Monthly Archives: May 2008
The one safety valve on a man who goes with too many women is the fact that there are a that many vindictive/resentful/unsure-about-feeling women to ally with.
I’m reminded of a conversation from Fables: The Mean Seasons between Cinderalla, Briar Rose (Sleeping Beauty) and Snow White that goes,
We’re like an annual meeting of his parole board, getting together once a year, to confirm that he’s still an unrepentant fuck and continues to be deserving of our organized contempt!
..the man in question being their common Ex-, Prince Charming.
Now that we’re well out of adolescence and the dewy-eyed freshness of first romances and having accumulated a few rough experiences, we find others in the same boat. Not just women who’ve dated similar men, but women who’ve dated the same man!
And thus is born the League of Ex-girlfriends. Women who at one point are sworn enemies, bitter rivals or even uncomfortable acquaintances spot a chance to turn pals. Few women would let this go by, I kid you not.
So what does the League discuss? Like all groups of women – clothes, celebrities, family, friends, work, finances, children, books. Don’t whew in relief just yet….women prefer to be refined and subtle in such things. All of these topics can be discussed with practically any other woman, regardless of age, culture or relationship status. We talk about these to establish that comfort factor and to scope out the other woman closer up, to decide if she can be included in our respective Leagues or not.
And that done, we arrive at the prime reason for the League’s existance – the man (while I have the choicest of epithets at my disposal, I refrain in deference to my more modest fellow compartriots). So we’ll be polite and nice, ladies but talk about him, we definitely will!
Is a man then advised to ensure that he dates all kinds of different women so they don’t feel that comfortable with each other to gang up on him? HAHAHAHAHAAHA is all I can say to that. The more diverse the group, the more things we have to talk about him. Every detail will be scrutinised and dissected in great detail and if you think women don’t do locker-room talk, daaaahling, we do lunch with the other girls. Miaow!
There’s a hierarchy in this, which true to womenhood, lies beneath the surface and occasionally causes subtle conflicts. Thus the most recent one to join is given the floor, which makes sense considering the older members have probably already dissected all they know to bits. Besides they’re all waiting to see if their predictions about the man and his latest flame have turned out right. With that many women (didn’t you know we were all born with a Ph.D in male psychology?), they’re bound to have been right and the “Ha! Didn’t we say so?!” feeling is enough to overcome any prior animosity or personality differences. The new recruit looks about nervously at first or defiantly (depending upon her type) and feels encouraged to spill more of the beans as she sees the response her words are getting.
The one who stayed with the guy the longest is the undoubted queen bee of the group and most likely its creator as well. On the other hand this lady may as well not even belong to the group, believing that allying with the other ‘flings’ is beneath her.
The one that ended with ‘But we wish each other well and have decided to stay good friends!” sort is definitely not a part of the League. Oh wait, she’ll receive an invitation to the girls’ League too but it’ll only be to update the other members on the man’s life. The League works in unfathomable ways and have definitely heard of ‘getting insider info’.
What about men whose ex-es are not resentful, bitter, vindictive (in short women who aren’t women…okay, okay, forget I said that!)? Okay I can only surmise that such Leagues don’t exist in those cases. Since the women in question have presumably worked out all their emotions neatly, they feel no need to air them out, let alone join in a mass dirty-laundry-of-same-idiot airing. I also suspect these are the kind of women who lurrrrve hearing about other people’s dukh-dard-ki-kahaniyan but never let spill any of their own beans (“Oh but that’s too personal!”). Can you tell I don’t like such creatures? Actually I have nothing against them except a strong skepticism of their existence.
But never mind what I don’t believe in. What I do believe is that for every slighted, hurt, betrayed, victimised woman, there must be at least a few others in exactly the same boat. If not, wait a bit, the guy doesn’t change all that much and is bound to accumulate a few more broken hearts. And then it is time to call a meeting of the League of Ex-girlfriends.
Do women worry about their ex-es forming similar cliques, a la A League of Ex-Boyfriends? Not particularly, considering that men will happily bond over every stupid common thing from a workplace to a shared fascination for yellow, foul-smelling, barley-brewed alcohol….but can absolutely not bear the thought of another man having been the object of their paramour (current or former)’s affections. Besides where would they meet – the Hall of Shame?
…are like disco lights behind your eyelids
…..and your stomach doing the dancing.
Apparantly my sense of humour has managed to rub someone the wrong way.
I’m having a real spam attack on one of my idea-toon-posts titled More answers to stupid questions. Akismet doesn’t seem to be catching it and I am getting tired of having to login every hour or so and clear it away. Hence I’m locking that particular post away and hoping the problem will vanish. The post will be back shortly. In the meantime, any help/ advice on how to tackle this would be much appreciated.
Plizz to not take the title of that post too seriously! 😀
I went for a movie with my parents on the weekend. As we walked in through the glass door, the security guard punched our tickets, gave me a perfunctory look-over and then proceeded to pat my dad down.
Now I ask you: who’s more likely to be carrying a bomb/explosive device/weapon? A twenty-something carrying a HUUGE tote-bag or a fifty-plus empty-handed man? But they assume I can do no harm, on account of my gender. I walk into malls, department stores, movie theatres and offices unaccosted while my male companions endure being patted down and having a cold, metallic beeper passed over them.
A few years back, on a visit to a museum that was displaying the royal jewels of some Maharaja, I was relieved of my backpack since it contained a walkman (with batteries) and a camera. Fair enough, I said, if not a little huffily over having to carry my wallet in my hand. And then a line snaked up towards the security guards who meticulously prodded every entrant over. I threw a fit…and a tantrum.
But it’s a woman security guard who’ll check you! What’s the fuss?
My friends wondered.
It’s a violation of my being! Why should I allow it? If that Maharaja thinks I’ve got a camera or a bomb hidden inside my stomach, when I go to see his crown…hmph!
Needless to say everyone assumed I was just having a temper fit as usual and left me in peace. I can still have my tempers, fits, tantrums to express my outrage over a stranger wanting to poke and prod me. But, I wonder, do the men have the same right? I understand the need for security but there’s no denying that what passes for security in most places is nothing more than a mandatory job to be performed or overwhelming paranoia. In which case my question becomes – are women automatically more trustworthy just because they’re women?