too much is not adequate self-reflection. It’s like saying you’re a perfectionist when they ask you about your weaknesses in a job interview. It’s more likely your problem is that you really need to believe you care too much.

The Overgrown Baby

This delight needs far more attention than the average adult. He doesn’t just expect you to be his mother, but maybe his father too. You’ll shop for him, make sure he eats properly, and smother him to the point where any normal person would run. He is the college boyfriend who always gets you to do his homework. Some babies even expect you to take care of them financially. If that’s the case, congratulations. You have found a grade-A baby.

He’s perfect for you if you have a void in your life and would rather fill it with a person than meaningful goals. He’s basically a part or full-time job, so you will never feel aimless again. He’s also great if you completely lack self-esteem and believe all you have to offer others is favors. This man needs you, which is perfect because you don’t trust someone to simply want you. Your love language is acts of service. But only your own.

Some of the same points above apply here as well. You don’t care too much, you just care too little about yourself.

The Unavailable Man

He may not be someone you actually date. You might just stalk him a lot from a distance and feel like that constitutes a kind of relationship. He could also be the commitment-phobe you never tie down or have a significant other that he cheats on with you. Bonus points if he’s married. It’s difficult to describe this man in detail because his defining trait is that you don’t really know what he’s like in a committed relationship. He’s unwilling to give that to you. He might happily give that to someone else. Just not you.

He’s perfect if you have a deep-seated fear of vulnerability. By never being available, he allows you to convince yourself that if he were, you would have no commitment issues of your own. You’re just waiting for the love of your life to come around, and then everything will be perfect. In reality, if you genuinely wanted a relationship, you wouldn’t waste your energy on someone out of reach. But you don’t. You want a fantasy because it’s safer. Your love language is lying to yourself.

The Loser

This man may not really be a bad guy, but in the eyes of whatever society you’re in, he’s not a success. He disappoints your parents, gets sucked into pyramid schemes, and makes unfortunate hairstyle choices. His mother thinks he has a lot of potential and hopes you will be the girl who inspires him to live up to it.

He’s perfect if you’re desperate. You just want a man, any man, even one with questionable personal hygiene. Anything is better than being alone. If this is your case, I suggest you go for someone unfairly considered a loser. Give chances to the ugly, the mentally impaired, or the homeless. But even if there is nothing really wrong with the man, he is defined by the fact that deep down, you feel like he is beneath you. And you prefer it that way because he is less likely to leave you.

In an ironic twist of events, dating you may raise his self-esteem and inspire him to upgrade. Your love language is fruitless attempts to control.

This is not an exhaustive guide to toxic men. That is impossible because new ones are being born every minute. If you don’t find your issues here, please feel free to explain them in the comments. I hope you feel after reading this that there really is someone for everyone. Happy hunting.

3 Ways We Refuse To Take Responsibility For Our Lives

low-angle photography of man in the middle of buidligns

Razvan Chisu on Unsplash

It is interesting to me how much power and agency the average middle-class person has and how often they refuse to use it. Power is a strange thing. Most people do not feel powerful. But I believe we choose not to recognize our own agency and abilities because then we would be responsible for using them, and that responsibility is a very frightening thing.

It is more comfortable to blame others for our unhappiness than to acknowledge that we are where we are largely through our own actions. I read something once along the lines of, “We all have what we want most.” That might seem contrary to your experience, but it’s not wrong. Many people would rather be safe than happy. They might say they want to be rich, but what they want is to continue spending money. They might say they want to meet someone and fall in love, but they would rather not risk rejection.

I have three favorite ways of avoiding responsibility in my own life, but I am sure there are many others. I’m sure I do many more that I haven’t realized yet. But I think if I can work on these, I will be a lot closer to where I want to be.

1. Caring more about being right than reaching goals.

This is a big one in every aspect of our lives. Instead of telling people how we want to be treated, we test them and judge them if they get it wrong. If we really want other people to make us happy, we should give them all the information they need to do that. And we should understand that to increase the chances of successfully getting what we want from them, we should not approach the subject as though we are a victim and they have wronged us. It might be true, but that doesn’t mean it will work.

In other areas, this could manifest as refusing to compromise your artistic vision to be successful (which is fine, but expect to be less successful), refusing to ask for opportunities or promotions because other people should realize you deserve them, or insisting on any course of action after it has been shown to not produce the results you want. On some level, people know what to do to get what they want. They just don’t believe they should have to do it.

2. Believing choices that would cause conflict are not options.

How often do we say, “I can’t do x, y, or x,” but we really mean that it would be uncomfortable or cause a conflict with someone else? This sounds like, “I can’t marry the person I want because my family wouldn’t approve,” or, “My husband won’t let me have male friends.” It’s nice that you don’t want to upset people, but you are making a choice. People do not have nearly as much control over you as they would like you to think.

It is not wrong to upset other people or say no. It’s unpleasant, but if you can learn to live with that feeling, you will finally be free.

