[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

RnRClown wrote:

If this turns out to be a suicide, will there be an investigation?

I'm not sure how this goes for America.

When my father took his own life, we had a day in court, with individuals on the stand asked to walk through the events in the lead up to my father's passing, with corroboration sought in select instances. I'm still unsure whether it was solely for peace of mind for those of us left behind, or if blame may have been attributed. Anyway. Thus explains my train of thought.

This is horrible. It already was. It may only get worse. I'm expecting a huge backlash against the perception of trials by social media. If it's not already underway. I'm glad I'm barely clued in on much online. I hope those connected stay safe in the coming days. I wish our world was better.

After a suicide in my family, the police briefly investigated to make sure there was no foul play. Maybe other states are different, but I don’t see this going to court unless the accusers bring a civil suit against his estate.

jdzappa wrote:

After a suicide in my family, the police briefly investigated to make sure there was no foul play. Maybe other states are different, but I don’t see this going to court unless the accusers bring a civil suit against his estate.

Which is unlikely, because most of the victims who were speaking up were doing so to protect other people from him. They most likely aren't interested in dragging this out.

He wasn't some Epstein or Weinstein. Which isn't to excuse the sexual assault and abuse that he committed, but he didn't have their degree of institutional support, just a level of social power that he exploited. It's a systemic problem, it's a consequence of Alec's own troubled mental state, and it's become apparent that it's one reason why he burned a lot of bridges in the past few years. Doesn't excuse him--I think worse of him for taking his own life, because regardless of what he thought he was doing this is going to hurt his victims all over again and rile up a mob.

Jeremy Soule had something much closer to institutional power backing him. I expect that the AAA space has more abusers lurking in it, particularly given some of the behavior I've seen and heard about at conferences and such.

Alec seemed to be a troubled individual. One who was attempting to be better. Nevertheless, he seemingly crossed boundaries and inflicted emotional pain and mental suffering onto others. There appears to be corroboration from more than a few people in these regards. The wording utilized by Alec's sister alludes to a truth in the accusations. Whilst the man did not deserve to lose his life, especially not in this way, it's difficult to have too much sympathy.

My thoughts go out to his family, and his victims.

A School Massacre and Toxic Heroism

A few years ago, Amy Pistone emailed me during the aftermath of yet another mass shooting to ask if I knew of anything in ancient Greek literature to respond to this all-too-frequent terror. I threw together a collection of passages which didn’t really get to the heart of the issue: the absolute horror of people suddenly killing scores of others, compounded by the practically criminal failure of our public officials to respond with anything more than stock phrases and empty gestures.

I have spent a lot of my life jousting with depression, death anxiety, and the ups and downs of facing up to (and sometimes failing to meet) the challenges of everyday life. For most of my adult life—and a good portion of my formative years—I found refuge and comfort in books, poetry, music and other forms of narrative art. For the past few decades, Homeric poetry and Greek literature in general have helped me guide my life, if not save it. But no matter how much I comb through the remnants of the past looking for that perfect quotation which will unlock the secrets of the universe, nothing seems to match up to the stupidity, the craven profiteering, and the visceral wrongness of children being gunned down in their schools, families executed in their place of worship, or communities torn apart by sudden and public demonstrations of raw, unforgiving violence.

And then, a few weeks ago, Aislinn Melchior sent me a message asking if I could remember a story of “the last hero…the wrestler who pulls down the building on top of his hometown’s school children.” To be honest, I didn’t know the tale, so I did what one does and I asked #ClassicsTwitter. Within a few hours, someone sent me the first passage I posted yesterday from Pausanias. After some simple searches, I found the others. Here’s the main translation again:

Synopsis: I'm upset and pissed off that a noteworthy person I thought I respected, Tim Ferriss, has such regressive and closed-minded views of enhancing the public voice and influence of women.

I have a regular stable of podcasts I listen to, some drift in and out of the rotation, but over the last 5 years the stalwarts have been the GWJ Conference Call, Hardcore History, and the Tim Ferriss show. I've listened to well over 150 episodes of the Tim Ferriss show and really appreciate Tim for his ability to ask insightful questions, connect with guests I would have no access to otherwise, and expose me to a world of different view points. I have never fully agreed with a lot of what Tim preaches around efficiency etc, but I think his processes for testing and exploration are sound. I've always been aware that his podcast lives in a bit of a bubble. A white, heterosexual man who's created his wealth in large American cities and is deeply ingrained in the culture of technology. he tends to have guests on that are from his area of influence, that is mainly white, successful men.

