To me, the most disturbing part of this is the following section:
I made plans to rent an apartment with some girls from my econ class the following year, but they told me they’d changed their minds when they found out about my older boyfriend.
I'm a woman and I blog. I have made a stab at writing fiction, often loosely based on my life. People tend to assume it is 100 percent true.
When I was getting divorced, if I mentioned my future ex was blond, men who were blond would act like I had just announced "You are in like Flynn!" Brunets who were interested in me acted like kicked puppies, as if I had just announced "I am never, ever dating you -- yes, you -- in specific!!!!"
I learned to scrub such details from my comments and signal as little as possible about my past relationships so as to have some hope of breaking whatever negative patterns were a part of my life. I didn't want men self selecting or self rejecting to pattern match to a past relationship when I was trying to sort out what actually worked.
I dislike the general trend of vilifying men who are involved with younger women, often with no nuance at all. Often age difference alone is sufficient to assume the absolute worst.
Although I absolutely support things like #MeToo -- support the idea that women should not be silenced about the bad things that have actually happened to them -- I am disturbed and concerned by the general trend that the world seems to think all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive or something. We hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on "This is what a good relationship look like."
Being able to identify bad actors and protect oneself is a good thing. Being unable to identify something positive or pursue it because everyone around you assumes the worst and feels entitled to butt in is not a good thing.
I wish we could take steps towards something more positive. That sometimes seems impossible in the current climate.
> I am disturbed and concerned by the general trend that the world seems to think all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive or something. We hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on "This is what a good relationship look like."
Well said. There seems to be some larger theme going on, not just about relationships but also about society in general - we do spend a huge amount of energy shining light on the darkness, and that is certainly valuable, but very little time imagining how things -should- be - a much harder task.
I'm also disturbed by the idea that all of society, all accomplishment, achievement, and maybe even all relationships are the result of power dynamics. It's a simple and juicy, easy to digest, view of the world. The real "Charles" sounds like a thoughtful and troubled person. Society at large is similar - as the author writes "alone with [the] memories of what really happened".
Is it possible the "steps towards something positive" is more conversations about sadness - or least, about ambiguity? "We are all unreliable narrators". Excellent essay.
> maybe even all relationships are the result of power dynamics.
Male here.
I think OP is referring to "romantic" relationships; I don't think it's true that they necessarily result from power dynamics. But I do think that all relationships, including friendships, work relations, and family relationships, have power dynamics swirling around them. I dispute that relationships are generally, or always, "the result" of power dynamics. I have a tendency to pedantry, so I may be in full agreement with OP.
That relationships involve power dynamics is unavoidable, I think. One of the ways we learn about the person we are relating with, is to push here, poke there, and observe the response. At the same time, we learn more about ourselves.
But attempts at domination are pathological, especially in romantic situations, and I think unusual.
I haven't read the short story, just the linked Slate article, and this one from the Guardian:
> I'm also disturbed by the idea that all of society, all accomplishment, achievement, and maybe even all relationships are the result of power dynamics
While I think I agree with the thrust of your post, this "idea" sounds right to me. It has a similar feel to statements like "all humans are biased" or "you are a product of your culture"—a commonality which underlies life. Acknowledging these forces makes it easier to discover the ideal relationship/life/etc.
> I'm also disturbed by the idea that all of society, all accomplishment, achievement, and maybe even all relationships are the result of power dynamics.
You can thank the dominance of Foucault in the academy for that.
> I made plans to rent an apartment with some girls from my econ class the following year, but they told me they’d changed their minds when they found out about my older boyfriend.
It's definitely no problem to me that people do not want to flat-share with a couple where one partner is 33 y/o and the other in, or shortly after, their "senior year of high school", which if a web search is to be believed usually means 17 year old turning 18. I'm not talking about the law re:that relationship which depending on the jurisdiction might be 100% legal, but these housemates are absolutely in their right to not want to have anything to do with that. Personally, if i was a 18-19 year old looking for a flat to share, I probably also would like to avoid regularly meeting the type of 30-year old that dates a teen, despite the fact that in the author's specific case it was apparently fine and also still fine on retrospect.
That's not what was going on. She was making separate living arrangements from him and had already moved out of her parental home and was living in a dorm and going to college.
Their choice could have helped push her into living with him as the easy answer in the face of prejudice making other choices harder for her. This could have helped make her into a victim instead of someone who once dated an older man and broke up with him and apparently had a better-than-average early relationship according to the description she has given.
As 42 year old your comment sounds to me like the one that people not wanting to rent a flat with someone that has a black partner is perfectly fine because they might not want to meet that kind of people.
Some older men are interested in younger women. And some younger women are interested in older man. Assuming that this automatically means they have character flaws worthy of ostracism is very prejudicial.
> I wish we could take steps towards something more positive.
What I see around me is a lot of social stratification by age.
Get to know some people older and younger than you, and by "get to know" I mean spend a lot of time together. The "youngsters" get to see that it's not all roses and happily ever after, the "oldsters" get to see optimism and alternative points of view.
At a get-together one of the older couples announced they were celebrating their 44th anniversary; one described it as, "24 wonderful years, and 20... of the other kind." The other nodded in agreement. Staying together (A) takes work and (B) is totally worth it (both points from our "mere" 37 years of marriage).
" am disturbed and concerned by the general trend that the world seems to think all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive or something. We hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on "This is what a good relationship look like."
Exactly .... Since a majority of the relationships are heterosexual, relatively most problematic relationships are also heterosexual, that would kind of feed into the "all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive" mindset
I think that this effect is localized in what can be described as "deep blue feminist college educated media women" bubble. That just happens to be uniquely vocal because of the media positions they hold.
