Thoughtful Thursday: Dating

I have been using Internet dating sites on and off for a while now. Aside from the creeps that you'll probably find anywhere anyhow, they are actually fun. At the least you'll meet interesting people and if you're lucky (and believe me finding a partner is mostly based on luck whether you use the internet or not) you'll find your soulmate. I actually know a couple of people who have found their special someone that way. Anyway, I figure that way I'll at least get someone who'll go to a museum or on a sunday walk through the park with me. 

So, lately I have been thinking about how men and women interact on these dating sites. Actually, the thoughts were triggered by a remark my friend D. made the other day. She somewhat offhandedly was talking about how it was the man's job to approach you. As a female all you had to do was put your profile online and wait ("Come into my parlour," said the spider to the fly...) and to be honest that's what I do. Because it works. And because it's very convenient for me. All I have to do is read the messages from men who are interested in me, based on my profile infos, and decide whether or not I want to answer. I do look at the profiles of men online but I have so far never approached one by writing him a message. Most women I know who have been using Internet dating sites do it like that, too.
After realizing this I sat back and wondered why that is. And then I remembered something I've read on figleaf's blog (in case you wondered, yes, I'm a big fan ;-) ). He calls it the two rules of desire:

1. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
2. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.   (he said it here)

I think these two rules pretty much describe the underlying reasons why I (and apparently a lot of other women, too) approach (Internet) dating so passively. I feel uncomfortable approaching a man online (and offline for that matter) because I fear being seen as too pushy or needy or aggressive. And because  I have this vague notion that in order to attract a man I have to let him be the pursuer. That I will appear less interesting  if I'm too "easy" to obtain.  It's kind of as if I'm the prize in the game that we're playing and the more effort he has to put into obtaining the prize the more valuable the prize will be. And if the prize just falls into his hands (i.e. me approaching him) it's not so desirable.

Sarah on Feministe put it this way:

"One of the things that bothers me especially is the “He’s just not that into you” framing for women, particularly heterosexual women: we are supposed to worry about whether we are desirable, not what we want. The “No means no” model works the same way: we are consenting to something, not desiring it. The “she wanted it” rape excuse: our wants are not our own to define." (find the whole text here) 

In another post on her personal blog she puts it in a wider perspective:

"Sexual desire isn’t the only thing that women have been limited on. We’re expected to be restrained about food, about power, about love, about friendships, about everything. Even I worry constantly that I’ve crossed a line, that I’m bothering someone if I call too much or email too much, and I think that stems from the same place: feeling that I’ve made the fact that I want something too clear, too obvious." (the whole post is here)

 I have pretty much managed to overcome my conditioning on being restrained when it comes to food. I eat what I like, when I like it and how much I like. I'm can even (most of the time) ignore the appalled, indignant, abusive etc. reactions my love for food (and my more-than-mainstream figure) sometimes engenders. So maybe it is time that I overcome some of my other restraints. Maybe it is time for me to approach men instead of waiting to be approached. We'll see.

Have a happy and thoughtful Thursday.

Tasteful Tuesday

Men's clothes are sold much more easily than woman's clothes. That's my conclusion after spending Sunday trying to sell my stuff at the fleamarket. 

We (that's my flatmate and friend D. and I) had a bunch of stuff, mostly clothes, that we wanted to give into the loving care of new owners ("getting rid of" sounds way to harsh in my opinion), so we teamed up with our friends R. and T. and rented a stall at the monthly fleamarket here in Neukölln. Our success at selling was mixed. After deducting the costs of the stall and the car we rented to get the stuff there, D. and I made a profit of 8€. R. and T. made much, much more. And that's where we get to my initial statement: While D. and I had only women's clothes to sell (not surprising with both of us being female), T. and R. sold a lot more because (being a heterosexual couple) they were selling both male and female clothes (and mostly sold the guys stuff). I think that's because women are pickier than men and women's fashion changes a lot more than men's fashion. 

