Plenty of other folks in the blogosphere rip apart garbage like this, but “4 Harmless Ways to Make a Man Jealous” is too awful to resist. Besides, I’m still on vacation, and not in the mood to explain why, say, this erstwhile Episcopalian is now attending Lake Avenue Church, or giving money to Republicans for Environmental Protection and the John Edwards campaign at the same time. As fascinating as they might be to a select few, my political and theological peregrinations are not always fit material for blogging.
Anyhoo, on to the jealousy bit: David Zinczencko, author of the wince-inducing Men, Love, and Sex: the Complete Users Guide for Women offers, at Yahoo Health, this treat:
The jealousy card. You know it well, and chances are you’ve played it on more than one occasion.
It does wonders, doesn’t it? Make a guy jealous, and he’s back in the palm of your hands, treating you better, paying more attention to your ups and downs, and cleaning the bathrooms twice a week (with rubber gloves). Genius.
At the risk of being labeled a traitor to my gender - but as a favor to my female friends - here are some surefire ways to safely and compassionately poke your partner with the jealousy stick without risking more serious issues.
Leaving aside the issue of the split infinitive (a grammatical failing that even the LA Times has permitted since the Shelby Coffey era), what the heck does it mean “to safely and compassionately poke your partner with the jealousy stick”?
Apparently, it means four things:
1. stay up later than he does, so your man will worry that you’re online, perhaps flirting with another man in cyberspace.
2. go out for drinks with friends, leading him to worry that you’re “comparing notes” on his prowess.
3. visit ESPN, and talk sports knowledgeably; he’ll fret that you’re chatting with — and connecting with — your male co-workers.
4. compete with him in something physical, and beat him at it — arouse his competitive streak.
And yes, this ends up on the “health” section at Yahoo.
My wife? She stays up later than me because she’s a night-owl, and she’s actually doing work on the computer. She regularly goes out with friends. She watches sports with me and without me and is passionate about football (both kinds). She talks about sports with other men when I’m not around. And she boxes and spars with male trainers and, if she were so inclined, could easily beat me up. (Though I could outrun her.) Am I jealous? Uh, no. Is this a strategy on her part to get me to do the dishes? Not a chance.
Zinczencko’s tips would be risible if they weren’t so dangerous. The danger in what he’s suggesting doesn’t just lie in the prospect that these strategies could backfire. Rather, the danger lies in perpetuating the myth that male desire is inextricably linked to the absence of trust. What Zinczencko is saying, if you think about it, is that men are more attentive and devoted when they feel just a wee bit insecure.
(I partly addressed this back in March with a post about the “men should love their wives more than their wives love them” thesis.)
Zinczenko argues that jealousy inspires men to be more attentive and devoted than they would be otherwise. Indirectly, it’s a great argument for the homosocial thesis: the notion that men are always competing primarily with other men, with women as the tools in that competition. According to Zinczenko, when a man feels that “his woman” is attracting or connecting with other men, his urge to defeat his rivals will be aroused and he’ll be more interested in meeting her needs. Stripped down to its essentials, the Zinczenko case is that men are at their most loving when they need to secure what is theirs from predatory male rivals. Defeating other men is thus more important than achieving authentic intimacy with a woman. That’s homosociality in a nutshell.
For Zinczenko and his ilk, male anxiety is a necessary predicate for devotion. Wise women, he suggests, ought to know how to arouse that anxiety to just the right “boiling point”, at which they can secure attentiveness, but not violent possessiveness. It encourages women to be manipulative by reminding them that men need to be manipulated. A certain element of distrust, Zinczenko suggests, is sexy. Indeed, the only way a man won’t take you for granted, he implies, is if he isn’t absolutely certain of your commitment to him. Anxiety fuels eros.
But anxiety and doubt are the enemies of real love, the kind that transcends eros and approaches agape. Zinczenko sells both men and women short with this little tidbit of advice. He sells men short by denying our very real capacity to love what we know we can trust; he sells women short by encouraging low-grade deceit — rather than forthright honesty — as the most effective relationship strategy.
Men, like women, are capable of loving what (and whom) they know. Jealousy, mystery and anxiety are catalysts for fleeting arousal, not sustained intimacy. Sooner or later, anyone being manipulated will resent the hell out of it; anyone who feels she has to do the manipulating in order to get what she wants will resent the fact that she can’t get it in any other way. Jealousy, David, is never, ever harmless.