In the real world it is more nuanced (and nobody really cares)
On the contrary, vilifying men who don't meet one's arbitrary social standards is a deeply conservative idea as well. The fact "deep blue feminist college-educated media" folks share such notions doesn't mean the other side is any better - if anything, the whole idea of men's rights as something that's inherently worthwhile is still remarkably niche.
Could it not be the fact that you said he was blond, but the way you said it? If it were described as a positive attribute, all those reactions make a little more sense.
> Although I absolutely support things like #MeToo -- support the idea that women should not be silenced about the bad things that have actually happened to them -- I am disturbed and concerned by the general trend that the world seems to think all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive or something. We hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on "This is what a good relationship look like."
Thanks for writing this. We need more women saying this.
There's a disturbing conversation I've seen numerous times (mostly on Reddit) that progresses something like this:
1. Someone (usually a woman) says, "It's a problem when men do <X harmful behavior>".
2. Someone (usually a man) says, "Not all men do <X harmful behavior>".
3. Someone (usually the original person) says some combination of "That's a derailing argument", "That's such a minor issue compared to the issues women deal with", and/or "We need to deal with the women's issue first".
What people need to realize here, is that this is validating the incel narrative that women just hate men. That is literally saying to men, "Eh, whether or not all men are rapists/abusers/etc. isn't important enough to talk about." There's nuance here, I understand it's not those peoples intention to accuse all men of these things. But by refusing to correct themselves when they make this overly-broad generalization, people who do this are making an accusation against all men, intentional or not. If people are going to put a "All men do X" narrative into the world, some men are going to react with "All women do X". That doesn't mean it's okay for those men to do that--it's men's responsibility to gain a nuanced understanding of the world as well. But we should also recognize that this IS going to be the natural result of making statements about an entire gender.
I'm in my 30s and I'm in some communities that put me in contact with men of a wide variety of ages, including men in their early 20s. It's absolutely heartbreaking to me to see how men who have come into age in recent years feel about themselves and about women. We can't continue to tell young men that they're inherently sexist. We can't continue to be surprised when telling young men that they're inherently sexist results in them giving up on treating women well. No one benefits from this.
And to be clear here, it's not just women (and not all women!) propagating these harmful narratives. This is something all of us can work on. I hope for my part that I've helped the men in my life to come to a healthy view of both themselves and women.
#meetoo was mostly about workplace harassement and then abuse. If you dont want it mix with genaral relationship issues, dont bring that up in that context.
Like, dont bring up #meetoo if you want diascuss non abusive relationship. Dont bring non abusive relationships when someone talks about own abuse.
One thing that disturbs me about the sort of conversation you're referencing, as well as the target essay and its referent story, is how much of everything is framed around whether or not a male is good or bad. It's not even so much the assumption that "males are bad" as much as it is that the discourse is structured in such a way that the alternative position is something like "not all males are bad," or "maybe males aren't bad."
I feel often like the public discourse about relationships has really shifted, from one focused on two people and their interactions, to one where it's increasingly about evaluating the male and even more so, the degree of problems they are causing or not. There's little recognition of the role that the woman (or non-male) in the relationship might play in causing relationship difficulties, or for the possibility that a pair of individuals might just be a bad match for each other. It's as if the female is this neutral party, removed from involvement, passively receiving whatever treatment, good or bad, that they receive. I'm not saying that "women sometimes deserve" anything; I'm not saying anything about anyone deserving or not deserving anything. What I'm saying is that increasingly it seems the relationship is evaluated as if its quality is equated with what the male does, and even some judgment about the male as good or bad globally, decontextualized, as a person.
I say all of this not in a form of whataboutism, or to deny the problems that women have faced, and face, in relationships and society. I guess I'm just concerned about the way these public discussions seem to be occurring, and their consequences for cultural norms and assumptions, and for individual experiences in relationships. If the goodness or badness of a relationship is so dependent on whether or not the male is "good" or "bad", where does it take things? Does that implicitly accede power to the male? What about the opportunity for development of a relationship (or self), as something that both people work on? Are we encouraging a new form of male chauvinism?
There's many layers that the linked essay could be approached: the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction, the rights to personal experience, and the reputation of the boyfriend (and whether that's even needed if it's fictional). The author is also writing about her experience, and rightfully so. But the real tragedy in my mind is that this is all occurring in the public sphere as if it's some judgment on Charles, who is now dead, did not and cannot have any voice.
The grandparent comment is extremely valuable. However, consider again the framing: "we hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on 'This is what a good relationship look like.'" Again, is this implicitly referring to "what a good male looks like?" What is a "good relationship?" Is it one where the woman is free from negative experiences? Is it one without difficulties? Do good relationships always seem like good relationships? Might it be the case that sometimes what seems bad might actually be good, or that sometimes good relationships have difficult periods?
I worry that the way relationships are framed in public discussions are becoming seriously distorted, around unrealistic ideas one way or another.
It does not matter what was the hair color of your ex; as most women are looking for men with a future, most men are looking for women without a past and not take serious one with a past. The hair color is just an excuse. The entire evolution of humankind built that into men, it is in the genes, it is what they are.
Societal pressure to vilify relations between older men and young women comes mostly from women. Studies (please google it) show that man of all ages 18 to 60 are looking for women 18 to 24. It has a perfectly clear biologic explanation: health and fertility, key factors for healthy children and the viability of the species. But that puts women, especially over 30, at a huge disadvantage if they don't have already children and husbands, so they punish the young women in these relations for obvious reasons.
The first part of your comment is based on what? It sounds more like a theory that you find in certain circles around the web, which are in my opinion mostly toxic.
And the 2nd part also needs a citation especially the villify part. While I am aware of the studies that you are referencing, they usually focus on sexual attraction. But relationships are not only based on sexual attraction.
