Dealbreakers

I'm glad that Caperton addressed the not-so covert classism in having "dealbreakers" that build relationships on not necessarily wanting an "intellectual peer," but defining intellectual prowess on having a college degree. From the original story that sparked this post and its ensuing discussion:

"Duke was not like me: He was a reclusive Boston native who didn’t read, wasn’t political, and didn’t even own a computer. I grew up overseas, devoured newspapers, and felt happiest surrounded by lots of friends, debating into the night. But our connection ran deep and easy. We spent each prematurely dark night of that New England winter at my house exploring the places our young lives overlapped–laughter, food, pot, sex."

She went to college; he didn't. Even if you add in that he still received handouts from his mother, it's the classism is patently obvious. She grew up overseas, read, read some more, read lots of newspapers and had intellectually stimulating discussions; he drew. And skateboarded.

I know it's easy to read this as, "Why should she have to settle?" But I think Amanda missed the point with her comments :

I feel you want to judge this woman for not wanting to be with a guy who doesn’t do it for her intellectually, and your half-hearted hat tips to the concept of enthusiastic consent aren’t very convincing. Women’s hearts and bodies aren’t a democracy. If our hearts aren’t set afire by men who don’t share out interests in politics and literature, that doesn’t make us bad people. It doesn’t make us “elitists”. 

There’s enough pressure on women to ignore what we really want from life and love and instead offer our bodies and our hearts up selflessly, giving up the hope of real satisfaction so as not to be “bad” girls who care about “shallow” or “elitist” things like what will make us happy. Sad to see a feminist blogger double down on that pressure.

Maybe I'm especially attuned to class, given that it's a privilege I don't share with the majority of the feminist blog commentariat, but after reading the original article, I almost became hyper-focused on the class bias -- not to mention ableism. (Part of the reason Duke had a real aversion to furthering his education was his dyslexia.) And maybe I'm making this too personal (or god forbid, too about me), but as someone whose path to higher education was a little winding and bumpy, this is the kind of stuff that keeps me from participating in the feminist/activist blog world.

No one is saying she should have to settle for someone who doesn't "do it for her intellectually," but I question why she was with him in the first place if she knew he didn't. It has less to do with Duke's apparent lack of interest in politics and literature, but the underlying classism in the piece itself.