I have this problem. I bet you have it too. It’s called incontinence.
For many of you this word conjures up geriatric slumber parties where young nurses in white overcoats play nanny to the old people’s peeing and pooping problems. Or, if you’re more open to interpretation, you might have imagined young children crying softly in their beds having released a little too much relaxation in their sleep and all over the sheets.
When I was younger, or so the stories go, I used to wet the bed. Many of us had this problem—it wasn’t that we weren’t potty-trained, it’s just when you’re young, the feeling of having to go just doesn’t drive you to the porcelain pot like it does now.
So in some ways it’s no surprise that I’m writing my thesis about incontinence. Except of course, my problem in explaining it is that this English word has been butchered in its upkeep. No matter, it’s all related. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and words don’t fall far from their roots.
Incontinence, at a more generic level, is acting contrary to your better judgment. Wetting yourself is sort of an example of this, but the way we generally use the word incontinence implies a sort of “involuntariness” to the action. My interest is in the voluntary pursuit of something we consider to be the lesser option.
So, to put it in the Wesleyan context, why do we get so fucked up on alcohol that we have a hangover the next day? It’s never a surprise, we often regret having drunk so much, but hey, it’s Saturday, let’s do it again! We do things we know are wrong, things we consider to be bad for us, but we do it anyway. Why? And it’s not right to answer masochism, because in that case, you’re doing bad things to yourself because you like them. Most of us don’t like hangovers but we still try super hard to get them.
Admittedly, my example is oversimplified, but you get the idea.
The sad thing is that I’m acting incontinently right now (ahh, shit, the seat is all wet). I had made a conscious decision not to talk about my thesis. I hate bringing it up; I hate the way people use their theses as a social crutch, dodging social interaction like the plague, as if they would become sick with the “fun fever” and lose focus. We’re all busy, but there’s a culture of “rubbing in your face how much busier than you we are.” But here I am, spewing thesis crap. At least I can contend that I’m doing it for “research purposes.”
It makes me nostalgic for when I could pee myself and not blame it on being overworked or research requirements.
I consider it a great compliment when people tell me they didn’t know I was writing a thesis. Not that I never wanted to talk about it, but I just didn’t want to use it as an excuse not to go out. Hell, Queen of the Travelers Ellie Terry and I even started a Facebook group to decry the overuse of the word thesis in our daily lives.
You see, Facebook groups can have political purposes, be they overt or not. Political, in my opinion, means making a point. So anything political must necessarily criticize what it is not and thus attests to its superiority. I admit it, I think I’m better than people who have nothing better to do than whine about their work, and I wanted people to know that I’m sick of it, so I made a group. Just like the people in “Wesleyan Raise Your Standards Crusade” are intending to make their criticism known because they’re sick of “unattractive” women. The major difference is that I will gain political victory on Wednesday while they will still be sexist.
I agree with Liz Coville’s wespeak (March 29) on all but one very essential point. This Facebook group doesn’t just insult women. These men who defend the group—as if the tribute to their egos didn’t necessarily degrade women—have quite the audacity to make such a political statement and then play dumb when they’re called out for it.
One wespeak uses the “it’s just TRUE” argument. In the background I can imagine him saying, “Wesleyan women just are ugly. Gay people just are effeminate. Asian people just are smart.” Stereotypes just aren’t true, Charlie, even if your experience corroborates them.
Attraction is a pretty strange bird, based a freaking huge amount on who we’re told to think is attractive. Normative brands of beautiful are sold to us every day, and we as consumers buy in bulk whether we want to or not. The group proclaims that it is, “sick of chicks who would rather drink beer than shave their legs.” I wonder why these women don’t shave their legs, I mean, don’t they want to get ass from such a smart, attractive group of men such as these! Hmm, I guess they don’t care about your standard of beauty.
On the other hand we have Scott crying “intolerance” (“Stop attacking us, it’s just funny, babe,” we might hear) like some kind of wounded soul. Talk about misogyny, a woman expresses her opinion and you pounce on her for using her voice too loud. And then you have the gall to call her overly “dramatic” (but women just are dramatic, you might muse…).
Maybe if sexism isn’t that “serious” to you, you should reconsider why you’re only attracted to leg-shaving, prim, and submissive women. Maybe it’s your problem. Your prescribed mold for women doesn’t interest us, but let’s get real, sexism is a serious problem, or did you silence all your female friends so they couldn’t remind you?
Question yourself and what you’re attracted to, you might learn something.
Leave a Reply