Young women are sexually attractive for the reasons you state, and I do think that some older women resent the attention that gets, but there's more to it.
The difference in maturity means it's harder to relate. I personally wouldn't want a young girlfriend, despite finding them sexually attractive, because I could not imagine trying to share my life with them - our interests would be too divergent. I think there's a real risk, when one party in a relationship is much less mature, the other party may have an unbalanced or unhealthy set of interests - interests that may end up hurting or harming the less mature party.
I can't even imagine being attracted to a woman between 18 and 24 at this stage in my life. How are these studies supposed to jive with that experience?
I just read the original article after reading this link.
This situation is a perfect microcosm of how the media / contemporary culture at large will take a very human situation with complex personalities and shape it to fit the ideological narrative. The actual story (this link) is nuanced and filled with insights on modern dating culture, while the semifictional New Yorker piece is pretty one-dimensional.
As far as I’m concerned, the only villain here is the author of Cat Person. She apparently got a million dollar book deal out of it, while Charles had his reputation ruined and “died suddenly” which sounds like code for suicide to me. The author of this Slate article even seems to be gaslighting herself into thinking the fictional piece was more true than her real experience.
I grew to hate literature for its inaccurate representation of reality that shapes and skews imagination of the readers and makes it aligned with one persons grim fantasy.
People internalize that children left alone will reanact Lord of the flies and people reading this will internalize that every relation with significant age difference is an abusive relation filled with negative emotions and dynamics.
> “died suddenly” which sounds like code for suicide to me.
That's a pretty big assumption.
You have no idea why or how Charles died. The only thing you know is it was sudden. There are plenty of non-suicide reasons that young(ish) people die suddenly such as being in some kind of accident or, as happened to an old school friend of mine when we were in our 30s, one day his heart simply stopped beating. There are many others.
The respectful thing to do here is not to speculate on how or why Charles died: we don't know because the author has chosen not to tell us. Perhaps she doesn't know either. Not all families want to share this kind of information.
It's not a pretty big assumption. "Died suddenly" is frequently used to indicate that the individual died via drug overdose or suicide.
A person who was described as being very sensitive died quite soon after his reputation was (falsely) ruined among his social circle. I think it's pretty relevant to the situation.
It’s not new for writers to be inspired by real-life events or for stories to have broader messages or purposes. Calling this contemporary seems naive, as a part of this thing lately where people act as if for thousands of years we never criticized each other or did anything political until now.
But what do you think is the ideological narrative Cat Person aims to fit?
One of the most incredible essays I’ve read in a long time. The author describes a bizarre situation exacerbated by tragedy. There’s no clear remedy or villain for what she’s going through, and that’s just the way life is.
I liked the “Cat Person” story when it came out, but I would much rather see this essay be made into a movie
Isn't there a villain, though? A creepy internet stalker writes a story about her stalkee's life, monetizes it and gets critical acclaim (and, again, a seven-figure advance for a collection of short stories that only had value due to that story) for it, causing her strife? I can't help but feel that there's a clear villain here, and a villain that's trying to paint herself as the victim at that.
I dunno, if “looked through social media posts of my partner with their ex” is stalking then there are a lot of stalkers out there in the world in new relationships.
Don’t get me wrong, turning that into a story with a few too many true-to-life details would absolutely weird me out too. But I’m not sure she’s a stalking villain.
A superficial appraisal of the situation would have Cat Person be a mere amalgam of details plagiarized from social media with an ideologically derived ersatz-archetype-- a lie bolstered by purloined facts. This article, however, brings for the first time depth and truth to the former text.
Flaubert famously quipped, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!". In the same vein, the ugly side of Cat Person's male character may not have derived merely from defamatory stereotypes, as many readers could have been forgiven for assuming, rather it may, too, have been drawn from life.
But it wasn't about the "stalkee's life" it was an imagined story inspired by imagined characters inspired by the situation she observed. Cat Person wasn't like Charles - Charles seems to have been someone else entirely. I can imagine going to a BBQ and meeting Charles and liking him, I don't think that would be the case with Cat Person. The people who are the villains are the ones who looked at Charles and decided that Charles was Cat Person - they are like people who look at blond girls and think "idiot" and people who look at black people and think... well I won't go into what racists think. It's not the same - but it's similar, it's prejudice - less harsh and less pervasive, but it's how dumb people operate.
This is a very slippery slope. Writers imbibe all kinds of details from life, from gossip, from their families....writers are interested in people's lives. The only difference here is the apparently stark difference of her using social media as her source of detail. But it's really no different than if she read a newspaper article about someone online and borrowed detail from that.
Perhaps the only crime here, if crime there be, is an artistic one: the story is just a bit shallow.
You can see it as a villain, but the way it is presented it does not seem Nowicki sees Roupenian as a villain (though maybe she did at one point).
I think the essay is more subtle than that. She ends by describing "what's difficult about having your relationship rewritten and memorialized", rather than any sharp criticism. She describes herself as angry and frustrated earlier, but having appreciated that Roupenian was sorry.
It's quite nuanced. A lot of the essay also focuses more on other peoples (real world) interpretation of her relationship, rather than on the fictional story ("My relationship with Charles was full of shame brought on by people who assumed the worst—a predatory man asserting his power over an innocent girl").
Part of the essay focuses on how the story "blurs the boundaries between the real and the invented" but also how that affected both Charles and her in that it made him question whether he had acted like the fictional character, and "sometimes, to my own disappointment, I find myself inclined to trust Roupenian over myself" about her relationship.
The essay is just as much about how we tend to assume a lot of fiction is truer than it is when it includes even some details from reality - to the point where Nowicki finds herself trusting a total strangers interpretation of her own relationship - a relationship said stranger had never observed directly.