If we want what is lasting and enduring, we must demand better from ourselves and from each other. And “better”, in this case, looks a lot like radical candor.
You said: Rather, the danger lies in perpetuating the myth that male desire is inextricably linked to the absence of trust.
However, the danger in this is more immediate. A man who is “more attentive” because he is jealous is controlling and abusive. If not yet, he is only a step away from being physically abusive when his partner comes home from drinks with her friends, stays up late or has conversations with other men.
The man who this strategy would work on, has the same profile as an abuser. To me, there is only a difference of degree between a man who would “be more attentive” because he is insecure and jealous and a man who physically, emotionally and/or economically abuses his partner because he is insecure. There is absolutely nothing that guarantees that the man who is more attentive when he is jealous will not cross the line to become violent when he is jealous.
The problem with this article is that it is normalizing and encouraging patterns of abusive relationships on both sides of the relationship. Abusive relationships are usually an interaction. I have seen many women play this game and end up beaten (emotionally and/or physically) or raped by their partner.
Agreed, Christina.
Hugo said: “Leaving aside the issue of the split infinitive (a grammatical failing that even the LA Times has permitted since the Shelby Coffey era), what the heck does it mean “to safely and compassionately poke your partner with the jealousy stick”?
Actually Hugo, according to Strunk and White the split infinitive has been around since the 14th century, and indeed has its uses at times, particularly for stressing the adverb(s), which I believe to be the case here. Be that as it may, I agree with much of what you say above except that IMO in your speculation as to motives only numbers one and three have a potential ‘other man’ aspect to it; number two clearly implies (at least to me) comparing notes with girlfriends and number four deals with interaction (i.e., competition) directly with the man. Other than that I believe you make good points re. intentionally inflicting psychological pain, anxiety, etc., in your partner. Which BTW is a behavior that is considered domestic abuse/violence…
REMAINDER DELETED
Mr. Bad, your attempt to derail the thread onto the old MRA war horse that men are equally the victims of domestic violence has been deleted.
I’ve made it clear that that line of discussion falls into the same category as Holocaust denying, and will not be permitted here. Take it up at Stand Your Ground.
I think jealousy is such a negative, non-productive emotion. I consider it the appendix of the emotional word - something you don’t need that can go bad and cause a lot of unnecessary pain.
Oh Good Heavens…
How old is David?
Is he out of middle school yet?
He’s the editor of Men’s Health, he’s in his thirties and dates Rose McGowan.
Well this is just utterly idiotic! Christina nails the pyschological pathology. Now how about some simple common sense?
For Heaven’s Sake, at some point, people DO grow up, and view the challenges of employment, intimacy, marriage and family formation, etc… as enough to keep them interested and busy. What adult needs this kind of childish, manufactured drama, when the company is downsizing and insurance won’t cover the well-baby visits, and Grandpa has just been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s?
I’m so disgusted, Hu…and rethinking my initial negative reaction to your earlier critique of modern young men (and in David’s case, early middle-aged men). There is no excuse for this kind of nonsense in adult intimate relationships.
Okay, having waded through roughly 1/3rd of the comments over at Yahoo, my faith is a bit restored. The good news is that those folks who have been married since the Jurassic period have spanked the little boy hard, and younger men and women do at least recognize the nonsense.
Far too many young female “oohs and ahhs” though.
G’night.
I guess I might be one of those select few, but your political and theological peregrinations make some of my favorites posts here. Of course, if they’re unfit, they’re unfit.
Reason # 123456789 why feminism gives men waaaaay more credit than the patriarchy.
(Privilege just comes in a pretty package)
Okay, having waded through roughly 1/3rd of the comments over at Yahoo, my faith is a bit restored. The good news is that those folks who have been married since the Jurassic period have spanked the little boy hard, and younger men and women do at least recognize the nonsense.
Nah, they’re not “spanking” anyone. Like Hugo, you’re just intimidated by strong, successful men.
Like Hugo, you’re just intimidated by strong, successful men.
Yah, because pushing 50, three grown sons, married nearly thirty years to the laconic-gearhead-postgrad-Wolverine- autocoexec, I dunno shit about strong, successful men. I’m sure I’d be utterly terrified by one.
