office with a bigger, thicker door

or anything from my wishlist

run 45 miles, abs 2300, biceps 3 sets of 16

We will not even talk about my schedule or about the fact that I don't believe there's any chance in hell I will be sending my email drops as scheduled this week. Sad. Instead, let's talk about women. But it's Tuesday night and I've finally cleared my inbox (both personal and work) except for two work-related questions that I need think time on, so we will update here.

I know that sometimes when I write, it comes off as though I don't like women. This is far from the truth. For example, this is how I spent my Sunday morning:

• An hour on the phone with girlfriend A discussing her crappy ex-husband, her trip through the heartland, quilts and candles and Hershey PA
• 40 minutes on the phone with girlfriend B discussing her awesome husband, the fact that after looking at 27 houses she still hadn't found anything she liked and retirement plans
• 30 minutes on the phone with girlfriend C discussing her awesome husband and house hunt and job hunt and wedding photographers
• Lengthy email with girl acquantaince D about how totally beyond crappy her hopefully soon-to-be-ex-husband is
• And a call with Joel which, you know, walks the border.

I love women. That said, I read three books in the past month that made me, you know, not love women as much. But that also made me love women. I don't know. Let's discuss.

Egalia's Daughters: A Satire of the Sexes
Can I just say before I begin that I really did enjoy reading this? It's a fun, entertaining read. It's fun to imagine a world in which women behave like men and men are totally subjugated. But as for making me pro-feminist? Not so much.

Let's summarize. In the world portrayed in Egalia's Daughters, women rule the world. They have the jobs. They bring home the bacon. They literallly wear the pants. While they get pregnant (and get paid richly during their pregnancy), they are not responsible for sharing the duties of child rearing. They are agressive, not particularly emotional and don't think all too highly of the skills and strength of men. Men, on the other hand, don't often have jobs and are responsible for all child rearing and homemaking. Instead of the awful state of having to wear a bra that women must suffer, men must wear a "pehoe" device to constantly keep their penis up and erect and perky. They go to coming of age balls, wear skirts and blouses and all wish they could get out of the kitchen and into the workforce.

Don't get me wrong. It's fun to imagine. It's even a little fun to mock the degree to which Gerd Brantanberg takes feminism to its ultimate stereotype: there is a scene where a young boy is raped by women, there is a pehoe burning scene, there is the scene where the protagonist's father (who, you know, is the equivilent to a mother) confesses how he always felt like he could contribute more than being a househusband. All of the possible instances fo the word "man" have been replaced with the word "wom." For example, you are a "huwom." Yep. And the men who are part of the "feminist" movement? Lesbians. But you saw that coming.

Here's the problem: It's fun to read about this theory world where women behave like men and vice versa, but it's so not reality. Because women are not men. We do not react like they do. We are driven by different biological imperatives than they are. We think, act, feel and are intrinsically and historically different than they are. And so if the world were a world where women were in power and men were subjugated, it wouldn't look, feel and act just like it does in a world where men are in power and women are subjugated. It wouldn't be the same as it is now, just with penis slings instead of bras. And that's the feminist exploration I'm interested to read. What does it look like if the sex who really is less designed to be the empowered sex takes over? I can tell you what a world with men in power looks like. I don't need to revisit it in the form of men who wear skirts and women who work in politics to know that. That is all.

But the book has the best term. Men's testicles are referred to as "shamebags." I will use that term FOREVER.

He's Just Not That Into Yo
Before you ask:

1. Oprah told me to read this book.
2. Shadalan left a copy of this book at my house, so I read it.
3. Though I am about to talk about how I enjoyed the value of this book, I also want to go on record as saying there are many unfair portrayals of men in this book.

Okay, having said all this, laaaadies, there are good points in here. If you have to chase him, he's probably not all that into you. If he's not having sex with you, he's probably not all that into you. If he's only having sex with you and nothing else, he's probably not that into you. That said, you know, some boys are shy. This nonsense about never ask a boy out? I'm not sure I buy that. I don't personally do it, but I'm not adverse to it. Is this book the bible? No.

And here's the thing. Upon first finishing the book, I slammed it down (by the side of the pool where I was sunning and floating, bitches) and said, "God, that book makes women sound SO DUMB." But you know what? I know SO MANY WOMEN chasing men around who just aren't that into them. I mean, we do do that. I do that sometimes. We are like that. And you know what else, we can mock the writers of that book, but they're sincere in their beliefs, and their desire to make money. But also in their beliefs.

Cheating? It means he's not so into you. ARE YOU LISTENING, GIRLIE?

But this book also talks a lot about the lack of available men. What's up with that? I know lots of available men. Ladies, you want a sweet available man? Give me an email. I'll hook you up. I know more than a few.

Face It, You're Just Not That Into Him Either
I like Ian Kerner. I find him funny and cute. I find him overly harsh on the authors of He's Just Not that Into You, because, frankly, I find the advice useful though the portrayal of women questionable. I find the first half of his book where he's discussing biological imperatives boring, but I worked with sex professionals so I may just be bored of hearing about it.

But in the second half of the book, he talks extensively about how online dating is turning us into people who aren't willing to put the time into developing relationships and giving them a chance to grow and flourish. And that's true. And for sure women are more guilty of that than men.

And then he talks about the dreaded second wave and third wave feminists and how we've "done this to ourselves." How we complain that men don't want to get married, but we were the ones who taught men that they would wait until their late 30s or early 40s to get married because we were all about the casual sex anyway. About how we made ourselves so independent with our jobs and our lives that we set standards for what we had to have in a parter that were unrealistic - somebody who pampers us but also respects our careers and demands and our individuality. And I said, yes, I can see that. Sigh.

Yes. And my point is that I read these books and had this reaction to them that it just shouldn't require this much discussion to be a woman. It should be much more simple. And whose fault is it that it's not? I'm not sure. But sometimes it's hard to take women seriously. By which I mean other women -- not my girls.

Love you all, ladies. I'm reading Mists of Avalon right now just because it'll make me love all the ladies to the mostest again. Those books above? Those books make you question.