A key line to me is "I’ve wondered a lot about the line between fiction and nonfiction, and what license is actually bestowed by the act of labeling something as fiction." This seems to get at the core of what this essay is, with Roupenian being more of a prop to discuss this subject grounded in a real situation than a villain per se. Almost every negative about Roupenian is accompanied by a counterpoint, that while not entirely negating what is often critical does soften it.
E.g "At times I’ve convinced myself that she wanted us to know it was about us" - something that if true would certainly tip Roupenian into villain territory - is followed by "But then I remind myself that when she wrote “Cat Person,” she was still in her MFA program. No one knew her name. Submitting a story to the New Yorker was a long shot, and a piece of literary short fiction had never gone viral in this way."
It also goes towards making the argument that Roupenian was likely more toughtless than malicious, and that her thoughtlessness was somewhat understandable and would have meant very little if not for accidents of circumstance.
Does it put Roupenian in a somewhat negative light? Sure. It was stupid and thoughtless of her not to change details. But villain? I don't think she's important enough even to this essay, to be the villain of it. She plays a perfunctory part of a much more interesting story about Alexis and Charles, their relationship, and how seeing it reflected in the fictional story affected them.
At the end of the day, I kinda don't think this is a big deal. Roupenian was careless not to scrub real-life personal details out of Cat Person, but I think what happened was a bit of a freak accident that she unfortunately failed to foresee, and she apologized.
It does make you wonder how much you can trust supposedly slice-of-life fiction, if a friend of one of the "characters" finds the story a poor representation of the person they knew. I suspect some of the darkness in Roupenian's stories comes from a twist in her own perspective, not necessarily from the awfulness of men she's dated.
The issue has nothing to do with creative fiction. Nobody is bothered by stories that might use real life as a basis of inspiration.
The issue is that these stories are latched onto as 'narrative basis' for some kind of populist ideal, which may frankly just be bigotry.
The story was not picked up upon because it was just 'great writing' - it created buzz because it engendered a kind of bigoted fantasy among those that wanted to buy into the potential truthiness of it all.
Like the 'Man Next Door Who Raped The White Girl' (i.e. Black man) from the 'Reader's Digest', 1952 etc.
It's an issue because people can do whatever they want under the guise of creative fiction, and then try to use it as some kind of scare mongering re: 'This could happen! This is happening!'
I'm Canadian, we had to read the Handmaid's Tale in school. Margaret Atwood is famous for saying 'all these things happened somewhere in history' - essentially she cherry picked the absolute worst bits of history and rolled them into a hyper-fascist theocracy. Which is 100% legitimate and interesting from a creative perspective ... but the TV series became a ridiculous point of reference for the fantastical ignorance of some populists who loved think of this as the interpretation of their political enemies. As a TV series it's great fun. But when it's used beyond that (or more poignantly, used by the studios to play into people's bigotry) then it's not good.
Edit: please see my above comment for reference as to how most of the media picked up on this piece as the basis for a narrative. It's not some corner case conspiracy - it was used by NPR, RollingStone, Wapo, Medium, The Guardian etc. etc..
How do I find more people that think like you to associate with? My circles either A. were totally ignorant of stuff like Cat Person because they don't read a whole lot of anything or B. latch on to stuff like Cat Person and engage with populist ideal narratives. I've basically isolated myself from most people I used to talk to and engage with because I couldn't take lying for politeness sake about how I perceive reality anymore.
Roupenian kind of gave a sorry-not-sorry apology. There's a subtext of "I'm sorry I used your friend's personal details, but you're missing the point which is that the story is fake but accurate -- male anger escalates into threats and violence and by calling me out you're adding fuel to the incel fire I'm facing right now because I'm a woman who writes about the bad things men do."
And a deeper subtext of "Remember, sister, I am not the villain here; the patriarchy is."
Maybe Roupenian actually, literally faces threats from men who didn't like her story. It... wouldn't be the first time people harassed a writer for a creative work they took to be offensive.
Is it a truth though? Seems more like a grim fantasy that's rather exception than the rule. The reality seems much richer and more interesting than the fiction in this case.
The most obvious takeaway here is how she was wronged by Roupernian, but maybe a just-as-interesting takeaway is that the real Charles was a three-dimensional person with some good traits, and not just an avatar of all semi-neckbeardy creepy men.
Of course, it's pretty clear the story wants to serve as some kind of stylized and boiled-down version of some of the disturbing stuff that women experience dating. But this kind of prompts you to stop and think about the real people on the other side, as well.
I think we should be wary of anyone that tries to manipulate emotions against an "other" group.
It's popular because it triggers existing prejudices about your so called "semi-neckbeardy creepy men". Even that phrase links appearance to bad behaviour.
(I mean in general terms here and not specifically anything about your post, I should point out).
However it's pure fantasy. The original story takes two people's perfectly ordinary relationship and twists it into a series of misandrist and ageist stereotypes.
This is pretty normalised in current modern media.
Attacking the currently unpopular out-group always sells well because the audience actively wants to believe the worst about people they already don't like. Truth be damned.
Really though, we should see this for what it is. The original author of Cat Person was at one time romantically involved with this man. She wrote an unpleasant fictionalised story about him which is now clearly shown to be untrue.
Many authors, male and female, do this all the time. e.g. Ian Flemming did it all the time in his Bond books.
Her story is just a passive aggressive form of revenge for some imagined slight.
> It's popular because it triggers existing prejudices
I think it was popular because it rang true to a lot of peoples' real-life experiences. It seems strange to dismiss this and assume it's all about baseless predjudices.
> She wrote an unpleasant fictionalised story about him which is now clearly shown to be untrue.
The story isn't about him though, is it? It's fiction (albeit with some details carelessly lifted from real peoples' lives). The story's merit does not lie in how well it reflects Charles and his relationship.