And she boxes and spars with male trainers and, if she were so inclined, could easily beat me up.
Hugo, a fellow here named Sociopathic Revelation has challenged you numerous times and you have not taken him up on it. He has been gracious enough and offered to agree to a cage fight, wrestling, or boxing. Maybe you should send in your make-believe wife as a proxy.
I wonder why women do so much of this nonsense in adult intimidate relationships
Because apparently, HOT guys like the strong, successful David want and need women to behave intimidatingly. Didn’t you read David’s advice?
Like Hugo, you’re just intimidated by strong, successful men.
Yah, because pushing 50, three grown sons, married nearly thirty years to the laconic-gearhead-postgrad-Wolverine- autocoexec, I dunno shit about strong, successful men. I’m sure I’d be utterly terrified by one.
I’m sure you would be, too.
I wonder why women do so much of this nonsense in adult intimidate relationships
Because apparently, HOT guys like the strong, successful David want and need women to behave intimidatingly. Didn’t you read David’s advice?
Oh, a lame attempt at dissing ’cause of a typo. You must have learned that from one of the imaginary strong men in your life.
So, tell us, what was women’s excuse for thousands of years before Mr. Zinczenko wrote his blog entry?
So, tell us, what was women’s excuse for thousands of years before Mr. Zinczenko wrote his blog entry?
Dunno…death wish maybe? Honor killings? Brazillian law? Hell, maybe it is all about the drama. I know I’d be first in line to provoke masculine jealousy at the risk of life, gang rape and horrible death. So exciting!
Mike, if you’re going to accuse everyone in the whole darn thread who disagrees with you of lying and making up their spouses, children, etc., I’m going to point out that you’re trolling, and not worth arguing with.
To AHunt:
You said it. Heck, even in college my boy friends weren’t so immature as to need me to make them jealous; you can be sure that after twenty years, my husband isn’t in need of such manufactured drama.
In the highly unlikely event you have time, Lynn…peruse the comments.
It is an education. Happily, sane people comprise the majority of responders, especially later in the discussion, but Good Lord! Extended unproductive adolescence is sadly alive and living at Yahoo: Men’s Health.
Mike is done in this thread, and is banned from future posts at this blog.
While I don’t agree with Hugo’s assessment of the homosociality concept, actually, I don’t think Hugo is off base on this particular post. Personally, I can’t imagine basing a serious relationship on anxiety, playing games, keeping each other in the dark, trying to up the ante a bit with competing with each other as to how is better at what. For a long term strategy, that’s a recipe for a relationship doomed to fail. You can’t have a healthy one without a foundation of trust. It seems so painfully simply to say, but I never fail to be dismayed at how many people believe that deceitful manipulation and always attempting to get the upper hand in a relationship is still considered a way of conducting themselves . . . how is supposed to be good when developing a deep, emotional attachment to someone else? I don’t what a partner who competes with me, I desire someone that compliments me, and try to respect differences without inciting conflict at every given turn.
Unfortunately, so many love drama for one reason or another, even defining their own future relationships and excitement on much of a ‘charge” they get out of creating situations almost out of control. It’s not my cup of tea, to put it simply.
“A certain element of distrust, Zinczenko suggests, is sexy. Indeed, the only way a man won’t take you for granted, he implies, is if he isn’t absolutely certain of your commitment to him.” —Hugo
Zinczenko is way off the mark.
“Hugo, a fellow here named Sociopathic Revelation has challenged you numerous times and you have not taken him up on it. He has been gracious enough and offered to agree to a cage fight, wrestling, or boxing. Maybe you should send in your make-believe wife as a proxy.” —Mike
Actually, I’ve had a couple of others want to “throw down” with me that probably aren’t the same league, either. I’ve seen one of them online, if that’s his pic, even Hugo is far better shape—”K.” (as I’ll call him) will have his work cut out for him, if we ever spar. I’ve trained with one of the best Muay Thai fighters in the world for a year solid, and have done contact grappling in submission fighting for the last two years. I’m no Fedor, but one day I had five people ask me within an hour why I don’t go pro full time. That should tell you something.
Oops. Meant to say, in the first paragraph, “who is better at what.” I’m not a stickler for grammar, but my sleep deprivation is showing already.
