Tag Archives: love

Accepting Differences and curbing judgment: a human journey

On February 21st 2020, a video of  9 year old boy, Quaden Bales, who was bullied at school to the point of being suicidal went viral. He was one among many humans that are ruthlessly bullied. He has dwarfism. Like many of the 20 million+ viewers, I watched the news story in horror and it got me thinking…about humans, about difference.

The fact is we hate difference. And very limited progress has been made in humanity to accept, let alone embrace, difference. In fact, we have been conditioned to hate our own differences ourselves, leading to a toxic culture of low self-regard, self-love, self-esteem.

“When you judge others, you judge yourself” my sister says. I finally get it. It’s all connected. Our hatred for others for their differences spills over logically into hating ourselves for our differences. And we’re all different in some way or the other, some more obviously than others. So it leads to hate and punishment towards ourselves and towards others. It’s a pretty miserable way to live, when clearly another equilibrium exists where we accept, love and celebrate diversity in all of its forms.


Subtleties

Whilst some forms of bullying over differences are overt and aggressive, there’s also the insidious judgment all of us carry around. I want to write about that because whilst we may not encounter someone beating someone up or shouting at someone every day, we do encounter this type of judgment on an HOURLY basis.

It’s subtle, it’s often unspoken, it’s a reel playing in your mind constantly, but it contributes to the cloud of toxicity that surrounds our global culture. It’s so pervasive, that it spares LITERALLY NO ONE.

I now see it everywhere, but I see it in the place that I have the most access to – my own mind, and now I try to be conscious of it, not judge myself for judging, but just be like “oh look, looks like a bias or judgment”.

In this blog-post, I want to dissect some of the more subtle judgments many of us have participated in, some of them even socially sanctioned judgments.

Judged group #1: Stay-at-home mothers – as a feminist with many feminist friends, it was very popular at times to say things like “Oh, I’d never stay at home”; “I’d get bored”, “I need to be financially independent at all times”. These thoughts are fine and legitimate if they are about YOU and YOUR preferences. They become problematic if they spill over to assuming another woman is bored or being financially naïve or should or should not be staying at home. Because that’s her story, her life, her choice.

Judged group #2: Mothers who spend a lot of time at work and have a family – mothers have a hard time “winning”, because equally I’ve been part of groups that have judged mothers who don’t go home early, who use a full-time nanny, who are online at 10 pm. May be instead of hating on these strong professionals, we should admire how they are able to juggle so much. Her story, her life, her choice.

Judged group #3: Women who don’t want to have children – I was listening to one of my current favorite podcasts “Unf*ck your brain” by Kara Lowentheil and she talks about how she doesn’t want to have children, and her parents want her to have children. And it occurred to me how much society still judges women and men who don’t want to have children as some kind of anomaly or failure. As if reproduction is like a moral duty and the ultimate hallmark of “success”. When in fact, a) someone’s decision is none of your business and b) we have 7 billion people in the world, projected to get to 9 billion, so the sentiment you should have towards people who have discovered meaning in other ways is gratitude. Kara Lowentheil, Oprah Winfrey and many other great women of our times have added so much new thinking and positive energy into the world that it is totally irrelevant whether they have biological children or not. It’s very telling that right now most female envy is still reserved for women with families. I want to see a world where we envy childless women just as much. Envy is the ultimate compliment, after all. And humans are worth more than reproduction.

Judged group #4: People who don’t want a relationship. We keep saying there’s some age when they “should”. No, there isn’t. It’s their choice. I was guilty of this line of judgment myself when I would debrief dates with girlfriends and say things like “I can’t believe he’s 34 and still wants to play the field”. Now I think – It’s totally his choice. The only thing you can fault a guy for is dishonesty, you can’t fault him for having a preference that doesn’t match up with yours.

We need more social acceptance around being single, around being “picky” and around being happy being single. Ironically, the biggest challenge to being happy being single is not the being single part but the constant “So are you dating?” questions you get from everyone around you as if that should be your goal. You could be perfectly happy, but people will constantly insinuate you are not. I resolved to not do this to myself when I was single last year, and now I resolve to try my best not to do this to anyone who is single.