I think your reading of both the original text and this follow-up are deeply flawed.
Foremost, original text was a story, a work of fiction (not an "article") -- of course it was made up! The fictional character of Robert is not the real life person Charles.
It is strange then, to claim that "Women will make up horrible things about guys online". Is the creation of any unpleasant fictional character a bigoted swipe at large sections of the populace? (There's an additional irony of you generalising this to _women_ and not the author.)
The worst part is starting to believe in the stranger's outlook on things in one's life. Infatuation with "universal" and "objective" will turn any tenderness you were surprised by into unambiguous creepiness in the eyes of the people you allow judging it
I dated a girl seven years younger than me. We were both in our twenties at the time, and I assumed she was a few years older and she thought I was a few years younger and when it actually came up I struggled with it but went forward. She's got an interesting background, and has been horrifically abused, and once told me I was the first person she ever trusted after having sex. Not that the confession was after sex, though it was, but that I still seemed trustworthy after having sex with her.
I read Cat Person... Right around the breakup, though I think it was before then and I saw myself in it. Scared the heck out of me. I don't think I was ever as creepy as the Robert of the story was. I spent a lot of time reexamining my actions and hers and trying to figure out how much I was looking in a mirror.
I'm terrified that she'll write a "cat person", fictionalized or not. She was scared for good reasons of a ton of behaviors that I did not exhibit but her "friends" tried to accuse me of, the way a cheater always accuses first.
On the other hand, I know that I'm accusing her of a whole host of behaviors that aren't true or maybe only have a grain of truth to them. They say hindsight is 20/20, but I think nothing could be further from the truth. They say you look on the bast with rose colored glasses, and that's not quite it either. You see patterns, and you try to make patterns, and sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong. Getting it wrong can be dangerous. Getting it right can be dangerous, too, particularly when the pattern is one you've been manipulated to see.
I don't think I have any special insight or conclusions to draw here. I'm trying, like the author of both stories - the fictional account and the real one - to contextualize and understand and in many ways to "get past" whatever that was. All I can say is that there's dozens of "Cat Person" stories, and an awful lot of them actually do have a clear villain, one side or the other, but probably more have a set of shared mistakes and bitterness - That for ever Robert texting "Whore", there's a Margot in hysterics, and a set of bitter people who regret everything, but didn't do anything worth regretting.
Morality just doesn't work off legality, nor is the "adulthood" ever truly clear in reality.
In this very specific case, passing no judgement on the OP here, there's a somewhat notable difference often between 20+27 and 22+29 even because of life stages. Do both people have full time jobs, their own place? Is one still in school? Can one not drink at bars in the US? These cultural markers often have far more important ties to power and relationship dynamics, as well as healthy relationships even beyond romantic and sexual connections.
I'm not claiming to have a clear view of these lines, but I think OP was right to examine their actions, even if it was all "okay" in the end. It strikes me as a genuine and reflective post from someone who cares, and I would hate to see others use "you are both legally adults" to avoid doing similar reflection. Nuance is important and can be very important at the individual level. Zooming out, is that not the lesson of this whole greater situation?
Readit News
I made plans to rent an apartment with some girls from my econ class the following year, but they told me they’d changed their minds when they found out about my older boyfriend.
I'm a woman and I blog. I have made a stab at writing fiction, often loosely based on my life. People tend to assume it is 100 percent true.
When I was getting divorced, if I mentioned my future ex was blond, men who were blond would act like I had just announced "You are in like Flynn!" Brunets who were interested in me acted like kicked puppies, as if I had just announced "I am never, ever dating you -- yes, you -- in specific!!!!"
I learned to scrub such details from my comments and signal as little as possible about my past relationships so as to have some hope of breaking whatever negative patterns were a part of my life. I didn't want men self selecting or self rejecting to pattern match to a past relationship when I was trying to sort out what actually worked.
I dislike the general trend of vilifying men who are involved with younger women, often with no nuance at all. Often age difference alone is sufficient to assume the absolute worst.
Although I absolutely support things like #MeToo -- support the idea that women should not be silenced about the bad things that have actually happened to them -- I am disturbed and concerned by the general trend that the world seems to think all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive or something. We hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on "This is what a good relationship look like."
Being able to identify bad actors and protect oneself is a good thing. Being unable to identify something positive or pursue it because everyone around you assumes the worst and feels entitled to butt in is not a good thing.
I wish we could take steps towards something more positive. That sometimes seems impossible in the current climate.
Well said. There seems to be some larger theme going on, not just about relationships but also about society in general - we do spend a huge amount of energy shining light on the darkness, and that is certainly valuable, but very little time imagining how things -should- be - a much harder task.
I'm also disturbed by the idea that all of society, all accomplishment, achievement, and maybe even all relationships are the result of power dynamics. It's a simple and juicy, easy to digest, view of the world. The real "Charles" sounds like a thoughtful and troubled person. Society at large is similar - as the author writes "alone with [the] memories of what really happened".
Is it possible the "steps towards something positive" is more conversations about sadness - or least, about ambiguity? "We are all unreliable narrators". Excellent essay.
Male here.
I think OP is referring to "romantic" relationships; I don't think it's true that they necessarily result from power dynamics. But I do think that all relationships, including friendships, work relations, and family relationships, have power dynamics swirling around them. I dispute that relationships are generally, or always, "the result" of power dynamics. I have a tendency to pedantry, so I may be in full agreement with OP.
That relationships involve power dynamics is unavoidable, I think. One of the ways we learn about the person we are relating with, is to push here, poke there, and observe the response. At the same time, we learn more about ourselves.
But attempts at domination are pathological, especially in romantic situations, and I think unusual.
I haven't read the short story, just the linked Slate article, and this one from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/09/the-cat-person...
