"Just One of the Guys," visited

Yes, I admit to calling Shay “one of the guys.” I didn’t honestly realize it would go so far as to almost offend her because I think Shay, like me, is not easily offendable (if “offendable” is even a word; if not, you can tack that on to “Sam’s official dictionary of the English language you never knew”--“Sodot Elynk” for short). Heck, I didn’t know I had the ability to offend people. I thought it was one of those weird superpowers that only that upper level management type had the ability to do. If so, then maybe I need to set my occupational sights higher than I currently have them.

Anyway, I revisited the multi-day conversation Shay and I had on the whole subject (sometimes history files can help you more than they hurt), and I think I still stick by my comment. She's already said her piece about the subject. My take goes something like this.

To set the stage (for what could be a short-lived moment of brilliance or yet another tangent into lunacy), we were doing the whole one-upmanship on relationships (more like the lack thereof), and the struggles therein. If the history file serves me right, I asked Shay “Why are girls like this?” (this, here, refers to girls being somewhat more inclined to follow feelings and emotions rather than rely on the obvious signs of logic used by most, if not all, men). Shay, being one to open a can of worms, made me a deal I couldn’t refuse: “You tell me why guys are like they are, and I'll help you figure girls out.” ‘Woo-hoo,’ I thought, ‘some real world answers from a real girl.’

Her first question on the table was “Why y’all gotta be so clueless and insensitive?” That’s an easy one. The short version, which I told her, is that “because, in our mind, the world and everything that goes on in it doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, then it must not matter; things that matter always have a reason why they matter” (a poorly structured sentence, I know, but most IM conversations are full of them, anymore). The more grammatically correct and verbose version is that guys think logically. Everything in the world has a set order, formula, process, method, system, or routine; and once we figure out said order, formula, process, method, system, or routine, have figured out why said everything matters. In 18 grades of study, I’ve concluded girls have no logical order, formula, process, method, system, or routine, and thus have yet to figure out why--beyond sex--that they matter (well, they do get that one thing once a month, but I don’t understand that either). I, at this point, counter with the question, “We don't like how you guys are moody and base all your decision on your ‘feelings,’ what’s up with that?” Shay, being the scheming individual that she is, dodges an honest attempt at an answer with the copout, “moody = God's fault...take that up with Him.” I attempted to call her bluff, only to get “Just actin’ on a whim to get back at guys, show a little power, ‘lookie what i can do to make you miserable’ [kinda thing].” I don’t doubt any of this, but I still don’t understand what possesses girls to do this. Shoot, even when they’re trying to get back at guys, they’re doing so illogically. The easier, more efficient way to annoy us is to withhold one of our three basic needs from us (which, in no particular order, are food, sports, and sex).

Shay’s next question was, “Why you can't just say what you feel instead of keepin' it all locked up inside?” The short version: “It would make us vulnerable, and the only thing we hate more than moody girls is looking vulnerable in front of moody girls.” Ladies, believe it or not, we do actually worry about security in a relationship; if you look at the list above, traditionally wives supply two of the three critical needs of our existence (three, if you want to count cheerleading and mud wrestling as competitive sports). Having established the fact that girls have no particular rhyme or reason for ANYTHING they do, what the bloody hockey-stick is it worth to us to open up and (quite possibly, given the odds) say the wrong thing at the wrong time and shoot ourselves in the foot? I’m all about being honest in a relationship, but the words of two particularly smart people come to mind. First, Mark Twain (paraphrased): “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Second, a former boss-man: “They say the customer is always right, but sometimes I beg to differ.” Put these two principles together and you get the picture: “It’s good to be honest in a relationship, but to open your mouth might mean not having a relationship in which to be honest.”

This led me to the big question guys have, “Why you all gotta go sending us mixed signals?” Shay, being smarter than me in most instances, again tried to dodge the question: “Cause the signals aren’t received in the way they're meant to be.” ‘Pshaw,’ I thought, and told her, “I think they're not sent in the way that they were meant to be. If girls want us, why can't they just come up to us and stick their tongues down our throats? It’s what we want them to do in the first place.” Shay: “Because girls ain’t gonna do that crap.” Me: “Some will, they just cost too much. So, again I ask, why can't you guys be more obvious?” [insert random banter here] Shay: “One thing you gotta realize is that girls feel the same way guys do about stuff like that. They [go] for guys who they're not compatible with and then get screwed b/c of mixed signals.” Me: “I think it’s all a conspiracy on your part to torture us.” Shay: “Nope.” Me: “Examples?” Shay: “None.” Me: “Then I stand by my hastilly formed but well-thought out opinion.” And I still do. Since it’s been established that girls have no logic for anything they do, they don’t stop to realize the logical end of their naturally flirtatious behavior. Girls’ thought patterns goes something like: act ‘natural’ equals bacon and eggs for breakfast which equals filling up with gas on the way home which equals shopping (everything in a girl’s thought pattern ends in shopping). Guys, meanwhile, already have the formula worked out: girl that flirts equals (through a long process that includes dating and marriage) sex with girl.

By this time, it’s getting late and my head’s starting to hurt. Shay’s last question of the night: “Why y’all so stupid?” Me: “Because, while we're logical, we don't take time to properly weigh all evidence.” I hate to admit, but it’s true. Take the flirtatious girl example. Superficially, the equation is flawless: flirt, date, marry, mate. Ah, if only life were that easy. Guys overlook the emotional connection that, from what studies indicate, just clicks somewhere in between date and marry that makes the mate part more fulfilling. And the click is everything. It’s what gives guys the ability to put up with countless phone calls about nothing of importance and girls the patience have many “uh-huh” conversations during sporting events. And it’s just like girls to have the “key” to marriage be something completely unexplainable.

My final question: “How do I understand you guys? I'll buy the whole moody/emotional thing if you just tell me the formula for figuring it all out.” Shay: “There's no formula. We expect you to understand what we need, we will tell you the opposite of what we really think.” Me: “Unless, of course, you tell us what you're really thinking, then we're screwed.” Shay: “Yup.” Me: “So dang'd if we do, dang'd if we don't?” Shay: “Yup.” This completely sucks, in my opinion. Humankind has boiled down the computer to a small foot by a foot square that sits on your lap, does thousands of complex calculations every second, and we can’t write a program that figures out girls? What gives? I reckon this problem to that GMC commercial: “If a submarine can run silent, if an all-terrain vehicle can have all-wheel steering…why can’t your SUV?” I say, “If your life can be likened to a series of problems easily solvable by weighing risks and consequences, then why can’t girls?”

I concluded two things from this conversation. First, “if girls didn't agree to sex once in awhile, guys would never go for ‘em.” Remember the list of critical needs. It’s a calculated risk on our part to chance physical harm from girls for potential physical pleasure from girls. Second, “if guys didn't have half of their kids, girls wouldn't go for guys.” Kids and family and junk obviously supply girls with some illogical emotional fulfillment that guys will never understand, and since girls can’t have kids without guys (in some way, shape, or form), they’re forced to endure the presence of boys on the planet.

As I told Shay that night: “I have everything figured out and I know nothing more than when I started.” Nor have I done anything to remotely explain the whole “Just one of the guys” statement…

Doh!