My dilemma is that I can really understand those women who rejected my clothes, even though they were really cheap. I mean, part of the reason why I have so much stuff to sell is that I'm prone to make those spontaneous purchases, you know the one's where you think: "Heck, why not, after all it's really cheap" even though you don't really need it and/or you're not sure about the color and/or fit. On the other hand, some of the stuff I'm selling is stuff I really like. The only reason I'm giving it away is because it does not fit (usually belonging into the category of purchases under the headline "One day I'll fit into it".  Or not.) Rejection of these things really hurts. Really. 

Another thing I noticed, is that it is mostly thin women who stop and look at the things. The sturdier ones, the ones that actually fit into my clothes mostly did not. I'm wondering if that is because they expect not to find anything anyways? Could be. After all why should shopping for clothes at a fleamarket be less frustrating than shopping at a store. From time to time when another girl with a wonderfully curvy body like mine passed the stall I had the urge to shout: "Come here, you beautiful plump goddess. I have clothes that'll fit!" I did not. Possibly because while being comfortable within my own body, I'm still not always comfortable drawing attention to it and can vividly remember the times when I would be mortally embarrassed if someone mentioned my not-so-mainstream figure.
My résumé of the day is, that while it was great fun (the weather was gorgeous, watching the people canvassing the stands is fun in itself and I'm proud to say that I managed to drive the transporter without incident) it's unlikely that I'll repeat the experience in the near future. What is left of my clothes (about 3/4 of what I originally put aside to sell) will be taken to a clothes swap party with friends in 2 weeks and what is left after that I'll take to the clothes drive of our church.
Happy Tuesday!

Scrumptious Sunday: Deliciousness Past

I was busy today. Too busy to bake or cook. My flatmate D and I had a stall at the Nowkoelln Flowmarket to sell our stuff (more on that tomorrow).
But to keep your tastebuds tingling I have some pictures of Sunday Deliciousness Past:

Cheesecake!

Happy Sunday!

Fab Friday

It's finally Friday. Time for my Fab Four. This time it's four videos I recently saw on youtube that I found fabulous:

In view of my debate on equality:

Thoughtful Thursday: to be equal or not to be equal? that is the question...

My friend Ableponder yesterday posted a link to this interesting article. It's an article about the reality of French women who while having a lot of public help in the form of childcare, pre-natal care and tax breaks for families but still earn less than men, have to shoulder the far bigger part of domestic work and whose chances for advancement into the higher echelons of public service or a career are still far below those of her male partners. After reading it I thought the article was well put together but nothing new. By far more ineresting was what my friend made of it:

"Not unsympathetic-- what mama would be? But as an econ major, one thing strikes me... if you have two workers, one of whom is going to take several years off from work, miss more days, etc, you are likely going to protect yourself against the anticipated costs by paying her less." (she said it here)

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that her reaction to the article is so different from mine. My first thought was: What a crying shame! After these many years of laboring for equality we're still restricted by our wombs.
The status quo as described in the article bothers me on several accounts:

1. While on a cursory glance one might think that through free childcare and other (monetary) benefits French mothers have more choices when it comes to motherhood and/or a career. But on a closer look it seems to me the opposite is true. There seems to be more pressure on women to be "productive" in the workplace as well as in the breeding process. Women who try to elude this mandate by either deiciding not to have children or by deciding not to enter a "paid" job in favor of taking care of their children apparently face great social pressure if not ostracism.
2. Earning 26% less than a man in the same job is not fair. No matter how you turn it. First of all, this applies to all women, regardless of their choice whether to have children or not. Basing the reality of less earnings on the abstract possibility that a woman may or may not have children is not equality. Second, it is not a woman's fault that she is the one who has a womb and not her male partner. Human reproduction is beyond our control in that matter, so a couple's choice (there are always two involved in this, you know) should not impact either one's wages just because they cannot choose which one of them is going to give birth. Of course once the child is born and the initial phase of necessary care by the mother is over, men could (and in some cases do) take over the task of caring for their offspring, But the fact that so few do, has in my opinion a lot to do with the fact, that the man is way more likely to have the higher income and therefore it makes (financially) more sense for him to be the provider instead of the caregiver. (and of course the fact that our society is still not mature enough to look upon a father who chooses to stay home with respect, he instead generally faces a lot of ridicule)
3. (Unpaid) Domestic work is work, too. There are studies estimating the value of this unpaid domestic work and it is a significant amount of a country's GOP. The fact the most of that work is still provided by women, and that they get neither recognition nor benefits for their work is quite frankly sad. 