While I think I agree with the thrust of your post, this "idea" sounds right to me. It has a similar feel to statements like "all humans are biased" or "you are a product of your culture"—a commonality which underlies life. Acknowledging these forces makes it easier to discover the ideal relationship/life/etc.
The girls did not even implied abusiveness in the story. Nor that they would be fine if it was lesbian relationship.
You can thank the dominance of Foucault in the academy for that.
It's definitely no problem to me that people do not want to flat-share with a couple where one partner is 33 y/o and the other in, or shortly after, their "senior year of high school", which if a web search is to be believed usually means 17 year old turning 18. I'm not talking about the law re:that relationship which depending on the jurisdiction might be 100% legal, but these housemates are absolutely in their right to not want to have anything to do with that. Personally, if i was a 18-19 year old looking for a flat to share, I probably also would like to avoid regularly meeting the type of 30-year old that dates a teen, despite the fact that in the author's specific case it was apparently fine and also still fine on retrospect.
That's not what was going on. She was making separate living arrangements from him and had already moved out of her parental home and was living in a dorm and going to college.
Their choice could have helped push her into living with him as the easy answer in the face of prejudice making other choices harder for her. This could have helped make her into a victim instead of someone who once dated an older man and broke up with him and apparently had a better-than-average early relationship according to the description she has given.
As 42 year old your comment sounds to me like the one that people not wanting to rent a flat with someone that has a black partner is perfectly fine because they might not want to meet that kind of people.
Some older men are interested in younger women. And some younger women are interested in older man. Assuming that this automatically means they have character flaws worthy of ostracism is very prejudicial.
What I see around me is a lot of social stratification by age.
Get to know some people older and younger than you, and by "get to know" I mean spend a lot of time together. The "youngsters" get to see that it's not all roses and happily ever after, the "oldsters" get to see optimism and alternative points of view.
At a get-together one of the older couples announced they were celebrating their 44th anniversary; one described it as, "24 wonderful years, and 20... of the other kind." The other nodded in agreement. Staying together (A) takes work and (B) is totally worth it (both points from our "mere" 37 years of marriage).
Exactly .... Since a majority of the relationships are heterosexual, relatively most problematic relationships are also heterosexual, that would kind of feed into the "all heterosexual relationships are inherently abusive" mindset
Deleted Comment
In the real world it is more nuanced (and nobody really cares)
Deleted Comment
Thanks for writing this. We need more women saying this.
There's a disturbing conversation I've seen numerous times (mostly on Reddit) that progresses something like this:
1. Someone (usually a woman) says, "It's a problem when men do <X harmful behavior>".
2. Someone (usually a man) says, "Not all men do <X harmful behavior>".
3. Someone (usually the original person) says some combination of "That's a derailing argument", "That's such a minor issue compared to the issues women deal with", and/or "We need to deal with the women's issue first".
What people need to realize here, is that this is validating the incel narrative that women just hate men. That is literally saying to men, "Eh, whether or not all men are rapists/abusers/etc. isn't important enough to talk about." There's nuance here, I understand it's not those peoples intention to accuse all men of these things. But by refusing to correct themselves when they make this overly-broad generalization, people who do this are making an accusation against all men, intentional or not. If people are going to put a "All men do X" narrative into the world, some men are going to react with "All women do X". That doesn't mean it's okay for those men to do that--it's men's responsibility to gain a nuanced understanding of the world as well. But we should also recognize that this IS going to be the natural result of making statements about an entire gender.
I'm in my 30s and I'm in some communities that put me in contact with men of a wide variety of ages, including men in their early 20s. It's absolutely heartbreaking to me to see how men who have come into age in recent years feel about themselves and about women. We can't continue to tell young men that they're inherently sexist. We can't continue to be surprised when telling young men that they're inherently sexist results in them giving up on treating women well. No one benefits from this.
And to be clear here, it's not just women (and not all women!) propagating these harmful narratives. This is something all of us can work on. I hope for my part that I've helped the men in my life to come to a healthy view of both themselves and women.
Like, dont bring up #meetoo if you want diascuss non abusive relationship. Dont bring non abusive relationships when someone talks about own abuse.
Deleted Comment
I feel often like the public discourse about relationships has really shifted, from one focused on two people and their interactions, to one where it's increasingly about evaluating the male and even more so, the degree of problems they are causing or not. There's little recognition of the role that the woman (or non-male) in the relationship might play in causing relationship difficulties, or for the possibility that a pair of individuals might just be a bad match for each other. It's as if the female is this neutral party, removed from involvement, passively receiving whatever treatment, good or bad, that they receive. I'm not saying that "women sometimes deserve" anything; I'm not saying anything about anyone deserving or not deserving anything. What I'm saying is that increasingly it seems the relationship is evaluated as if its quality is equated with what the male does, and even some judgment about the male as good or bad globally, decontextualized, as a person.
I say all of this not in a form of whataboutism, or to deny the problems that women have faced, and face, in relationships and society. I guess I'm just concerned about the way these public discussions seem to be occurring, and their consequences for cultural norms and assumptions, and for individual experiences in relationships. If the goodness or badness of a relationship is so dependent on whether or not the male is "good" or "bad", where does it take things? Does that implicitly accede power to the male? What about the opportunity for development of a relationship (or self), as something that both people work on? Are we encouraging a new form of male chauvinism?
There's many layers that the linked essay could be approached: the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction, the rights to personal experience, and the reputation of the boyfriend (and whether that's even needed if it's fictional). The author is also writing about her experience, and rightfully so. But the real tragedy in my mind is that this is all occurring in the public sphere as if it's some judgment on Charles, who is now dead, did not and cannot have any voice.