This morning while I was listening to his latest episode (#394 Q&A With Tim — On Wealth, Legacy, Grief, Lyme Disease, Gratitude, Longevity, and More) I had a feeling of dread and a jarring confirmation of my suspicions in this episode.

It started when Tim answered a question about the influential women in his life and the only two answers he could come up with were his mom and his current girlfriend. His answer was sincere but felt hollow and I was left with a feeling of "really dude? You couldn't even come up with a more interesting answer to that question than your mother and your girlfriend? Are you really that sheltered in your white-male-tech bubble that not even ONE other woman came to mind?" I will not claim to be an exemplar in this space myself, but off the top of my head I could name at least 8 women who are not my family of various ages, race, and background and give 2 or 3 specific examples of where they've improved and influenced my life, and I was just deeply unsettled that Tim couldn't come up with more than two.

Now this transgression on it's own may not have warranted a lengthy post on an internet forum, if it weren't for the question and answer Tim gave a few short minutes later. I quote from the audio, verbatim:

I'm going to tackle this comment, or comment on it, just because I feel like putting a bit of a bulls-eye on my forehead. The comment is: "Need more women on the podcast". I'll tell you what I need on the podcast. I need on the podcast, good people, no matter what their genitalia look like, no matter what their preferred or stated gender is, no matter what their race is, who have a lot of tactics to share. I don't think about preferably choosing men and I also don't want to think about trying to recruit women period as a criterion at the top of the hierarchy. I don't think that, I don't think about gender when I'm recruiting my guests at all. And I like it that way. It's not a factor. I just had a women on the podcast earlier this week. There are a lot of women in my books, Tribe of Mentors is 50-50, but I think that identity politics is a losing game. If we read any history, that should be very clear. I should be able to learn from a smart woman as much as woman can learn from a smart man. I do think that has historically been the case for me. Julie Rice would be a great example, I'm hoping to spend more time with her, who's been on the podcast, co-founder of Soul Cycle. It doesn't even enter my mind as a consideration and I don't want it to become a preoccupation.

I get it, look, I totally understand that if you're a woman or if you are a fill in the blank, that ideally you would have exemplars, people who can inspire you, who remind you of yourself in a sense. But I would also hope that we're all striving to look for what we can learn from every person we encounter and define the common ground. So, there you have it. There are more women coming. There are more women scheduled. But I don't want to apply some artificial constraint or make gender a preoccupation because it just isn't and I don't want it to be.

Now, go listen to the audio of this clip of you want full intention and tone. It's one thing to read a text blob on a screen, another to hear it from someone's own voice.

I immediately stopped the podcast and stopped what I was doing after Tim said that. I couldn't believe, that someone who considers themselves a progressive, who considers themselves a leader and influencer, would vocalize his stance on increasing representation on the podcast. As a young cis-hetero white male I have tremendous privilege in my life simply because of the parents I was born to and the alignment of my chromosomes and brain chemicals. I recognize that more and more every day. I consider it an absurd abuse of my own privilege to simply ignore it and say "I'll take the best person for the job". I get it Tim, you want good, smart people on your podcast. But you have to realize you're looking through the world with glasses coloured by your race, gender, and upbringing.

You can say "I get it, look, I totally understand that if you're a woman or if you are a fill in the blank, that ideally you would have exemplars, people who can inspire you, who remind you of yourself in a sense." BUT YOU DON'T. I DON'T. I cannot understand what it is to not have my race, gender, sexuality, etc not represented as the overwhelming majority in all positions of power in life. You have to be willing to be humble and admit what you cannot see.

I would have loved an answer to this question that was: "That is a perspective I hear. I recognize who I am and the biases I hold. I know a lot of my podcast guests fit in a tight social/demographic bubble and are reflective of myself. I'm looking to diversify. I am looking to ask more women for input into the show. I recognize that a lot of my audience is currently satisfied with the representation on the show, but I also know that our growth comes from the areas where we are expanding our comfort zones, where we are taking information from, listening to, and really putting people with diverse, challenging backgrounds in our lives." That's not what I got. I'm sad. I'm frustrated. This is me venting.

In fairness to Tim, I'm sure he gets this question a lot (hey? you ever think that if lots of people provide constructive feedback from a well intentioned place that there may be even the smallest grain of truth in there?) and I'm willing to give him a tiny bit of a sliver of benefit for "snap answering" to the constant question. But as someone who I always though was measured, well spoken, thought critically, and considered different perspectives it's going to be really hard to win me back.