So, what conclusion do I draw from this? I think this is not so much an economic problem but a social one (but then again I'm not an economics major but a humanities one). As long as we still consider women as the primary caregivers, as long as we do not recognize domestic work as valuable and as long as we do not give fathers an equal opportunity at caregiving we will be in this quandary. I think women should have the choice whether or not to become mothers (and by the by I think it is perfectly legitimate to decide to remain childfree, IMO it does not decrease your womanhood or make you less grown-up and whatever rubbish I've heard spouted on that subject). And their coice should be free from social and financial pressure. Likewise should be the choice on whether or not you choose to work or stay at home (and do your work there). And if you choose to stay home it should be free of pressure which partner chooses to do so.

I found an interesting take on this on figleaf's blog:

"The best thing from my perspective would be that since women who have children still spend some time out of the workforce (in my experience three months for the rarely mentioned “fourth trimester” isn’t unreasonable) and therefore put some fraction of their earnings potential on hold (at least till we get solid progressive family leave policies) then it makes sense that women ought to at least start out with higher incomes. (It makes sense that their partners would also support that.)
The advantages are considerable: there’s be no particular intra-family earnings imbalance due to children, there’s be no strong incentive for the partner who stayed at home with the first child to stay at home with the next, etc. And if the family did decide to go the “traditional” avenue where the woman stays home with succeeding children she’d still have an easier path towards reaching income parity when she chooses to return to the workforce.
Yeah, it doesn’t have to be that way As we see in parts of Scandinavia for instance a really strong public/private/family network can be pretty powerful. But at least for now it is that way. And so a trend towards women earning more, at least initially, at least in theory, ought to support more egalitarian — and therefore stronger — long-term relationships." (he said it here)

Hmmm,  giving women higher earnings to start with so that they can buffer those times when their earnings will be less due to maternity...maybe not a bad idea.

As an aside: So French women now produce more kids than German women do. Is there any point in it now? Or do they realize that somehow the basis for this race has shifted? Just curious.

One more thing, does anyone other than me find it disturbing that the reason French women get so much Pre-Natal care is to be attractive to men again and to reproduce? And not because of their health?


Happy Thursday and hopefully this will be seen as some food for thought. As usual, let me know, what you're thinking.

WTF Wednesday: Worldwide decline in violence?

