I'm too pro-women.
I'm not pro-women enough.
I'm too masculine.
I'm too feminine.
I'm over-emotional.
I'm under-emotional.
I'm too judgmental.
I'm too objective and tolerant.
I'm too personal.
I'm too impersonal.
I worry too much about other people's opinions.
I'm insensitive to other people's opinions.
I'm cautious and timid.
I'm reckless and tactless.
I make sweeping generalisations.
I refer to one-off individuals.
I'm too conventional.
I'm too unconventional.
I'm self-righteous.
I back down too easily.
Just saying.
Will the real me please stand up?
and nearly all of those are true at times
ReplyDeleteKylie, I think you too kind. And have a feeling Scarlet is running out of patience. Or is, at times, as exasperated as I am.
ReplyDeleteI don't wish to make Nick into a case study though he would make a fine specimen to be dissected.
Nick, I have such a clear picture of you in my mind the powers of my insight into your psyche frighten me.
Unlike KK (kind kylie) I'd not tick all boxes on your list.
Please do indulge me and let me take it from the top what and who Nick is:
Too pro-women: No
Not pro-women enough: No
Too masculine: No comment
Too feminine: No
Over-emotional: No
Under-emotional: No
Judgmental: Yes
Too objective and tolerant: No
Too personal: No
Too impersonal: No
Worry too much about other people's opinions: Yes
Insensitive to other people's opinions: Difficult one - wouldn't call you 'insensitive'; 'impervious' possibly a better term
Cautious and timid: Cautious - yes; timid - not really
Reckless and tactless: No
Make sweeping generalizations: Definitely
Refer to one-off individuals: Don't understand the question, Nick; individuals are, by definition, one-offs.
Too conventional: Let's leave the 'too' out of it, Nick.Conventional? I guess so
Too unconventional: No
Self-righteous. Yes, Nick, I am afraid you are. It's possibly the one thing that irritates me most about you.
Back down too easily: Yes, and no. You may back down to pacify your readers but I have serious doubts that your thinking on any issue is much influenced by what we have to say.
Nick, you are a good guy. You mean well. And you are not afraid of tackling difficult subjects, controversial subjects. If you were a columnist and I were your editor I'd say: Throw a morsel and let your readers sling the mud among themselves. Then interject with your own take on what they have said. As you know, my posts are bait. My true interest lies in what unfolds in the comment boxes. That's where dialogue lies.
Other than that, Nick, and by way of comfort: We all have our own style. We may have to modify it, at times, but on the whole let's just stand by who we are. And if you are an opinionated spokesman on women's issue then so be it. Doesn't seem to keep us (women) away. In fact, maybe you have facilitated a useful platform, or a punch bag.
Take heart. We'll clutch you to our communal bosom in any hour of your need.
U
U
Nick, if people don't like you or your blog, there are millions of other blogs out there for them to read. I wouldn't get caught up in comments on your personality, etc. Worry about real people you encounter in your personal life, not strangers on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteAnd be cautious about ever combining the two!
Kylie: You reckon?
ReplyDeleteUrsula: Goodness me, a tick-box exercise. I shan't comment on the ticks and crosses, life's too short.
You may have a clear picture of me in your mind but is it correct? Probably no more than my mental picture of you. My psyche is a lot more tangled than you're aware of.
I'm a good guy and I mean well? I would say that's just a wee bit patronising. And dismissive. However, I suppose it's better than being a bad guy.
Indeed, I don't keep women away. It's the men I keep away, I just don't bolster their masculinity enough. I have no interest whatever in masculinity.
I've been clutched to my blogmates' communal bosom on many occasions and I do appreciate it. One of the big plusses of blogging.
Bijoux: Oh, I'm not worried about the contradictory comments. More amused and intrigued. My personality is clearly more multi-faceted (or chameleon-like) than I realised.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your reply to me, Nick:
ReplyDeleteYou say 'life's too short' to tick boxes, yet, Sweetheart, it was you who posted the list. Do you want comment or don't you?
You say that your 'psyche is a lot more tangled' than I am aware of. Really, Nick? Do you take me for an idiot, or what? All of our psyches are more tangled than what shines on the surface. Which is why some of your sweeping statements are so irritating.