Judged group #5: People with privilege – a hard group to sympathize with perhaps, but this is a blog-post about the subtle pervasiveness of our judgment culture and how it spares NO ONE, so I have to stretch you to think about the rich. Sure, it is miles better to be rich and miserable than to be poor and miserable. I wish we’d get to a Universal Basic Income for the whole world so we could do away with poverty. But the point is people with privilege are people too. They also have setbacks, also have feelings that get hurt. Having been in many institutions with rich and privileged people, I have come to appreciate the fragility of us all. I see how unhelpful and unsympathetic it is when someone has a setback or feels bad about something and all some people can summon up is “But you should be grateful for the food on your table”. Yes, but if you’re saying that, you also didn’t really listen to that person’s problems.


Progress: hard but possible

We all have a hard time accepting difference. We’re all judging based on it. It’s human nature. How could we not assume others are like us, and imagine they may have different desires or logic systems? How could we have the courage to be ourselves against tides that tell us to be something else? What would a world with less judgment and more acceptance look like? What would it sound like? What would a conversation be? What would gossip be? What would identity be?

These are hard questions, because it’s so hard to imagine a world with less judgment. But it’s the direction we must all strive towards for the progress of humanity and for our own sanity. And so that children can stop bullying other children for being different.

 

The pyramid of attraction and why online dating is like throwing darts in the dark

It was a warm Thursday night in San Francisco, circa 9.00 pm. I was at the Alchemist bar, a classy gothic bar with very interesting art. I grabbed a candlelit spot (by one of those artificial candles, a throwback to our more romantic past) and watched the Tim Burton-esque silhouettes being projected on the walls. In the silhouettes, two children are wandering around in a forest, and then a witch emerges. She holds out a juicy apple. One of the children takes it. There it was. The apple of temptation, delivered by a witch whose identity was unbeknownst to the innocent children, who somehow overlook her gnarly face and the curly-pointed hat and her black robes…it sent a shiver down my spine.

The apple was love (or the illusion of it). The witch was the heartbreak that always reveals its ugly face after you’ve taken bites of the apple. And here I was waiting to engage in the most dangerous sport of our modern times: online dating.

redflags2
Exhibit A: the perils of dating as captured by Instagram artist violetclair

My date arrived and it was with the cursory awkwardness of 2 strangers that we greeted each other. When 2 online dates meet, the first thing each person wants to do is take the other person in. Do they look like their photos? Do they look as imagined? Yet you have to pretend you are not taking the other person in and just jump into free-flowing easy confident conversation.

I think we should institute a time-out of 2 minutes where each person walks around the other, looks them up and down, smells them and does some basic checks like stretching their arm out, tapping them to see they’re made of the right material, inspecting their muscle-fat composition. Online dating isn’t all that different from online shopping.

The fact of the matter is we are animals, and online dating is deeply flawed because it ignores what really drives attraction. This became very clear to me when I attended a workshop on Social Intelligence earlier this week (with Jaunty – a life school) and came across a framework called the “Pyramid of Attraction”. It’s so highly relevant to our lives that I felt it deserved a blog-post:

Pyramid of Attraction v2
Exhibit B: The Pyramid of Attraction

The point of the pyramid is it shows what weighs the most in your attraction — the base layer, and what weighs the least — the tiny triangle of ‘logic’ at the top.

The most fundamental drivers of attractiveness are Health & Status. Health is the most important – does this person look like they are healthy and going to live for a long time? This is why self-care routines like exercise and having a good diet are so fundamental to attractiveness. Status consists of internal and external status. Your external status is conveyed by how you’re dressed etc. Your internal status is the confidence you project, stemming from your skills, your self-esteem, your belief system. These are conveyed in your body language. This is why people generally know who they find attractive in like 30 seconds. Our minds quickly process health and status information about someone. Arguing against such behavior as “shallow” or “superficial” or accusing people of being “looks-based” is futile – attraction short-cuts are hard-wired into our reptilian brains. We’re all driven by this type of subconscious analyses/instinct, even if we like to pretend we aren’t.

The second layer is emotion. This is also powerful. This is why you can become attracted to someone over time by getting to know them. You can form an emotional bond based on your psychological similarities, your kindness and compassion towards the world and each other, based on your similar sense of humor, your shared smiles and laughter. I’ve never dated anyone who I haven’t been attracted to within the first two minutes, but my chemistry with certain people has grown over time. As I get older, I grow more appreciative of this layer in the pyramid of attraction.