I have recently read an interview with an American psychologist who claims that we are living in the least violent times in human history (and I've mentioned it on eufrika.org*). WTF? Really? Can this be true? I knew about statistics in Europe and the US that state violence there is at its alltime low. But worldwide? How come this is so hard to believe for me. After all, I readily accept that it is true for Europe and America. Why can it not be true for the rest of the world, too, when I so readily believe it for its "Western" part. Is it because the news are full of violence? But then again, they are full of violence happening all over the world. Still, when it comes to reports of violence here in Europe and even in the States I know that I should take it all with a grain of salt, that after all violence sells more papers (and ads) than "good" news do. That, while every instance of violence is tragic and disturbing in and by itself, I still know that relatively viewed these are instances and in no way a general trend. That I am living in a generally peaceful and safe environment. That there is no need for me to go to any extra length to protect me from a perceived threat (the everyday common protection of a single woman aside, but that is subject for another post).
But when it comes to Africa, for example, the declaration that today there is less violence then say 50 years ago or even a decade ago, makes me stumble. ( I chose Africa as my example because a) I am an African Studies minor and being interested in everything that has to do with that continent, I follow the news about it more closely than those about other parts of the world and b) frankly, that's what we all do, isn't it? Equating Africa with violence, at least partly.) So, am I guilty of falling into the same trap that I so valiantly try to avoid, believing in a stereotypical view that I've been trying to dispel for years? If so, well let it serve as a reminder to me, that I cannot sit back and pat myself on the shoulder for being oh so open minded. That it is necessary to every once in a while to take stock of one's beliefs and perception and to ask oneself, is this still true and/or was it ever true. And sometimes this can reveal quite startling things about yourself.
And while I am adjusting my perceptions, it is always good to ask myself, what does this mean to me now. In the instance of the fact, that life in Africa is less violent than it has ever been, what consequences does this have for my perception (and that of other people) of Africa? Does it take away from the horror that war wrecks on the human beings involved in it? Does it diminish the fact that there are heinous violent acts perpetrated on human beings (and not only in Africa)? Does it change my conviction that, as human beings, these acts of violence concern us all? That we all need to offer our help and compassion whenever and however we can? No, of course not.
What this does, is that it changes my perception of myself. That I need to look into myself and ask myself why I so readily accept the belief that life in Africa is necessarily more violent and that violence there has not diminished as it has in other places. And to wonder if this is not based on a lack of respect and a manifestation of the patronizing view on Africa that I have on occasion lamented in others. Let this serve as a lesson for me, that we are all not free from prejudice and in order to achieve true equality for all human beings we need to confront our own prejudices first and foremost.
As always, I'd love to hear what you think!

*Sorry guys it's in German, but those of you who are capable to read German, you're welcome to read my articles and notices I post there (as usual comments are also more than welcome!!!!!).

Meh...Monday: Golden October

The weather forecast was wrong. Instead of dissolving in the early afternoon and making way for sunshine, this morning's fog turned into grey skies and a dismal, cold and dank day. Meh! 


This morning, when I first woke up, the sun was slowly being replaced by this fall's first fog. The world was covered in rising ghostlike vapors, the Fernsehturm (television tower) slowly disappeared from view, sounds were muted, the street below suddenly turned into a gothic wonderland. It could have been everywhere. The Streets of Victorian London with Jack the Ripper lurking just around the corner? Or the canals of Venezia with gondolas soundlessly gliding along?
The possibilities are endless. Now that they have been replaced by dismal reality I can only wait and see what tomorrow morning brings, always hoping that the new day will bring new, exciting possibilities.


In the meantime, enjoy the view from my window on our street on Sunday's beautiful golden october day.

and again for those of you (girls) who need a more inspiring vie on mondays: Look here.


Happy Monday!

Succulent Sunday

Sundays are always too short. This might be due to the fact that I don't start the day before 10.30 a.m. when we are having our customary sunday brunch with fresh croissants and soft pretzels. Which customarily also lasts till round about 12.30 p.m. It might also be due to the fact that my Sunday usually ends with watching the Tatort at 8.15 p.m.(for my non German audience an explanation for this very German habit can be found here).
The roughly seven and a half hours in between where spend today with reading the Sunday paper (an interview with Jon Hamm - mmmmmhhhh), an hourlong phone conversation, doing a load of laundry (including putting it up for line-drying), making some yummy Yorkshire Teacakes, taking them to a friend's place for 5 o'clock tea and upon my return at seven preparing potatoe pancakes for dinner. All in all, a regular Sunday for me.

Here's the recipe for the Yorkshire Teacakes:

What you need is 1/2 cube of fresh yeast, about 1/2 pint of tepid milk, 1 lb flour, 1 tsp salt, 2 oz butter, 1-2 oz sugar, 4 oz dreis cranberries (the original recipe called for currants but I didn't have any at hand) and 2 oz of lemon peel (usually I would prefer freshly grated peel, but I couldn't find any organic lemons, so I had to make due with the pre-packaged stuff)



Can you find which three ingredients are missing from the picture?