You might say that you can’t stand up for yourself. But this probably doesn’t mean you can’t, it means that perhaps it makes you very anxious or you start crying. But you can still speak your mind even if you are crying. You do not have to do something perfectly for it to be effective.

Part of the reason why we are reluctant to risk conflict is we don’t have good conflict resolution skills. I personally have spent more of my life focusing on conflict avoidance skills. These boil down to trying to be polite, apologizing quickly, and giving in. To many people, it is a terrifying thing to honor your own wishes knowing that it will upset someone you love. Beneath that is the unspoken belief that they will no longer love you if you have caused them anger. We believe we do not have enough to offer to still be worth it after we have upset them. Which is strange, because the people who usually feel this way are upset by others all the time and still care about them.

The ironic thing is that we would not struggle so much with conflict if we weren’t expecting someone else to fulfill the needs we refuse to meet ourselves. The confrontation becomes weighted and intense because so much relies on the other person responding how we desire. On the flip side, every person who takes responsibility for their own happiness makes it easier for everyone around them to do the same. If I meet my own needs, I will not be upset by what you need to do to meet yours. If I know my boundaries, I will not be torn when you ask me to violate them. I will simply say no, calmly and politely, because what really affects us is feeling powerless. I will be upset by attempts to manipulate me if I fear that they might work. I will be upset by insults if I secretly agree with them. If I know who I am and that I deserve to be happy, I will have no desire to control someone else. (Or at least a significantly decreased desire. No one’s perfect.)

3. Externalizing insecurities and hoping others will fix them.

I have not thought about this one as much as the others, but I think it is still valid. I have noticed that people tend to gravitate towards those who see them the way they see themselves. That’s not inherently negative because hopefully the way you see yourself is not inherently negative. But let’s be realistic. It frequently is.

Instead of facing our self-doubt, we look for someone who doubts us as well and try to win their approval. If we can convince them, maybe this is proof that we should believe it ourselves. And this process only works with people who see the flaws we are self-conscious about.

I see this happen a lot in romantic relationships. People chase those who don’t like them because they don’t like themselves. It’s not very reassuring to prove yourself to someone who already likes you. This person just seems to have low standards to us. No, we want someone perhaps even harsher than ourselves. And this is why we stay with people who are critical and put us down. We think, “If I can get this person who hates x, y, or z about me to think I’m great, imagine how wonderful I must seem to all the people who already thought I was fine.” Perfectionism, the root of a lot of self-esteem issues, wants us to reach a state where we are immune to criticism or disapproval. So no wonder we would be more interested in the people who don’t value us. We really think they can’t exist for us to be okay.

If you value yourself, the whole conflict disappears. When you really, really value yourself, you realize how powerful and capable you are. And you force yourself to act on it even if it might be difficult at first. Growth is not supposed to be comfortable. Think of how much babies cry when they get teeth. But it’s all worth it in the end, because they finally get to eat real food.

Everyone Is Not Beautiful

man wearing mud mask

Raphael Lovaski on Unsplash

I usually hear this sentiment applied to women, as in, “Every woman is beautiful.” And my first thought is:

Is it so terrible to not be beautiful that we cannot admit any woman isn’t?

I don’t believe that denying reality helps. It just makes it seem that whatever we are denying must be really terrible if we can’t acknowledge it. People are aware that an attractiveness hierarchy exists, and this kind of rainbows and sunshine attitude doesn’t get rid of the hierarchy; it reaffirms it and insists we are all on the top of it. I just think of Animal Farm. All women are beautiful, but some women are more beautiful than others. Great. Now we are back where we started.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t believe in our own attractiveness. I think everyone is beautiful to someone. I think everyone has beautiful features, both internally and externally. But why is it considered a necessary part of a woman’s self-esteem for her to believe she is beautiful? Wouldn’t it be better to encourage women to believe their worth is not based on how pretty they are? What I hear behind these superficial empowerment messages is: Your value is still based on your attractiveness. That hasn’t changed. But don’t worry, because you’re attractive.

The ironic thing is that I don’t see these people arguing that Trump supporters are beautiful, or misogynists, or Karens. Everyone is beautiful—if they subscribe to a narrow ideology of leftist beliefs. But it doesn’t work that way. People aren’t physically attractive based on whether or not you think they deserve to be. What ought to be is not what is reflected in the world. And if you think what’s on the inside makes someone beautiful (a very nice belief), everyone is still definitely not beautiful.

People don’t talk like this about men. Many men do not consider themselves particularly good-looking, and they don’t care about it one way or another. They believe in other positive qualities that they have. They don’t think the majority of their value depends on their outward appearance. When a man accomplishes something great, we don’t throw in how handsome and sexy he is the way we make sure to throw in “beautiful” when we are proud of a woman.

We wouldn’t say everyone has an above average IQ because that’s statistically illogical, but we would acknowledge that everyone has a talent of some kind. The first statement is incorrect, the second is the truth. The truth is comforting. The truth is that you can be personally attractive without being conventionally beautiful. And if you aren’t particularly attractive, that’s fine too. A pretty face contributes so much less to the world than intelligence, hard work, and good character. It’s a lie to pretend that being valuable attracts as much attention as superficial beauty. But the world doesn’t reward what is should.