I know these opinions on representation are so pervasive and prevalent everywhere. This one got to me. Right in my core. I'm mad. I wanted Tim to be better. This just solidifies the huge, gaping chasm we need to continue to work to cross, and I'm going to funnel my heated emotion into something productive to start building my own path towards presentation.

I've received pushback for similar outlooks in regards to equality, diversity, and identity politics. Sometimes justified constructive input. Other times outrage culture screaming into the wind. What you wrote was calm and considered, whilst still charged where it should be. It's up to you, of course, but if I were this individual, I'd appreciate if that response reached my inbox. As you say, if enough well intentioned feedback arrives. Quality. Quantity. It can mould positive change.

It can be a slow process when your intentions are good, but your spectrum of vision is limited. So much emotion and time can be spent arguing semantics, battling straw man fallacies, deflecting social shaming and cancel culture. The realization that you were uninformed or misinformed, and how, can get lost in that shuffle. It's difficult for those who deal with ill intentioned people frequently to set you apart. It's difficult to wade through those looking to score points off you to focus on those interested in actual positive change.

I've became both more informed and better versed in how to communicate from clashes such as these. Many on Gamers With Jobs. Getting there was sometimes long, sometimes perplexing, sometimes upsetting, but it was worth it in the long run.

I'm a white cisgender heterosexual male. Accepting that I have select privileges and certain blind spots was more difficult than it should have been. It became intertwined in other aspects of suffering, and different examples of being silenced or excluded. The approaches I had were flawed. I'm thankful for those who helped me to become more, and be better. It's still a work in progress.

I read your post twice. I took a considered approach in how or if to contribute. I hope it doesn't miss the mark.

Disclaimer: I haven't listed to the episode, so I don't get the vocal infliction.

A word on the suggestion of sending this person an unhappy email from a podcaster's perspective. As you noted, people who are on the production side of Making Things are already under a heightened level of scrutiny.

One thing we do as people in general is hold those we esteem to be our equals to higher standards than we hold for people we don't, so it's extra disappointing when the former fail to meet our particular standard for feminism. Telling someone "I want you to be better/you should have known better," rarely works as intended unless the intent is to other. Shame is a powerful tool utilized to control others, and it will 100% illicit a negative reaction.

It can also muddy the delivery of any constructive ideas you are hoping to convey, and likely make them dig their heels deeper or get more stubbornly defensive (BINDERS of women!!1!). It doesn't motivate the recipient to trust what you have to say. Difficult to utilize and net actual positive change.

Amoebic wrote:

Telling someone rarely works as intended unless the intent is to other. Shame is a powerful tool utilized to control others, and it will 100% illicit a negative reaction.

It can also muddy the delivery of any constructive ideas you are hoping to convey, and likely make them dig their heels deeper or get more stubbornly defensive (BINDERS of women!!1!). It doesn't motivate the recipient to trust what you have to say. Difficult to utilize and net actual positive change.

Except no one told him "I want you to be better/you should have known better."

The actual comment was "Need more women on the podcast." That's pretty simple and straightforward feedback and not a comment designed to other or shame.

His response, though, was literally textbook: "I don't even see color/gender/sexual orientation. I just want great guests who, for some completely unrelated reasons, are mostly people just like me."

My Spidey Sense tingled at his comment that his book Tribe of Mentors was 50/50 men and women. It made me remember a tidbit from the Geena Davis Institute for Gender In Media that when women made up less than 20% of the actors in a scene that men perceived the gender balance to be equal and when there more than third of people in a scene were women men perceived the gender balance as being overwhelmingly female.

Luckily for me Tim Ferriss has a website dedicated to Tribe of Mentors. There's even a page listing all the mentors he has in the book. Of the 130 people listed 92 were men and just 38 were women. That's 71/29, not 50/50.

I'd actually be heartened if Ferriss expressed even a smidgen of shame because shame is actually a pretty decent predictor that someone is uncomfortable with their current behavior and wants to change. But he didn't .

Nor did he even pause for a bit of self-reflection and ask himself if the comment "Need more women on the podcast" meant he was somehow missing something vital and important. Instead he just handwaved the comment away and said he'd have more women guests in the future.

He also expressly stated that he didn't want the gender of his guests to be an "artificial constraint" or a "preoccupation" of his podcast because doing so would get in the way of him getting "good people" for his podcast, the implication of which is quite clear.