While I heated the milk a little in the microwave I put the flour and salt in a large bowl and rubbed the butter in.


Then I added the sugar, cranberries and lemon peel.


Meanwhile the milk was tepid and I mixed some of it with the yeast to form a creamy liquid.

I then poured the yeast cream and some milk into a little well I had made into the centre of the flour mix.



All this I kneaded until the dough was soft but not sticky (add flour or milk as needed). It was then put on a flat surface and kneaded until elastic.

I wrapped the dough ball in a damp cloth and placed it into the warm oven for about 30 min. until it had doubled its size. After that I formed eight pieces from it which I placed on a baking sheet.


Bake for about twenty min. at 200° C/400° F and voilá:


The Teacakes are especially good while still warm with some butter.

Happy Sunday!

Thoughtful Thursday

Ignorance is dangerous. It is especially dangerous coming from those who are supposed to be the political and (dare I say it?) moral leaders of a society. It seems like everybody has something to say in the debate about President Wulff's remark about the Islam being a part of Germany. And not always is that something helpful and/or informed. When will we stop seeing Islam as this big bad monolithic entity that deplores human rights, enslaves women and has as it's ultimate goal the destruction of all Western values?
No other religion is judged so much in its entirety by the actions of some of its members. Do we deny Catholics their affiliation with our society because there are some catholics who believe that wearing condoms leads straight to damnation? Do we cast out Protestants because some of its more radical sects want to implement biblical law as the law of the land? No, because we know that these are the opinions of individuals and small groups within the faith and they do not represent the faith itself. But when the subject of Islam comes up, there is some sort of kneeejerk reaction that it somehow represents a homogenous dangerous threat to our values.
It is conceived as such a threat that the mere mention of certain buzz words are enough to sow fear into our collective hearts. Sharia is such a word. Just now our Chancellor Merkel was using it to make clear that yes, Islam may be part of Germany but do not fear, of course not the Sharia. Well, I hate to disappoint you, the Sharia is part and parcel of Islam and therefore part of Islam even in Germany. What, stonings and amputations here in Germany? (I can almost hear the collective gasp). Of course, again that's the first thing that comes to mind at the mere mention of the word Sharia (and for a great number of people the only thing). Most don't know that when a Muslim prays or when he fasts during Ramadhan, he or she is adhering to the Sharia. Or that in German courts Sharia is taken into consideration in some cases of family law or inheritance. Again, its ignorance. As long as all this takes place within the boundaries of our constitution there is no threat to our society.
Muslims are individuals, too, and religion is a very personal thing. So wouldn't it be rational to take a step back and look at how Islam is lived among us? Because, make no mistake, it is, among us that is, it has been for a long time (longer than most of us believe) and it is not going away. Muslims are part of our society, they should have the same rights as we do and they should be recognized as valued members of our society. And as no society lives in a vacuum, of course their cultural and religious values help shaping our society (and they have throughout centuries).
And no, I am not closing my eyes before the conflicts that arise in between human rights and Islam (and any religion for that matter). I am a firm believer in the universal claim of basic human rights such as human dignity, the right to live, equality (for women as much as for homosexuals or handicapped (the list is not exhaustive, there are many more who do not enjoy the right to equal treatment even in our enlightened western societies) and many more. And yes, some aspects of Islam and all other religions, too, stand in conflict with some of these values. There is no easy solution, there is only the believer as an individual making choices and interpreting his or her believes to bridge that conflict. And sometimes you just have to live with it. Being part of a society does not only afford you rights and freedoms within that community, it also comes with duties. That means, you have to make a positive commitment to your community's basic, underlying rights and values, for example its given constitution.
But it also means that these rights and values are subject to discussion and even change. Just as society constantly changes, so does its interpretation of its values. There is a constant discourse in any given society about its rules and any member of this given society is part of the discourse. I believe that the foundation of such basic values as the human rights in our society is strong enough to withstand any changes. I also believe that there are other values and rules that will change over time, and that Islam as a part of German society will play a part in the changes that will occur within it. And I for one think that is a good thing.