We are still obsessed with women’s bodies, and whether we insist on covering them, uncovering them, perfecting them, or going on about how perfect all of them intrinsically are, we are still placing more importance on the body than the woman herself. It is not empowering women to expand the definition of who deserves to be sexualized. Why is it so necessary to tell us every body is a bikini body? I’m not saying don’t wear bikinis, but where is the movement shaming men for not being comfortable in speedos?

It does end up being shaming. You are shamed for not loving your body more. But I think if I really love myself, I should tie it to something more meaningful than my body. I should be able to acknowledge I have features that are not ideal, but not be upset about this because who I am is so much more than that. Men, for the most part, are pretty covered up in everyday life. This isn’t because there is some kind of stigma against their bodies. It’s just that their bodies are not their defining characteristic and so no one cares much about what they wear. People are always telling women to either cover or uncover, but neither of those solves the actual problem, which is that women are defined by their physical appearances.

I am reminded of the words of Courtney Martin: “We are the daughters of the feminists who said, ‘You can be anything,’ and we heard, ‘You have to be everything.’” But it’s lie. You don’t have to be everything. You don’t have to be beautiful, you don’t have to balance a family and a career, you don’t have to love every part of yourself. You just have to be good enough.

How to Use Your Pain to Get Ahead

silhouette photo of man on cliff during sunset

Zac Durant on Unsplash

Life is a traumatic event and everything we do is a coping mechanism. Some coping mechanisms are just more socially acceptable than others.

Some of our greatest triumphs are the result of attempting to escape our suffering. And because that suffering doesn’t go anywhere, we have an endless source of motivation, spurring us on to greater and greater heights. Does it make sense to run from pain when you’ll never escape it? No, not really, but logic doesn’t hold most people back, so don’t let it stop you either.

Society looks down on people who feel like they have a void inside, as if this is due to a lack of personal development. But the natural response to a void is to create or find something to fill it. This, in essence, is productivity. They say necessity is the mother of invention, but maybe it’s deep personal pain. Maybe they’re the same thing.

Before I continue, I would like to say there is a level of pain where you can’t get out of bed, and a slightly lower level of pain, where you get out of bed but spend all day trying to prove your worth. Psychiatrists exist for the first. Paychecks exist because of the second. This article is about aiming for the second, not the first.

Suffering and insecurity are responsible for many of the positive elements in our lives, or even physical things we enjoy. Would obnoxious sports cars exist if poorly-endowed men didn’t? Would Marilyn Monroe’s movie career have happened if her father had loved her? (Daddy issues are responsible for many things on the internet but I’m not going to get into that here.) I for one become funnier when I am tired or unhappy because stress lowers my concern for my dignity.

I believe our innate brokenness is responsible for most of our social relationships. If people were as emotionally self-sufficient as self-love twitter tells us we should be, they wouldn’t connect with others very much. But to triumph over loneliness while remaining alone is not really an admirable goal. If we did not experience pain in being alone, we would have no motivation to tolerate the pain inherent in existing with other people. A problematic level of suffering makes us accept abuse and toxicity just because it’s better than being alone, but a nice, reasonable level of pain pushes us to do scary things like leave the house and speak to other people. I certainly wouldn’t do it if the alternative wasn’t so much worse.

Pain not only gives you friends, it makes you work harder. The only reason I’m writing this blog post at all is because I asked a friend to publicly shame me if I did not publish a post every Thursday. I’m not motivated enough by the desire to improve myself, get somewhere in life, or be successful. I don’t have a clear vision of my future or a lot of self-discipline. But what I do have is an endless reservoir of shame, and it’s time I got something out of it besides insomnia. I doubt I would even have a blog if I genuinely loved myself.

If you are anxious or an overthinker, you are the perfect candidate for this method. My current strategy to avoid having thoughts is to crochet constantly. This has the added benefit of impressing friends and family, a great band-aid on the lack of social acceptance I experienced as a child. The only drawback is severe eyestrain and a return to the migraine medication I haven’t needed since I stopped teaching high school. But everything has a plus side, and painkillers are definitely, definitely not an exception.

How exactly you make your pain work for you depends greatly on your individual methods of suffering. Consider getting therapy to unearth the root causes of your issues so that you can exploit them more adeptly. As a general rule, though, failure of any kind is a push forward because you have less to lose. What you fear has already happened. There’s no way but up. If you continue to fail, at least that’s not as scary as change! Phoebe Buffay covered this topic better than I ever could in this commencement speech.

A few people have asked me what the point is of some of these “self-help” articles I write. After I wrote “Life Hacks For The Emotionally Stunted,” someone remarked, “I don’t feel like I’m supposed to follow this advice.” My purpose is not, actually, to tell anyone how to live correctly. It’s just to make you look at things from a different perspective. Maybe life is not as bad as you think. Maybe it’s actually much worse. You decide.