OG_slinger wrote:

Except no one told him "I want you to be better/you should have known better."

Correct. As far as we know, no one "told him" that. That is what was said here in this thread. My post was specifically about the impulses of the people here posting in this thread as a result of that conversation, and the desire to contact said person about "being better"...not what played out in the conversation on the podcast.

To be clear, I feel how the host mishandled it was more dumb privileged backpedaling and I feel we can already clearly see that. My commentary is specifically addressing how people who want to be good people might want to think about the tools used to satisfy the impulse to change the bad views of others.

Thank you RnRClown, Amoebic, and OG_slinger for your responses

I think there are very good and interesting conversations to be had about tactical approaches to helping people improve and to enlighten or help to illuminate blind spots, bias, and privilege. I appreciate an approach to growth that is centered on empathy, not shame, guilt or negativity. I believe my path to being better, and thus helping others grow and be better, is to continue to work first on myself and not bring others down. My original post was a venting and vocalization of both frustration towards someone I respected but also a deeper reflection towards myself. Part of the reason I was upset was exactly what Ameobic mentioned, I held Tim to be an equal/superior, and the he did not pass the high bar I had set for him.

With that in mind, I've also questioned myself and asked "would I pass the same bar?" and while of course I'd like to say yes, my honest answer at this point is no. While I have a lot of diversity in my social and professional life, it's still disproportionately white and a lot of my mentor figures and inspirational influences are severely lacking when it comes to diverse voices. An activity I went through with a coach a couple of months ago was to list the people I thought were successful and inspirational. 5/6 were men, all were straight, and only one person of colour. When I looked through my podcast feed this morning, 7/8 are predominately or historically hosted by straight university educated men and one queer women. If it's not already apparent, I have a problem with diversity and voices I listen to as a primary activity or relaxation and enjoyment. And I absolutely use the word problem intentionally.

In the spirit of positive growth and seeking to meet the own high bar I set for others, what are recommendations for podcasts by different, minority voices that you listen to? Looking forward to your feedback and hearing new voices!

My recommendation, and I couldn't recommend it highly enough (I recommended it a couple pages back) is Kaitlin Prest's podcast "The Heart". It is one of the most challenging podcasts I've ever listened too and the number of times I felt completely uncomfortable, weird, and utterly dumb, was innumerable. She's got a new production company that are going to be putting out some new shows in 2020 and I definitely will check them out.

Amoebic wrote:

Shame is a powerful tool utilized to control others, and it will 100% illicit a negative reaction.

It can also muddy the delivery of any constructive ideas you are hoping to convey, and likely make them dig their heels deeper or get more stubbornly defensive. It doesn't motivate the recipient to trust what you have to say. Difficult to utilize and net actual positive change.

This is an astute observation. When someone feels they're being shamed, rather than constructively critiqued, it certainly can erode their good faith, and their ability to trust. I've been on the receiving end. I've been on the dealing end. It's difficult to navigate around and worse to navigate through. Even with the best of intentions and careful consideration.

Wise words, Amoebic.

(I took this to mean give care in how and when to approach, as oppose to not approaching at all for risk of unpleasantness.)

So I'd like to explain why I went the direction I did, because it's something I keep seeing over and over again in the behaviors and attitudes that inevitably surface with a lot of new feminists (new to it within the last several years, specifically. This is my context for what new means).

When people find a new cause, the initial honeymoon phase is rampant, vibrant, and passionate. That's super good! Social causes need that kind of motivation. It can inspire people to call out bad behaviour when they see it, which is still important to doing your part in communicating public opinion. What I'm cautioning is to think rationally about one's motivations for doing so and which methods you're employing.

What I see is people waking up and their views on feminism have fundamentally changed, but the relationships and connections to the people who haven't changed in the same ways still remain. Being no longer satisfied with that connection, many folks will often break connection and find more sources aligned with their changed world view (as Stay suggests above in bold), or sometimes try to change the world around them to suit their new perspective (very colonial and entitled, tbh).