The last and smallest layer is logic. This is the layer people falsely assume that most of us operate on, and indeed some people probably do, but my opinion is that those are the people that really miss out on romantic connection by choosing safety over excitement (a valid choice perhaps – I’ve always chosen excitement and now I’m 29 and single…so may be it’s time I favored logic?). It’s frustrating for me when I get asked questions such as the following, about people I’m seeing: Did you meet at business school? Does he have an MBA? Which University did he go to? Is he Indian? Is he Sikh? Invariably the answer to all is No/Not important. None of those are qualities I have ever found particularly attractive.

We need to stop asking people this style of logic question because it does not matter much, at least not in a romance-based society (it’s a separate issue and blog-post whether a romance-based model of relationships and marriages makes much sense in the first place). You can match someone on every logical dimension possible, as my mum once did on the Indian matrimonial site Shaadi.com for me, and then they meet and have no desire for anything but a platonic friendship. Even in friendships, logic can be a poor predictor. Some of the people I best get along with are very different from me in their profession and life choices.

Online dating : death by irrelevance 

Online dating turns the pyramid of attraction on its head – giving greatest emphasis to the least important drivers of attraction. You start by logically filtering people based on their photos and the descriptions they wrote about themselves. Then you text and start building some form of emotional connection, and then you finally meet and get to assess their health/status.

I’ve been on so many dates where I’ve turned up, taken one look at the guy, and been like “no” in my head and then had to sit through an hour and a half of mild to moderately interesting chit-chat. I had a negative reaction to their health/status straightaway in many cases. One of my new goals is to minimize time spent on such dates down to 45 mins.

Where does this leave us, the people with Hinge, Bumble, CMB, Tinder and The League, all in the “Lifestyle” folder on our phones? It leaves us with the conclusion that online dating is like throwing darts in the dark. You may get lucky eventually, but it is a painful process to go through so many dates with totally irrelevant matches.

Wouldn’t it be better if we could come across more people organically? And then fall into our natural tendencies to evaluate their health/status first? I’ve seen attractive guys at street-crossings, in bookstores, certainly in the yoga class in Cow Hollow (where all the demi-Gods and demi-Goddesses of physical appearance in SF do yoga). And yet I’ve never really gone up to these attractive men and asked them out…how the hell do you talk to a stranger on the street? For now, I am engulfed by the culture of our modern time and city and confined to throwing darts in the dark.

**************

In the Alchemist, it took a couple of hours for us to get more comfortable. Good conversation takes time between strangers (and sometimes between friends too). We were smiling as we walked to the next bar. At least the dart kind of landed on the dart board, I thought. A good date, whether one follows or not, is still something to be grateful for. It’s truly a small miracle given the odds.

Theories of Love and Dating: Theory X and Theory Y

In the week of Valentine’s I got thinking about theories of love and dating. This blog-post is based on the dating experiences of myself and my friends – and I thank them for their generous contributions. 

Background

In management and human motivation, there is theory X and theory Y. Wikipedia explains it in better words than I can:

Theory X believes “that the average employee has little to no ambition, shies away from work or responsibilities, and is individual-goal oriented. Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent and lazier than the managers or work solely for a sustainable income… Theory X concludes the average workforce is more efficient under a”hands-on” approach to management’

Theory Y is more optimistic.  Theory Y believes that “people in the work force are internally motivated, enjoy their labor, and work to better themselves without a direct “reward” in return. Theory Y states that employees thrive on challenges, and relish on bettering their personal performance. …”Theory Y” managers gravitate towards relating to the worker on a more personal level.” It is what I believe the more evolved companies of Silicon Valley imbue.

I’m firmly in the Theory Y camp. And reflecting on this got me thinking about the two theories of dating I want to characterize…


Theory X of dating

Theory X is the prevalent philosophy of dating in many urban centers today. It probably started in New York, and is now gripping San Francisco and even pure Seattle! Theory X is about playing the game. The principles of this theory are:

  1. People choose partners predominantly based on extrinsic characteristics such as looks and prestige
  2. If there is no palpable chemistry on the first date, you rule the person out forever
  3. Making yourself scarce is the best way to be desirable
  4. A number of cleverly deployed tactics can lead you to ‘scoring’ (read: kiss, sleep, whatever your goal is) with the other side

So how do you know if your dating partner is playing theory X on you?