WTF Wednesday

Just some things that made me pause this week:

• Our otherwise unremarkable President finally said something that I can wholeheartedly agree with. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Germany's reunification he remarked that "Islam is a part of Germany". Hallelujah! Alhamdullilah! Thank You! You'd think that stating the obvious would earn him some nods and general agreement. But alas, no! Dissociation from Wulffs remarks followed posthaste. Apparently his former fellow conservative party members are so scared by the mere mention of the big bad Islam that they have to run headfirst into denial like a bunch of scared chicken. And who'll be surprised that their reasoning is yet again based on their beloved German Leitmotiv of a judeo-christian-occidental culture. WTF?! So, all these Muslims who where born here, who'll live their lives here and who (gasp!) might even have German citizenship are not part of this country because they just so happen to adhere to the wrong religion? Because culture is some entity that is fixed at some point in history and never changes? Me thinks not...maybe my dear conservative friends it would behoove you to once in a while check into our constitution that you hold so dear...you might be surprised at what you find...

• Speaking of religion, but on a lighter note: apparently there are some American companies who print "John 3:16" on their packaging or shopping bags. WTF?! I had no idea. This apparently refers to a verse in the Gospel of John in the New Testament. I find that confusing. Why do you do that? To inform everyone that you're Christian? It seems to me that there are more effective ways to do that, than a code that the targeted audience might not know. And even if so, I still don't get the point. I could not care less if the person who owns a company I buy something from is Christian, Bhuddist, Hindu or Moslem. It usually has nothing to do with product they are selling. Please, can someone explain? It truly baffles me.

• And now, on to an even fluffier subject. Danielle Steele has announced that she does not write Romance. WTF?! Of course she does not! Never has! As I have many times told any number of people who are not familiar with the genre and who upon my mentioning that I actually like it asked: "You mean, like Danielle Steele?" Now all of you smart, sophisticated, well-read and plain awesome ladies who like to read this often disparaged genre repeat with me: "No, Danielle Steele is not Romance. We would not touch that crap with a barge pole!" But evidently, Danielle had to make it clear because, you know, being put in that awful literary corner really is, like, the most awful thing that could happen to you as a serious writer of serious love stories... Nicolas Sparks seems to have similar fears... But never you fear, us serious fans of Romance have never considered you to be one of us, we'll probably stay as far away from you as you want to stay from us....

Meh...monday

For some reason I always have Queen's "Bicycle Race" in my head whenever I hop on my bike. Even though it is a great song, I fear that I possible irritate fellow motorists and cyclists with my occasional bursts into song. Nevertheless, the song never fails to lift my mood.





Surprisingly, I find that riding my bike itself also makes me happy. I might grouse about the grisly, ghastly weather, or deplore the demanding distances I have to cover, in the end I am always happy when I have taken my bike instead of the subway. Even when it is raining. Which is the perfect time to wear my rubber boots with the white and pink polka dots and my Paddington-the-Bear/Miss-Marple/The-Duchess-of-Cornwall-Hat. I so love that outfit. It makes me happy, and so does the rain. And not only because of the outfit. I love the way the city smells so clean and fresh when its raining, the sound of the raindrops hitting the pavement and the cars, and I especially like the light during a rainy day, especially now in fall. Who cares about getting a little damp when you can ride your bicyle through puddles...

Today it didn't rain. No, it was one of these gorgeous early autumn days. The sun was shining, the sky was blue, the air had a slightly crisp quality,not too cold, just fresh, and the wind was rustling in the trees. A great day to be outside riding your bike. Enough to make my start into the week a little brighter. So, for all of you out there, who consider mondays a rather meh kind of day, what helps you to make the start into your week a little more bearable?

And for those (girls) who need a little more to lift your mood: enjoy the view.