The latter is something I specifically see happening with men who have the privilege to assume they have the right to change the world around them to suit their new world views. This is aspect of social-justicing is empowering, and if it works a few times, those folks will continue to do so until they inevitably start punching sideways and down instead of punching up, still thinking they're doing their part to speak to power. My suggestions were to caution against using socially manipulative tactics like shaming others against your own personal standards if you actually want them to positively change. Might be good to keep in mind the marginalized people that do exist within that person's sphere will be the ones to bear the burden of negative fallout. My suggestion would be to consider that when weighing the cost/benefit of posting anything resembling a drive-by post of self-righteous indignation.

staygold wrote:

In the spirit of positive growth and seeking to meet the own high bar I set for others, what are recommendations for podcasts by different, minority voices that you listen to? Looking forward to your feedback and hearing new voices!

I've been trying to do this myself in the last few years. These aren't feminist podcasts, but they are minority shows. One podcast that really opened my eyes to the black experience is Angry Black Rant. The show is kind of put out randomly, and can be anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours long (and he unfortunately just had a long span with no episodes due to health issues, though he seems to be back somewhat regularly now), but Ishmael and his guests really get into some intense stuff. You'll here about his atheism as well, which for a black person is quite different than when you are white - I discovered him through an atheist podcast I listen to. You have to be able to take quite a bit of swearing. He's just a regular black dude living in America, and his and his guest's experiences are quite something.

A show I just recently started listening to is Native Trailblazers, which is hosted by a Native American husband and wife. After taking a trip to New Mexico back in October and meeting and learning about the non-white people in the area, I wanted to hear more about the Indian experience in America - and let me tell you, it's incredibly rough. The sound quality is unfortunately not amazing, but the hosts are great and their guests are also really good. The most recent episode of this show had a Cree musician on, Adrian Sutherland, and his new song they played is amazing:

"Angry Black Rant" reminded me of Boom! Lawyered from Rewire News, with Imani Gandi (@AngryBlackLady) and Jessica Mason Pieklo (@Hegemommy). They're both lawyers and the show is about the law and reproductive health, but this is America so race always comes into it. Imani is a great Twitter follow as well.

It's a bit specialized, but the Australian rules football podcast The Outer Sanctum has always covered minority (Aboriginal in this case), LGBTQ, and female representation in sports, and this year is adding minority women to their team. They pointed out an embarrassing factoid last episode: "According to our research there are more statues of men called Ken or Kenneth than there are of women."

NPR's Throughline, hosted by Ramtin Arablouei and Rund Abdelfatah, explores the history we sometimes forget — or didn't know in the first place — of events in the news and ideas dominating our national conversations. (Yes I copy-pasted that from their website, sue me!)

Start with their take on the Iranian revolution (first episode) and the gut-wrenching episode on how one racist prosecutor literally destroyed Billie Holiday's life (Strange Fruit).

Amoebic: thank you so much for your insightful post. You've succinctly described something I still struggle with. I'm always doubting whether I instinctively hold back on calling people out because I'm conflict-averse, or because it wouldn't fit into the context, or because yeah it would be incredibly condescending. Thank you for at least putting the option that I might not be a conflict-shy coward back on the table*

Spoiler:

last sentence was in jest

Arise thread!

With Valentines Day coming up, I wanted to briefly talk about how to approach the holiday. On one hand, I hate the crass commercialization and forced display of affection. It also kind of feels like it’s more about showing off to other couples than actually celebrating your relationship. Part of me thinks that taking a stand and not participating is the “woke” thing to do, but I also realize that maybe that’s just a cop out.

And then there’s the whole difficult dance of wanting to get your needs met without falling into the sexist trap of “well I bought you flowers and a meal at an upscale restaurant so...”

PS - this is coming out of a recent episode on the Man Up podcast which is a great exploration of modern masculinity.

https://slate.com/podcasts/man-up/20...

jdzappa wrote:

Arise thread!

With Valentines Day coming up, I wanted to briefly talk about how to approach the holiday. On one hand, I hate the crass commercialization and forced display of affection. It also kind of feels like it’s more about showing off to other couples than actually celebrating your relationship. Part of me thinks that taking a stand and not participating is the “woke” thing to do, but I also realize that maybe that’s just a cop out.

And then there’s the whole difficult dance of wanting to get your needs met without falling into the sexist trap of “well I bought you flowers and a meal at an upscale restaurant so...”

Without wanting to sound condescending - this is a "use your words" problem. Specifically, use them with your partner(s). Is V-day important to them? Are they on-board with skipping the whole thing entirely, or would it make them feel like you don't care? What (if any) expectations do they have, how willing are you to meet those expectations, and vice-versa.

On the one hand, yes it's crass commercialized nonsense, on the other hand, there's plenty of goodness to be had from a day spent celebrating your relationship and all that's good about it. You don't have to indulge the former to indulge the latter.