The signs of 1. are everywhere, and I have succumbed to them too.  In ‘How to get the Guy’, Matthew Hussey coaches women to increase the volume of men they encounter on a daily basis. One way to do this is to organize ‘mini-dates’ such as coffees on weekday evenings or even between work commitments. The idea is you don’t need to make a grand evening out of it, as time for grand evenings is a scarce commodity for today’s busy working woman. I liked Matt’s idea in theory. But the reality is I am absolutely terrified of coming across any guy I like without having prepared (manicure, dress, heels, make-up etc.). So this means ‘mini-dates’ and the spontaneity of romance were taken out of my life. Any date worth its salt was at least a 1 hour commitment before the date in which I attempt to make myself look as least like my natural state as possible.

The signs of 2 are the prevalence of ‘first dates’. Recently, I was talking to a friend who has lived in India, Europe and the Middle-east, and she was telling me about a mean guy who had been showing off to her about his dating life.

‘When he says he dates a lot, he means American dating’ she said.

‘You mean he’s just going on tons of dead-end first dates’ I asked. She nodded.

People talk about the number of dates needed to get a partner and the numbers I’ve heard range up to 100!

How can it be that we are all SO unique that we are swiping profiles of people who live in the same city, who have common friends with us, are filtered to our preferences, and yet we have to meet 100 people to find one who lasts for more than a month?!

May be it’s time to challenge Theory X’s assumption. I have been doing so recently by setting an ‘at least 2 dates’ rule on anyone who is not a complete ‘no’ on date 1, and I must say you will be pleasantly surprised that people can be far more charming and giving and vulnerable when they are more relaxed because they aren’t under the pressure of impressing a total stranger on date 1!

3- Make yourself scarce

Every now and again I reach out to friends for advice on what to write back or how to approach a guy. Much of the advice falls into the category I would call ‘make yourself scarce’. How often have you had the experience where you text someone asking a fairly simple question on Monday such as ‘How was your weekend?’ and they reply on Wednesday. And then you have to wait until Friday to reply about yours.

Another outcome of this theory is the short text. Here’s an example:

Girl: “Yes! I had a great weekend – I went rock-climbing. Ugh so many callouses! Then went to the library. And I’ve been reading the four-hour work-week and it’s awesome! Have you read it? How was your weekend?”

Guy: “Oh cool. Good”

Wah wah. I’ve looked at many girls phones and our observation is that they’re always texting a lot more than the guys. So it’s refreshing when a guy can actually put together a few words and ask you out with better than ‘Wanna grab food?” (an actual text I got once asking me out after a string of ‘oh cool’s and my favorite minimalist text: ‘k’).

4- The classic pick-up tricks part of playing ‘The Game’

Personally, I think people who like playing games should join a games club and put that energy to good use in Settlers of Catan or Pandemic or PowerGrid or whatever.

On a happy drinking day in Napa, a friend outlined a brilliant strategy for purely the joy of messing with someone:

“You should text him at 2 am asking ‘What are you doing?” and then 5 mins later “Where are you?” and then not reply until a week later”.

I was entertained by the arbitrariness of this idea, amused by the concept of making communication parallel a random number generator.

The sad fact is I have had communication patterns with people (and ok, I’ve been guilt of it myself) where it has been like a random communication generator. And it happens between friends too. To some extent, I’m like ok, we’re all busy, I get it that it shows as ‘read’ but you don’t reply until a month later when you all of a sudden send me 7 messages. But then if you are actually interested in someone as a potential, don’t go treating them like your ages-old friends!

The cruelest of these games that I and several friends have been part of is the one where someone acts like they’re really into you, you seem to have great chemistry, and then they just ghost you without explanation. This happened to a friend who went on FOUR dates with a guy who said he was looking for a serious relationship. He had put in a lot of effort on the dates, picking venues that related to their conversation. For example, she had said she wanted a quiet place, and he picked ‘Mozzeria’ – a restaurant that is owned and run by deaf people, where you have to use sign language to order food ). And then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he just ignored her without explanation.

Part of me thinks this is more serious than just bad dating etiquette, it’s a moral issue. My definition of morality is related to pain inflicted on others. And confusion and rejection are a heady painful mix to impose on someone knowingly. So if you don’t like someone, a) grow some balls and tell them that b) don’t ‘practise’ your flirting skills on the date with them by acting like you’re so into them.

hollywood
Head to Hollywood if you like acting

Theory Y of dating

Theory Y is a dating theory I recently discovered is still in existence!

Lessons in Theory Y from Date 1: There are second chances

I went on a date with a handsome guy to De Young museum. Firstly, he demonstrated the art of compromise off the bat. He asked me what I’m into. I told him I liked art, and he picked De Young museum for our first date. He wasn’t into art at all. But the fact that he’d gone for me warmed my heart a little.

