Monday, October 26, 2009

It's all fun and games until I start flailing

Well, I was in a hurry this morning and ran out the door without my iPod.

You know what that means! Sotto voice: Another post about the radio.

When I started my car, the DJs were right in the middle of their conversation, so it took a while for me to catch up. Apparently they were discussing an e-mail that a listener had sent in.

The listener explained that she and her husband, who are in their late 30's, went to an "up and coming bar" downtown. The woman was shocked because there were drunk men groping and clutching on her booty, and her husband did nothing about it even after she asked him to protect her. The question posed by the DJs: "Should a man stick up for his lady?"

I couldn't believe it!

Where do I even start? I guess first and foremost: geez have we come a long way from Con Air. Chivalry certainly is dead if we have to ask if a man should stick up for his woman. We're not talking about jumping in front of a train or a bus, we're not talking about soiling his one good coat by throwing it across a mud puddle, we're not talking about challenging the bar bums to a duel. We're just talking about whether or not a man is supposed to intervene. Not necessarily say, "Hey, back off, buster," but even just put his arm around the chica possessively.

The female DJ was appalled for a different reason. She hopped up on her soapbox and declaimed, "I've always taken care of myself! I don't need NO MAN to protect me! [The e-mailer] is a wimp." Or words to that effect--probably some of her original eloquence is being lost in my translation. It was followed by a general discussion from the DJs and various listeners that called in. Some agreed that a woman should take care of herself, but for the most part the trend of the male DJs and male listeners was that the man should always protect his lady, and the woman tended to side with the female DJ. At one point they were discussing another listener's husband who did stick up for his woman by saying something, and they all cheered his bravery but cautioned, "With drunk men, you never know what will set them off."

Okay, fine, that's true, but still. I wasn't really listening because instead I was remembering my old bar days. Sure (back in the day), when I went out with the ladies sometimes we appreciated having a male species in the entourage that could ward off unwanted advances. But there were plenty of nights sans men in which I had to rely on the age-old deterrent that I thought all women knew about and employed:

The well-timed flail, a.k.a. the elbow to the gut disguised as exuberant dancing. And if that doesn't work, whatever happened to a good old fashioned toe stomp? I've used those techniques on men and women (sometimes a gal's got to defend her territory), and neither have ever failed me. In fact, now that I think about it, both techniques are actually just back ups to the plain and simple head shake.

Does that not work anymore? I confess the bar world isn't my scene now that I'm out of college, but it used to be. I remember being out, gettin' my groove on, and sometimes I'd accidentally make eye contact with some loser (in the midst of scoping for the hotties). And if he took it for invitation and came groovin' my way, I would just hold his gaze and shake my head. Probably about seventy-five percent of the time, that was enough to get him to go groovin' back the way he came. And it was only for the really persistent losers that I had to rely on flailing and stomping. Or, you know, the women who were getting into my neck of the woods, attempting to steal the men in my zone.

It's a rough world out there for single ladies.

And now that I'm not single: I guess I think, if she really needed him to protect her, well . . . why should should she have to ask? I remember that too: when I was single and we did take a man for protection, we never had to ask him to step in. He could always tell when we needed him--pushing the unwanted advancer away was the biggest red flag. So what was this e-mailer listener doing, or not doing, that her husband couldn't tell she needed him to step in?! If they were dancing together, how could he not see what was going on. If they weren't dancing together, well . . . why wouldn't they be dancing together? If she's out getting her hootchie on and her husband is slinking around at the bar, well . . . I guess I don't feel sorry for either of them! She could just leave the dance floor. He could start dancing.

It's the nature of the beast that if a woman is out on the dance floor by herself, guys are going to try hitting on her. Maybe their methods lack something in the way of finesse (ass-grabbing never made me want to "get to know" him better), but it's the way it's been for a long time. SURPRISE! Drunk guys in bars are inappropriate.

It's the same concept as the Wal-Mart staff never knowing where anything in the store is located. You don't get to be shocked about something if it's the way it's always been.

1 comment:

Wenders said...

Chilvary is dead. Unfortuntaley it was replaced with all the wrong things. This generation seems to be growing with completely different morals and beliefs, I can't WAIT to see how we turn out...[that's a lie.]

Related Posts with Thumbnails