That should tell you something.
Hugo, you really should institute a Boring Troll policy. “You bitches wouldn’t know what to do if a REAL MAN put you in your place” is about as clever and exciting as a box of stale Ritz. (Also, when directed at A., unintentionally funny.) I don’t know if “I can’t argue my way out of a paper bag but I can KICK YOUR ASS!1!!!” is much better.
Not that I expect a lot out of commenters at a Yahoo! blog, but I have to wonder about the people who insist they do that stuff in their own relationships and it works. Are they the ones who we later see whining about what jerks men are?
Not another supposedly humanities-educated person throwing around that old standby “rule” of grammar that isn’t even a real rule of grammar. Most grammarians (including H.W. Fowler, Bryan Garner, and the linguists over at the Language Log, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000901.html) agree that such a practice is at the very least often acceptable, especially in those cases in which you couldn’t say what you wanted to say without such splitting. Just try unsplitting Star Trek’s “to boldly go” and you’ll see how both the linguistic and rhetorical/rhythmic effect of the statement is lost in any other form.
But Hugo, what is more problematic than your incorrectly correcting grammar is the fact that this miscorrection is based more on ideology than linguistics. Old stodgy OKOP grammarians (from the 18th century?; oh, and sorry to bludgeon you with your own acronym, but it fits) wanted English grammar to be as much like Latin as possible. Latin infinitives are single words that can’t be split, so even though English infinitives have two words, they decided that Eng. inf. shouldn’t be split either (and I hate to burst your bubble, but this copying of Latin grammar is also the basis for that old standby wrong rule of not ending a sentence with a preposition). Based on Latin, these rules could be somewhat easily adopted by the educated classes who also already knew Latin, and could thus be used as a social marker to separate the haves from the have nots (or the former have nots, those merchants and other nouveau riche who now had lots of money but no family history and thus little social standing). So basically, Hugo, your attempt to universally enforce a rule about split infinitives is not only linguistically and rhetorically incorrect, it also has its roots in trying to subtly enforce inequality.
In a related issue closer to your own research interests, you might also want to look up the Language Log on the prescription against using the passive. Thus supposed rule of grammar is also based not so much on linguistics as ideology, this time upholding a particular conception of masculinity. Active verbs are suppposedly stronger and more robust, i.e., more manly, than those weak effeminate passive verbs. And yet again, often the sense of a sentence is irreparably changed when you change the passive to the active. Sigh…
P.S. To throw around the ire a bit, I also must chastise Mr. Bad for his invocation of those twins of hypocritical pomposity, Strunk and White. They, along with that other self-appointed guardian of English prose style George Orwell (in his “Politics and the English Language”), throw around so-called rules like “Always use the passive” and then break those rules early and often. Search the archives of the Language Log for extended posts detailing this phenomenon.
I suppose there are people who enjoy living in a soap opera (heaven knows a lot of drivers seem to think they’re living in an action movie) but if I wanted something anxious and attentive, I’d get a dog.
“I don’t know if “I can’t argue my way out of a paper bag but I can KICK YOUR ASS!1!!!” is much better.” — Mythago
I’m not interested in trying to kick Hugo’s ass to prove a point. That’s an inane notion. I spoke up here because I thought many of his views on this particular post were actually concurrent with mine, which is refreshing for once.
many of his views on this particular post were actually concurrent with mine, which is refreshing for once.
I’m waiting to hear the weather report from Hell, as I suspect that hockey is being played there today.
no R. Giskard it is not - witness honor killings and torturings over hundreds of years - more women dying and being raped at the hands of their husbands, ”friends” and family than any other group - the fear and subsequent defensiveness that all women experience before meeting a man they can trust. one in five women are subject to domestic violence.
And Christina had it absolutely spot on when she pointed out that the only men who respond to this kind of treatment, and plenty do, are sociopathic control freaks at best. The success of books like The Rules bears witness to a desperation in women to win some kind of game and in men to win or own some kind of prize, a prize which will ulitmately disappoint by turning out to be a human being. There is no human kindness or affection in this kind of behaviour and it encourages men to see women as prizes.
On the part of women it is a sad, insecure act - but it is no way as bad as the threat of a beating or a beating.
