George Stroumboulopoulos Plays Softball with Belinda

Greetings Good People,

I know, it's been a while, but you know me... I've been busy getting lost in the dark. So, I apologize and I would sincerely appreciate your forgiveness.

Moving on... CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos began its new season last week (how very exciting!) and like a good little Canadian, I've been watching it. Partly because it's Canadian, and partly because George amuses me; he makes me smile and frankly, I can use all the help I can get these days climbing back up out of the dark place. But I digress.

One of his first guests was Belinda Stronach and he did bring up the Tie Domi affair, but he let her off easily. She practically admitted it and he just let the statement float by without pouncing on it (la la la... I'm not listening). If you want to watch the whole interview, you can view it here:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1075

One of the points George made is that everyone is concerned about her personal life (i.e. whom she's dating) because she's a woman. However, I think that's wrong. He mentioned the next day after receiving email about it that he wasn't going to ask because he wouldn't ask a man. Well, isn't that nice and polite of him? I guess that's why we all love him so much. How very Canadian.

However, as a woman, I'd like to know why he didn't ask her why she thinks it's okay to commit adultery. I am nowhere near being a Conservative, nor am I a member of the religious right, but seriously folks: she practically admitted to being an adulterer on national television and George let it go. Yes, I know it happens all the time, and I know that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a day in her shoes, but she is one of the most powerful women in Canada and is supposed to be a role model for young women. What kind of a message is she sending? I seriously don't care about whom Belinda is dating, but could she not wait to go out in public with him until the separation papers were filed? Yes, I am holding her to a higher standard. It may seem unfair, but that's part of what you get when you sign up for the job. She is an elected official. I think George was going easy on her specifically because she is a woman and a newbie at politics. She's not ready for prime time and he knew it. Doesn't he realize that it's more insulting to treat someone with kid gloves than it is to give them a place at the grown-ups' table and let them take their lumps like everyone else? Maybe Belinda doesn't mind being babied because she's a woman and a newbie, but it bothers me. And yes, I would feel the same way about a single male politician committing adultery and admitting to it on national television.

Aside from the whole role model aspect, it bothers me that Belinda is a cheater. She broke the code. It's one of those unwritten female rules: you don't cheat with someone else's guy, even if you don't like her. You wouldn't want it to happen to you. If he wants you enough, he should break up with her first; if he doesn't then he's not worth it. Because if he's willing to cheat on her, then he's willing to cheat on you. I used to respect Belinda; I don't anymore.

For a little while I thought maybe George had lost more than his nose-ring. Then I saw him interview Iggy, and then Charles McVety and I regained a little faith. I will continue to watch Gemini-award-winning George. He makes me laugh and he interviews interesting people.

Thanks for dropping by.

Peace out peeps,

Courtship Rituals

As some of you may know, I tried on-line dating for about six or seven months last year. I was hesitant at first, being painfully shy and just a little bit old-school, but I figured, what the heck? Everyone else is doing it right? It seemed to have become a perfectly acceptable way to meet people. I personally knew several people who had been doing it and had met normal people. So, despite my reservations, I tried it because it's not like I meet many men in the normal course of my life. Pretty much everyone I know is married (coupled off) and just about everyone they know is married. (Okay, I may be exaggerating slightly, but that's what it seems like.)

Suffice it to say, I am still single. I met one 'normal' guy and there was just no chemistry between us. I won't go into the details about the others... those of you who have been there know the details, those of you who haven't because you're happily married are better off and I don't need you feeling any more superior than you already do.

So when my friend forwarded this link to me, I read it with more than a passing interest:
http://prdifferently.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/how_not_to_act_.html

It's a pretty long article (complete with the guy's voicemails). The gist of the story is: guy meets girl on JDate (Jewish online dating community), guy asks girl to fancy restaurant for first date. Girl offers to pay half the bill, guy declines and pays for the whole thing. Guy thought the date went well, expects girl to call. Girl doesn't call for a couple of weeks, so guy begins to harass her for $50 (her half of the bill). He calls, he sends emails and threatens to contact her employer and send a summons etc. Bottom line: he felt rejected and thus wanted some sort of refund. He is more than tenacious, he is bordering on psychotic, and if this is true (which it apparently is) and I was the girl in question, I would probably consider a restraining order.

Nothing this extreme happened to me. My dates were mostly boring or pathetic. The reason I decided to write this particular post is not specifically because of this guy who needs psychiatric attention, but because of all the comments this has spawned. There were several trackbacks and many comments from people saying that they were going to link to that post (I just linked, I didn't comment) and the comments went on forever! Clearly this is something that people feel something about.

This guy felt wronged. The girl felt harassed. More importantly, hundreds of people (me included) have gone out of their way to comment on this series of events. In case you have more interesting things to do with your time ('cuz you're not a singleton) and don't want to waste your time reading all the comments, I'll sum up: most of the people are on the side of the sane. The guy is bordering on psychotic and his behaviour is creepy. She offered to pay half at the time, he declined the offer. End of story.

But not! This started a dialogue that included all sorts of issues, including whether or not women are a commodity, what our time is worth, whether or not we are equals, what the proper etiquette for accepting drinks in a bar is (this was a big topic), there were even a couple of lawyers throwing in some legalese regarding contracts versus promises and reasonable expectations. One woman in particular posted long and eloquently about equal but different and how courting and manners seem to be missing from most of the lives of the people posting. I whole heartedly support her sentiments (hers and others).

What this highlights and I have been unable to articulate clearly for all of you who keep telling me to 'get out there' and 'it's a numbers game' and all those other tired cliches, is that it really has become something different from what I grew up expecting; and perhaps not just for women. (Although I won't mention just how close I am to having more likelihood of being hit by lightning than of ever getting married.)

Dating really has become a business. When you join a dating service, you pay money for it. Some of them cost more than others. Some of the better ones cost lots of money. Some, I think, are free, but then you get what you pay for. Several of the comments in the original post refer to the guy's obsession with the idea that he didn't get his money's worth as though in a business deal. He acts as though it's just a business transaction and she's not holding up her end of the bargain. This is what pushes buttons most I think, especially with the women readers. It smacks a little too much of the world's oldest profession. Dating is not about being paid for our time, and the implicit suggestion here is that since she didn't call him back (i.e. reciprocate his feelings) then she should have paid for her own dinner (which she had offered to do). It's not a long leap to the suggestion that if we don't put out, then we don't deserve dinner either.

Earlier I mentioned that it's not just women who may be finding that dating isn't what we grew up expecting. I am in no way condoning this man's actions. His behaviour is childish and boorish, not to mention anti-social (in the clinical sense). However, I can't argue with the people commenting that there are women who try their best to take advantage of men just as there are men who try to take advantage of women. I don't suggest one gender is worse or better than the other. I think we both have bad eggs. I have met, or at least talked to, more than one man who was so defensive and reluctant about dating it was clear that they had been burned in the past. They were convinced that women were only after men with money and would either use them and drop them or try to trap them as soon as they possibly could. I felt sorry for them.

I don't have the answers. I really wish I did. I think however, that we are in a sorry state when dating is no longer about courtship, but is about a contract and whether or not each person is holding up her or his end of the deal. This does not bode well.

a bientot,