The grandparent comment is extremely valuable. However, consider again the framing: "we hear a great deal about the bad, the things gone wrong, the dark side and sometimes it seems like there are no good examples out there, no discourse on 'This is what a good relationship look like.'" Again, is this implicitly referring to "what a good male looks like?" What is a "good relationship?" Is it one where the woman is free from negative experiences? Is it one without difficulties? Do good relationships always seem like good relationships? Might it be the case that sometimes what seems bad might actually be good, or that sometimes good relationships have difficult periods?
I worry that the way relationships are framed in public discussions are becoming seriously distorted, around unrealistic ideas one way or another.
Societal pressure to vilify relations between older men and young women comes mostly from women. Studies (please google it) show that man of all ages 18 to 60 are looking for women 18 to 24. It has a perfectly clear biologic explanation: health and fertility, key factors for healthy children and the viability of the species. But that puts women, especially over 30, at a huge disadvantage if they don't have already children and husbands, so they punish the young women in these relations for obvious reasons.
And the 2nd part also needs a citation especially the villify part. While I am aware of the studies that you are referencing, they usually focus on sexual attraction. But relationships are not only based on sexual attraction.
The difference in maturity means it's harder to relate. I personally wouldn't want a young girlfriend, despite finding them sexually attractive, because I could not imagine trying to share my life with them - our interests would be too divergent. I think there's a real risk, when one party in a relationship is much less mature, the other party may have an unbalanced or unhealthy set of interests - interests that may end up hurting or harming the less mature party.
Deleted Comment
This situation is a perfect microcosm of how the media / contemporary culture at large will take a very human situation with complex personalities and shape it to fit the ideological narrative. The actual story (this link) is nuanced and filled with insights on modern dating culture, while the semifictional New Yorker piece is pretty one-dimensional.
As far as I’m concerned, the only villain here is the author of Cat Person. She apparently got a million dollar book deal out of it, while Charles had his reputation ruined and “died suddenly” which sounds like code for suicide to me. The author of this Slate article even seems to be gaslighting herself into thinking the fictional piece was more true than her real experience.
People internalize that children left alone will reanact Lord of the flies and people reading this will internalize that every relation with significant age difference is an abusive relation filled with negative emotions and dynamics.
That's a pretty big assumption.
You have no idea why or how Charles died. The only thing you know is it was sudden. There are plenty of non-suicide reasons that young(ish) people die suddenly such as being in some kind of accident or, as happened to an old school friend of mine when we were in our 30s, one day his heart simply stopped beating. There are many others.
The respectful thing to do here is not to speculate on how or why Charles died: we don't know because the author has chosen not to tell us. Perhaps she doesn't know either. Not all families want to share this kind of information.
A person who was described as being very sensitive died quite soon after his reputation was (falsely) ruined among his social circle. I think it's pretty relevant to the situation.
But what do you think is the ideological narrative Cat Person aims to fit?
As they say, if you gotta ask what jazz is, you ain't never gonna know.
This story isn't really "inspired by real life events." It's a real story of a real person, sloppily modified to fit the zeitgeist's value system.
I liked the “Cat Person” story when it came out, but I would much rather see this essay be made into a movie
Don’t get me wrong, turning that into a story with a few too many true-to-life details would absolutely weird me out too. But I’m not sure she’s a stalking villain.
Flaubert famously quipped, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!". In the same vein, the ugly side of Cat Person's male character may not have derived merely from defamatory stereotypes, as many readers could have been forgiven for assuming, rather it may, too, have been drawn from life.
Very good article. Moving, and oddly redemptive.
Perhaps the only crime here, if crime there be, is an artistic one: the story is just a bit shallow.
Cat Person was a work of fiction. There wasn't much ambiguity about that.
I think the essay is more subtle than that. She ends by describing "what's difficult about having your relationship rewritten and memorialized", rather than any sharp criticism. She describes herself as angry and frustrated earlier, but having appreciated that Roupenian was sorry.
It's quite nuanced. A lot of the essay also focuses more on other peoples (real world) interpretation of her relationship, rather than on the fictional story ("My relationship with Charles was full of shame brought on by people who assumed the worst—a predatory man asserting his power over an innocent girl").
Part of the essay focuses on how the story "blurs the boundaries between the real and the invented" but also how that affected both Charles and her in that it made him question whether he had acted like the fictional character, and "sometimes, to my own disappointment, I find myself inclined to trust Roupenian over myself" about her relationship.
The essay is just as much about how we tend to assume a lot of fiction is truer than it is when it includes even some details from reality - to the point where Nowicki finds herself trusting a total strangers interpretation of her own relationship - a relationship said stranger had never observed directly.
A key line to me is "I’ve wondered a lot about the line between fiction and nonfiction, and what license is actually bestowed by the act of labeling something as fiction." This seems to get at the core of what this essay is, with Roupenian being more of a prop to discuss this subject grounded in a real situation than a villain per se. Almost every negative about Roupenian is accompanied by a counterpoint, that while not entirely negating what is often critical does soften it.
E.g "At times I’ve convinced myself that she wanted us to know it was about us" - something that if true would certainly tip Roupenian into villain territory - is followed by "But then I remind myself that when she wrote “Cat Person,” she was still in her MFA program. No one knew her name. Submitting a story to the New Yorker was a long shot, and a piece of literary short fiction had never gone viral in this way."
It also goes towards making the argument that Roupenian was likely more toughtless than malicious, and that her thoughtlessness was somewhat understandable and would have meant very little if not for accidents of circumstance.
Does it put Roupenian in a somewhat negative light? Sure. It was stupid and thoughtless of her not to change details. But villain? I don't think she's important enough even to this essay, to be the villain of it. She plays a perfunctory part of a much more interesting story about Alexis and Charles, their relationship, and how seeing it reflected in the fictional story affected them.