Jonman wrote:

Without wanting to sound condescending - this is a "use your words" problem.

Without wanting to, I agree with the polycule

The nice thing about Valentine’s is that it gives folks that don’t often think about their relationships as things that needs work a reminder that they should do something for their SOs.

Like buy stuff.

Shrug. I celebrate my love for my wife every time I see her. I'll do exactly the same thing on the 14th.

Valentines day is what you (or your partner) make it. Just do whats fun for you.

I would say that Valentines Day was most important to my daughter. And by that, I mean it was most important that I buy Teresa chocolate covered strawberries that she would mostly let Jo eat.

Otherwise, Teresa and I don’t do much for Valentines. To be fair, we would probably skip every holiday.

I buy my wife a card and sometimes we'll go out since so many places have Parents Night Out events so we can dump off the kids*, but like others Valentine's Day is just another day we celebrate our relationship.

*- Kidding! We dump off the kids and go hang out at home where it's quiet.

LarryC wrote:

Shrug. I celebrate my love for my wife every time I see her. I'll do exactly the same thing on the 14th.

And this is why I hate the holiday because I do the same. TBH, the only group who seem to benefit from V-Day are new couples and maybe ones who are in a rut. For long-term happy couples it’s an annoyance, for unhappy couples it’s a sham, and for single folks it can be torture.

And while I respect Jonman’s comments, I feel this is a “does this dress make me look fat” situation. I’ve been married long enough to know there’s only one acceptable answer. I recognize it’s probably not a hill worth dying on and I want to not be a jerk. I’d just prefer to celebrate dates that are personally important.

jdzappa wrote:

I feel this is a “does this dress make me look fat” situation. I’ve been married long enough to know there’s only one acceptable answer. I recognize it’s probably not a hill worth dying on and I want to not be a jerk. I’d just prefer to celebrate dates that are personally important.

By the sounds of it, it is personally important... to your wife.

For a lot of people, dates are not just an activity: dates are a kind of role play foreplay.

If you are not one of those people but your SO is, if you think of it less like something that has to be objectively justified as important, and more like one of your SO's subjective fantasies, maybe you can enjoy making it happen.

^^^ thumbs up times infinite ^^^

There was a time when my then-girlfriend liked going on dates on Valentine's Day. With the explicit proviso that I didn't like it, I went along and we went on V-Day dates for a while. But it didn't last long. I didn't have to do anything about it, honestly. I was endlessly positive on V-Day dates. But the sheer hassle finally just got to her on the third year and that was the year she said, "Nope. We are SO not doing this ever again!"

We usually went out on the 13th or the 15th after that. Never on the 14th. It's like V-Day is anti-date night now. We'll go out on nearly any other day, but never on Feb. 14.

My wife and I have a date night at least once a fortnight. Frequently it's once a week. Last week saw two, just because. We're also quite affectionate on a regular basis. In tandem with a wedding anniversary to celebrate our relationship, and a birthday to celebrate the individual, and Christmas to surprise one another, and family, it leaves Valentine's Day, for us, as a commercialized money spinner.

It also irritates me that many restaurants look to cram folks in like sardines, order quickly, service quickly, and then flip the table in an allotted time. I understand it. I lived and breathed it from the service side for a decade. Profit. Profit. Profit. It can leave couples feeling ushered and unimportant, though. And if one booking runs into the next you're either pushing everyone back or further rushing one booking or another to make up that difference. It is probably the worst date to work in the catering industry. Everyone is stressed. Everyone is working additional hours. An unlucky few will have to deal with complaints and the fallout from such. I am blessed to have left that all behind!

Honestly. If we were thinking of heading out on what happens to be Valentine's, we'll bump it to the day before, or the day after. If not the entire following weekend!

It's good for young couples or new couples who don't yet have an anniversary, or even those couples who only do the whole date night and/or affection on specific occassions.

I've never grasped the notion that singletons should feel bad if they're minus a date on Valentine's. Yet I know many who do.

I also dislike the gendered expectancy of Valentine's. Men should plan extravagant nights out with meals and entertainment. Expensive jewellery, too. To prove commitment. To earn not getting ditched. Women need to squeeze into revealing clothing and freeze all night long before putting out. To prove commitment. To earn a continued relationship. I've provided an ear to both sides of that expectation.

It's ultimately what each couple makes of it. It can be so wildly different, though.