I don’t know about infinitives splitting, but there certanly alot of hairs being split on this thread.
Folks, I’m really monitoring this thread closely and deleting posts for thread drift or anti-feminist bromides.
I’m not getting into the ring with Sociopathic Revolution. I haven’t been working on my boxing since April. I would, however, be happy to go on a fun, non-competitive trail run with him, where we could find common ground…
And the line about the split infinitive was a throw-away, and hardly evidence of classism — unless one refers to my high school English class, led by a teacher who considered the split infinitive to be a sign of poor overall character.
¨I’m waiting to hear the weather report from Hell, as I suspect that hockey is being played there today.”
LOL
Well, the part about many grammar rules being classist is true, but that argument didn’t win over my English teacher either :).
Upthread, someone mentioned jealousy as being unhealthy. I completely disagree. Yes, one should not try and inspire jealousy with your friends and especially not your significant other, but jealousy is an emotion that one can get, and it’s not so much that you have it, it’s what you do with it. Jealousy, anger, fear, these emotions are not bad, they’re just emotions that can motivate one to do poor actions.
I’m jealous of my fiance all the time: he has a relationship with his family that I can only stare enviously at, and he has life-long friendship that this BPB, with all her subsequent moving, can only marvel at. But, this jealousy doesn’t interfere with our relationship because I own up to it, accept it, and be happy for him.
Just try unsplitting Star Trek’s “to boldly go”
Which is the core of the argument, of course. If split infinitives aren’t OK then you’re criticizing Star Trek!
Hey, you can critize my feminism, my liberalism, and my body, but dammit, Star Trek is sacrosanct!
QED.
“I’m waiting to hear the weather report from Hell, as I suspect that hockey is being played there today.” —Hugo
Not cold enough for staking, but it ’twas a little chilly this morn for this Seventh level of the Abyss. Odd, that.
“I would, however, be happy to go on a fun, non-competitive trail run with him, where we could find common ground…” –Hugo
I probably could use a 30 (or more) minute run, considering I’m only doing 15-20 minute ones to add to my routine, and some advice on good running shoes. But no, and I repeat, NO (before the) crack of dawn pre-marathon preparations on a Sunday. I’m still sawing logs at that period. You’d almost raise the dead before you’d get me up before 10:30 a.m. on that day—I used to train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu that period in 2005, and I STILL wonder how I did it when my biorhythms pleaded with me for more sleep. Maybe because I liked the style so much, I don’t know.
/end of friendly thread drift
Indecisive said: “To throw around the ire a bit, I also must chastise Mr. Bad for his invocation of those twins of hypocritical pomposity, Strunk and White. They, along with that other self-appointed guardian of English prose style George Orwell (in his “Politics and the English Language”), throw around so-called rules like “Always use the passive” and then break those rules early and often. Search the archives of the Language Log for extended posts detailing this phenomenon.”
Oh, now there’s a compelling argument: Ad hominem. All I did was cite some well-known and respected scholars (at least in some circles) re. the historical precedent for using split infinitives. Hey, if you want to write in the style of Creole, Rasta, Ebonics, Cajun, etc., then knock yourself out. However, thanks for the link to the Language Log - it’s cool to see that those Dead White Males(TM) Strunk and White aren’t the only pompous hypocrites around.
I still maintain what we’re talking about here, i.e., jealousy, manipulation, etc., isn’t a gendered problem, but a human problem.
I couldn’t believe such bad relationship advice was actually being dealt by a grown man who, from his picture, appears to be older than junior high school age. Yeah, sure…game-playing, ladies, that’ll work. (flashes “OK” sign) Stay classy, pal.
Oh, and about split infinitives, Hugo: one thing a lot of people still have to learn is that whatever grammar quirk some English teacher of theirs many years ago thought was “exemplary of bad character” probably is nothing of the sort. Still a lot of programming out there that needs to be undone, I see. (Not long ago, I received a lecture about my writing from someone whose sixth-grade English teacher had taught him that the use of contractions in anything but the very most personal, informal correspondence was a sure sign of an uneducated rube. I would have liked very much for him to tell that to my journalism professors–at both the undergraduate and graduate level.)
Man, if your partner is jealous because of these kinds of behavior, you should start asking some hard questions about the mental stability of your partner.