I stretch my hand out to you and you call me "dismissive" and "patronizing". If you see it that way I am not so much sorry as having proven once more that human communication is difficult.
You say you have 'no interest in masculinity'. You should. You are a man, Nick. How do you define 'masculinity'? And why are you so down on your own gender? I love men. As I do women. And I most certainly would never denigrate my own gender. Neither do I think it helpful you opening artificial chasms between male and female where there aren't any. Vive la difference!
U
Ursula: You think you know me but you don't. And I'm not about to enlighten you.
ReplyDeleteHmm. I almost hesitate to comment. But I will!
ReplyDeleteNick, you are allowed to be contradictory. We all are. And everyone who lands here does so lugging their own baggage, seeing you and the topics you write about through their own particular lens. It's just the nature of the beast.
I won't pretend that it's my place to offer advice, because I know how little unsolicited advice is worth. But I will tell you how I approach my own blog. I figure it's MY blog. MY perspective. Written MY way. I don't want anyone telling me how I should write a post or how I should think about something. And if people want to disagree with me, they are welcome to as long as they don't lose sight of civility and don't make personal attacks on me or my other readers. And if they really dislike me or my blog, as Bijoux points out, there's a blue million other blogs for them to go visit.
I second SAW, she beat me to the wicket.
ReplyDeleteWhat intrigues me most Nick is that certain of your commenters threaten to leave you forever and then bingo, show up again and again. LOL.
Just. Be. Your. Self.
XO
WWW
Agent: You're right, it's my blog and I write what I want to write. And I did on one occasion delete comments I objected to. I'm just tickled by the very contradictory takes on my personality.
ReplyDeletewww: Indeed, some people just can't stay away!
I'm with Agent and WWW, it is your space to write whatever however and whenever you want.
ReplyDeleteI have no intention of nit picking the list above, but knowing you in person I can say that the Nick I know, has impeccable manners, shows respect for those all around and is great company.
Grannymar: Bless you! You're equally good company yourself....
ReplyDelete"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
ReplyDelete---Ralph Waldo Emerson"
:D
Jean: "Pythagoras was misunderstood....and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh." Oh thank you, what lovely words!
ReplyDeleteWho wants to be predictable?!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what's a "one-off individual" - another Briticism?
ReplyDeleteAnd I love that I beat WWW to the wicket, even though I'm not entirely sure what that mans, either!
"slightly grumpy"
ReplyDeletethats what I see
oh and
"bright as a button"
Suburbia: Indeed! Who knows what I'm going to come up with next?
ReplyDeleteAgent: A one-off individual? Not a Britishism, just a Nickism. I meant a unique individual, someone who's quite different from any stereotype or generalisation.
No idea what "beat to the wicket" means. Maybe a Newfoundlandism? It sounds like a batsman (or batswoman?) who gets to the wicket before being bowled out.
John: Another interesting contradiction! I'm not usually described as either. Usually I'm just shrewdly observing....
ReplyDeleteOh.. cricket? That's the game with wickets, right? Or am I confusing hat because the two words rhyme? Cricket has bats like baseball, though, so that must be it. I think. Yeah - I'm not a sports person!
ReplyDeleteAgent: I'm not a sports person either, I'm just guessing frantically! Bit of a sticky wicket, what?
ReplyDeleteBeating you to the wicket, is Cricket!
ReplyDeleteGrannymar: Oh, you must know more about cricket than I do, even though I had to play it at boarding school! I never did pick up the finer points.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're too anything. Just right.
ReplyDeleteLiz: Oh, I hope I'm something a bit more interesting than "just right".
ReplyDeleteYou remain an intriguing man of mystery to me.
ReplyDeletePaul: Oh, you're right, I have many tantalising secrets hidden away from the public gaze.
ReplyDeleteoooh, secrets... do we need to huddle round for a good gossip?
ReplyDeleteYou're just yourself Nick, and that's everything you should be :)
Speccy: Some of those secrets I would be happy to confide in you. There are others that are known only to my closest and most trusted friends.
ReplyDelete