It does make you wonder how much you can trust supposedly slice-of-life fiction, if a friend of one of the "characters" finds the story a poor representation of the person they knew. I suspect some of the darkness in Roupenian's stories comes from a twist in her own perspective, not necessarily from the awfulness of men she's dated.
The issue is that these stories are latched onto as 'narrative basis' for some kind of populist ideal, which may frankly just be bigotry.
The story was not picked up upon because it was just 'great writing' - it created buzz because it engendered a kind of bigoted fantasy among those that wanted to buy into the potential truthiness of it all.
Like the 'Man Next Door Who Raped The White Girl' (i.e. Black man) from the 'Reader's Digest', 1952 etc.
It's an issue because people can do whatever they want under the guise of creative fiction, and then try to use it as some kind of scare mongering re: 'This could happen! This is happening!'
I'm Canadian, we had to read the Handmaid's Tale in school. Margaret Atwood is famous for saying 'all these things happened somewhere in history' - essentially she cherry picked the absolute worst bits of history and rolled them into a hyper-fascist theocracy. Which is 100% legitimate and interesting from a creative perspective ... but the TV series became a ridiculous point of reference for the fantastical ignorance of some populists who loved think of this as the interpretation of their political enemies. As a TV series it's great fun. But when it's used beyond that (or more poignantly, used by the studios to play into people's bigotry) then it's not good.
Edit: please see my above comment for reference as to how most of the media picked up on this piece as the basis for a narrative. It's not some corner case conspiracy - it was used by NPR, RollingStone, Wapo, Medium, The Guardian etc. etc..
And a deeper subtext of "Remember, sister, I am not the villain here; the patriarchy is."
Heck, even actual Biography (non fiction) isn't even judged that way.
Cat Person succeeds because it captures a deeper truth. And boy does that story touch a nerve - a mirror that is hard to look at because of its truth.
Of course, it's pretty clear the story wants to serve as some kind of stylized and boiled-down version of some of the disturbing stuff that women experience dating. But this kind of prompts you to stop and think about the real people on the other side, as well.
It's popular because it triggers existing prejudices about your so called "semi-neckbeardy creepy men". Even that phrase links appearance to bad behaviour.
(I mean in general terms here and not specifically anything about your post, I should point out).
However it's pure fantasy. The original story takes two people's perfectly ordinary relationship and twists it into a series of misandrist and ageist stereotypes.
This is pretty normalised in current modern media.
Attacking the currently unpopular out-group always sells well because the audience actively wants to believe the worst about people they already don't like. Truth be damned.
Really though, we should see this for what it is. The original author of Cat Person was at one time romantically involved with this man. She wrote an unpleasant fictionalised story about him which is now clearly shown to be untrue.
Many authors, male and female, do this all the time. e.g. Ian Flemming did it all the time in his Bond books.
Her story is just a passive aggressive form of revenge for some imagined slight.
I think it was popular because it rang true to a lot of peoples' real-life experiences. It seems strange to dismiss this and assume it's all about baseless predjudices.
> She wrote an unpleasant fictionalised story about him which is now clearly shown to be untrue.
The story isn't about him though, is it? It's fiction (albeit with some details carelessly lifted from real peoples' lives). The story's merit does not lie in how well it reflects Charles and his relationship.
Even "nice" guys are secretly mean and will treat you horrible, if you don't listen to them.
This article:
Women will make up horrible things about guys online, even when it's not true, to get clicks. And not even properly apologize.
Foremost, original text was a story, a work of fiction (not an "article") -- of course it was made up! The fictional character of Robert is not the real life person Charles.
It is strange then, to claim that "Women will make up horrible things about guys online". Is the creation of any unpleasant fictional character a bigoted swipe at large sections of the populace? (There's an additional irony of you generalising this to _women_ and not the author.)
I read Cat Person... Right around the breakup, though I think it was before then and I saw myself in it. Scared the heck out of me. I don't think I was ever as creepy as the Robert of the story was. I spent a lot of time reexamining my actions and hers and trying to figure out how much I was looking in a mirror.
I'm terrified that she'll write a "cat person", fictionalized or not. She was scared for good reasons of a ton of behaviors that I did not exhibit but her "friends" tried to accuse me of, the way a cheater always accuses first.
On the other hand, I know that I'm accusing her of a whole host of behaviors that aren't true or maybe only have a grain of truth to them. They say hindsight is 20/20, but I think nothing could be further from the truth. They say you look on the bast with rose colored glasses, and that's not quite it either. You see patterns, and you try to make patterns, and sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong. Getting it wrong can be dangerous. Getting it right can be dangerous, too, particularly when the pattern is one you've been manipulated to see.
I don't think I have any special insight or conclusions to draw here. I'm trying, like the author of both stories - the fictional account and the real one - to contextualize and understand and in many ways to "get past" whatever that was. All I can say is that there's dozens of "Cat Person" stories, and an awful lot of them actually do have a clear villain, one side or the other, but probably more have a set of shared mistakes and bitterness - That for ever Robert texting "Whore", there's a Margot in hysterics, and a set of bitter people who regret everything, but didn't do anything worth regretting.
In this very specific case, passing no judgement on the OP here, there's a somewhat notable difference often between 20+27 and 22+29 even because of life stages. Do both people have full time jobs, their own place? Is one still in school? Can one not drink at bars in the US? These cultural markers often have far more important ties to power and relationship dynamics, as well as healthy relationships even beyond romantic and sexual connections.
I'm not claiming to have a clear view of these lines, but I think OP was right to examine their actions, even if it was all "okay" in the end. It strikes me as a genuine and reflective post from someone who cares, and I would hate to see others use "you are both legally adults" to avoid doing similar reflection. Nuance is important and can be very important at the individual level. Zooming out, is that not the lesson of this whole greater situation?
Deleted Comment
Now this should be a story.