The conversation chemistry wasn’t great if I’m honest. He was a man of few words, a handsome mystery.  In one hallway of beautiful paintings, I asked him ‘Which is your favorite?’ hoping to elicit a glimpse into his mind and personality. He walked around for 10 mins stopping by each piece, and then as I looked at his face expectantly he said: ‘None of them really appeal to me’. Wah wah. When we left De Young without even a hug, I was sure I would never see him again. Even dates that had gone ‘well’ had ended without a follow-up date, so there was no reason to expect this lukewarm one to go anywhere.

But he texted the next day…and fast forward 1 week, I said ‘yes’ to our second date playing pool. Now he was the connoisseur, I was the novice (yes, I’d never played pool before!). And it made me think, there’s something about demonstrating the principles you would hold in a relationship right up front: principles of compromise, of trying something new that may not interest you, of being forgiving, of giving someone a second chance.

Lessons in Theory Y from date 2: Prince Charming

Once upon a time, a dating cynic (me by this point, jaded by bad experiences) sent a very good-looking guy a message on Coffee meets Bagel. Note, this was in contrast to the Theory X advice I got from my male friend: ‘No, let him send you the message first. Wait a few days’.

This guy seemed simply too good to miss a chance on because of outdated gender norms. I messaged him, but didn’t expect he would reply. But he did, and he replied a long warm message. I sent him a long message back. And then magic – he replied straightaway. He was online! He didn’t apply theory X principles of ‘Oh I must wait X amount of time and text one-word answers’. He gave himself fully, in 10 text messages at a time, audio clips, drawings, YouTube playlists. I began to look forward to our many digital conversations, lying in my bedroom glued to my phone.

I’d never met him and I was captivated. I felt like I was getting to know him in such an accelerated way. I felt I already had an intuitive sense of answers to the key questions that it can take ages for us to answer.

Did he care about family? Yes – he was preparing an agenda for his sister’s trip to the US.

Was he sensitive? Yes – one of the most precious messages I have from him is ‘What did you feel?’ Just that one question was so powerful. ‘Feel’. A word so underused by men, but one that cuts to the heart of what many women are about.

Was he chatty? Yes. He sent me a 5 min audio-clip describing the trip he was planning. He was honest with me, and I felt I could then be honest with him and generous with the compliments I was feeling:

“I love how you can talk endlessly” I replied after listening to his audio-clip. This type of appreciative text is a big no-no in the book of Theory X.

“Haha. You got lucky. Normally, I leave 10 min voicemails” he replied.

And so it made me think, why do we so blindly follow Theory X? Does it actually work? Does it actually make you fall for someone if they ignore you, belittle you by indicating you are low in their priority list, show off to you about the awesome happening life they have without you, and express to you how they don’t really need you at all?

Or does it make you fall for someone if they are kind to you, do things for you even though you don’t know each other yet, show their full personality to you, honor you by making an effort, and don’t consult their friends on what to text back but write what they want and when they want?

Concluding thoughts

I’m a new theory Y convert and an optimist again. The thing we have to remember is that it is hard to swim against the current and us Theory Y believers are swimming against the current. So it’s still a numbers game, but we don’t need to pretend to be Theory X, because Theory X believers are not what we’re looking for.

So recently when my friend told me she was really into someone after 2 dates, but didn’t know what to do as he’d become unresponsive, I said ‘Don’t let me tell you what to do. Be bold. Be the most you version of you’. And she texted honestly and boldly asking him in an elegant way about his intentions on their future meetings and expressing she was intrigued by him. And he didn’t reply for a day! I cite this not to exhibit the failure of Theory Y, but to acknowledge that we need to be realistic that it won’t always work because it takes two to tango.

But here’s the observation I want to close on: when you try and you give it your best, and the ambiguity is gone because they don’t reply when you’ve made it clear that you’re interested, you can move on much easier. It is ambiguity, the ‘did he like me?’, ‘could it have worked if I’d tried, if I’d approached him?’ that holds so many of us back. Unanswered questions are lingering thoughts that suck your time and emotional energy. Clear it up, and move on. Save that energy for someone worth it.

***

Updates: It did not ‘go anywhere’ with any of the guys mentioned in this blog-post,  but at least the experience wasn’t unpleasant like with the ones who deceive and ghost.