Monday ramble: on man-children and dad bods

The Times ran a piece a few days ago about how educated women are choosing single motherhood, often because the have not met a suitable co-parent. The subtext was that these women opt not to settle--especially not for men who are just going to be another child for them to take care of. The article explicitly addressed the financial "burden" of subsidizing men who earned less, but the idea of "I would have to carry him, too" also applies to the logistical burden that some men impose.


Yes, I have been harping on this a lot lately. Not only because I've been burned, but because I've seen so many friends get burned. As a child, I saw family friends divorce because the wife couldn't take care of another child in the form of her husband. As a child and adult, I watched my mom get endlessly frustrated as my dad--great guy that he is--declined to use his head to make logistics easier on everyone. As an adult, I've gotten terribly frustrated at my dad--and I've felt terrible about it--for the same. As an adult, I've listened to friends--including some whose husbands were the primary breadwinner--complain about being driven to frustration by their husbands, who--income aside--provided them with yet another child to take care of. So it's not merely my own experience, which pales in comparison, that makes me wary of the man-children.

Ironically, this article in praise of the dad bod makes the same point (though I'll get to the dad bod in a minute): women are looking for certain things in a man--basically, signs that he's not a useless sack of shit--and the dad bod signals that quality (i.e., one pays the bills rather than spending hours at the gym). Evan Marc Katz has been saying this for a while (and yes, I maintain that he's full of $hit about many things): it would behoove women to look out for indicators of competence rather than attractiveness. Ask yourself whether this guy is going to remember to pick up the kids. If you're not going to have kids, ask yourself which guy is going to be there for you--by ability as well as willingness--in illness, elder care, and other life events.

The common theme--not to put too fine a point on it--is that adult women value competence over superficial factors. But that phrasing makes it sound like there is only one attractive body type--and that is the real issue with the dad bod: the double standard. Women are still expected to be competent and hot. We don't have the privilege of body acceptance. And that informs my appraisal of the dad bod: no, thank you; no "soft tummy to lay on" for me; I prefer--not that anyone asked--a nice firm chest (and here's the other thing: I know that nobody asked; many dudes still haven't gotten the memo that nobody asked them). Especially if you're checking me out--and I can tell when you are--and admiring my toned physique, get your own ass to the gym. If you're not hitting on me solely because of my appearance--didn't I say that the one thing that endeared me to volunteer guy (see post linked above) was that he asked me out even though I looked like shit? I might have gone out with him, had he not failed the competence test. I also said that filtered-vents guy asked me out solely because of the way I looked. So he can get his own ass to the gym.

And I told you that it wasn't about the veganism (i.e., his failure to check the menu even after we'd had a whole conversation about how I don't eat animal products); that was the competence test. And I told you that F.'s (an ex-bf) failure to make a reservation wasn't about the reservation (I didn't even care about the restaurant). It was a failure of listening (I'd warned him that the place--which he wanted to go to--filled up fast). F. once had me stranded on the street, nearly late for a play, with oranges falling out of my handbag, because he both failed to check his calendar and to read past the first sentence of an email or text message. And that was early enough on in the relationship where he couldn't have been trying to be a dick on purpose. I was livid, but I let it go.

BE--whom I never dated, but who actively pursued me for a while and who had every opportunity to demonstrate competence, consistently demonstrated the contrary. He also consistently fat-shamed and otherwise disparaged the appearance of other women, so that would have been a deal-breaker in and of itself, even if I had any inclination to date him, which I didn't. But he was the proverbial guy that EMK would tell me to give a second look, in spite of lack of attraction, because what mattered was competence. Good thing BE created a problem for me (by trying to do me an unsolicited favor) by failing to read past the first line of an email. That's just arrogance: if you're going to try to help someone with a given situation, the least you can do is make sure you understand that situation first).

By now you may be thinking, "no wonder you're single!" Yeah, maybe, but the flip side of that is "no wonder I'm not constantly complaining about a man who's just another child." I filter those guys out early.

To all these guys' credit, none is actually useless; in fact, I know each of them to be much, much handier than I am. Does that compensate for the lack of logistical competence? Maybe; it depends on a number of factors, like whether someone listens and is open to working on himslef. Also, no, I am not perfect (but I listen, and I am open to working on myself). But logistical fails add up. I can pay someone to fix something once in a while, but I would have to pay a full-time personal assistant to accommodate consistent logistical fails. To put it another way: I could use my own personal assistant; I don't have the bandwidth to play the role of personal assistant for a partner. And this is maybe something that's changed with the times, as noted in the Times article: women are less willing to put up with things because we don't have to anymore.

Which leads me to another thought: if you care about somebody enough--and, as I noted above, if he's making a genuine effort to work with you on what could erode the relationship--logistical incompetence can be overcome. It can be worked around. But it's not going to help win anybody over in the first place.

By the way, EMK would advise us to laugh at a guy's jokes, whether or not they're funny. Apparently he does think we're there to make men feel witty, attractive, etc. And of course when I'm in a relationship with someone, there's nothing I want more than to make him feel valued (and witty and attractive, etc.) but if there's one thing I've learned, I can't fake it.