College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Logan Crane | If You Seek Amy

Girls gone wild

By Logan Crane

Print this article

Published: Monday, March 23, 2009

Updated: Monday, March 23, 2009

Women are complicated beings. We have surging emotions and play complex games that can drive even ourselves crazy. If there isn't a fight, we craft one, and as crazy as it seems, we rationalize our manipulative and convoluted ways.

I am most certainly aware that our behavior comes across as irrational and "crazy," but there is considerable evidence suggesting that our madness might be justified. Stories always surface about those crazy girls who stalked a guy's e-mail or had an emotional outburst, but what is always left out is that crucial detail: the circumstances that provoked the extreme response. Vital factors can explain extreme thoughts and behavior.

Kara was frequently hooking up with a gentleman until the pattern became so repetitive that "the talk" became inevitable. After careful consideration, she chose to value her single status over a committed relationship. But after days of separation, she tried contacting him after a night of drinking. When he made it clear that he wasn't interested in seeing her, she contacted their mutual friends to find out where he was. After tracking him down at a frat, she marched inside hysterically crying. As he took her outside, she fell to the ground pleading for him to be with her.

Kara had a long history of abandonment and depression. It wasn't the longing to be with him but his lack of need for her. While her tactics to express her fear of change were dramatic, she was only acting out on her history of loneliness and desertion.

Susan was in a committed relationship for a year and began to notice a change in her significant other's behavior. After he expressed interest in spending time apart, "forgot" to call her after a night of drinking, and failed to put in the effort she had grown accustomed to, Susan knew that she had to do her own investigative work. For weeks, she pried through his Gmail account, his Facebook and his text messages, trying to link dates, times and events. After weeks of searching, she came across the evidence she was eagerly looking for.

Women have an unbelievable intuition and are incredibly receptive to change in behavior. We find no reason to insistently pry through personal information without a belief that something is missing. Consider our minds working like a jigsaw puzzle: We are constantly piecing things together, and when the 999th piece is missing, we are determined to find the missing link.

There is also love addiction -- a dangerously complex condition that creates a chemical dependency on a significant other. Julie was with a guy for over two years, and after months of fighting and unhappiness, he left her. He understood that she loved him, but he couldn't take the phone calls and e-mails that Julie continuously sent. Each expressed a need for him, suicide threats and a concern that her health and well-being were in jeopardy.

Julie was experiencing relationship rehab that included severe physical and psychological pain. She wasn't eating, she contemplated her reasons to live, and she was extremely depressed. Her ex was frightened by her extreme change in behavior and was unable to understand why she had developed what seemed to be irrational thoughts.

Julie's behaviors were a result of an unsafe infatuation with love, a chemical dependency that develops in the same region of the brain as drug dependency. A person with this condition is capable of becoming reliant on a partner for happiness, sanity and his or her will to live.

It is all too often that women are labeled irrational, crazy and manipulative. Our behaviors, however, result from complex issues and motives. Many relationships end as a result of men's inabilities to communicate and understand a woman's thought process. Although the explanation for extreme behaviors may not be easily detected, a woman's reason behind acting out is a need for understanding.

--

Logan Crane is a junior majoring in political science. She can be reached at Logan.Crane@tufts.edu.

Comments

19 comments
Rose
Sun Aug 16 2009 13:13
...Lorraine's comment is longer than Ms. Crane's article. Girls gone wild? I think yes.
Jase
Sat Apr 18 2009 13:33
I just want to point out the "Julie" case.
Threatening suicide if a person does not act in a certain way is a form of ABUSE. It's completely unreasonable.
If she was threatening suicide whilst IN the relationship, I would say she suffered from depression- not "an unsafe infatuation with love."

The "Kara" case- I agree with "Anon", in saying she made the decision not to be involved with this guy. Then she gets drunk, spends hours finding out where he is, and crashes the party, acting in a hysterical manner.
...Yeah. Perfectly "reasonable". If she had such terrible abandonment issues, why would she decide not to be with him- and then treat HER OWN decision as abandonment?

And "Susan", again, I'm going to agree with "Anon". If a man went through a women's stuff, her phone messages, her e-mail, and so on, she would freak out- she would expect him to actually confront her if he suspected anything, not violate her privacy. And yet, it's okay for a woman to do it?
No. No it's not. Regardless of what she suspects, she should NEVER violate her partner's privacy. If he's been acting differently, ASK WHY.

...I find this entire article offensive, both towards women ("oh, we all act CRAZY, but we have good reason!") and to men ("You should be more understanding of unreasonable behavoir!") Urgh.

Ricardo Gonzalez
Sun Mar 29 2009 23:34
No citations? Where is the evidence?
HigherGround
Fri Mar 27 2009 05:52
If you seek amy, then I think you should stop searching...
Lorraine E.
Wed Mar 25 2009 17:47
@The Fart Knight: While arguing with stupid people on the internet is a futile (albeit stress-relieving) exercise, some things are so awful as to require comment. I don't know why you have a problem with people writing comments about her column--there's a comments box there for a reason, and this column makes such ridiculous claims that one assumes she writes it specifically to be flame bait. (On the off chance that that's not true and mean comments bother her: Logan, if you don't like feedback, don't publish it.)

This particular column (I haven't read all the other ones, but the ones I've seen were unimpressive) is one of those things that's so awful as to require comment. Calling women conniving and manipulative is extremely offensive, and Crane does this with no evidence for her claim but three (probably untrue) anecdotes. (If they're not untrue, I would hope she wouldn't publish them in the Daily. I would also hope that she gets some new friends.)

As for the actual content of these anecdotes, Crane almost seems to be apologizing for the poor choices of the characters. Kara did something stupid while drunk (although this is a rather extreme example, who hasn't?), but she wasn't just being stupid and drunk, it was her "history of abandonment and depression." (Abandonment? What does that even mean? She got dumped too many times in high school?) Susan invaded her boyfriend's privacy in an attempt to find evidence of cheating, but that's just because she, like all women, has an "unbelievable intuition" and is "incredibly receptive to change (sic) in behavior." Julie continuously contacted her ex-boyfriend, threatening to kill herself if he wouldn't take her back, but she wasn't being cruel and manipulative, she was just in the throes of "love addiction", a pop-psychology condition that may or may not be real. At the end of the article, Crane further defends this type of behavior, claiming that it results from "complex issues and motives" and suggesting that men are actually the ones to blame due to their failure to "communicate and understand a woman's thought process."

I don't know if women have a higher incidence of manipulative or codependent behavior than men do. Culture and my boyfriend tell me they do, but both of those sources have been known to be inaccurate. I do know that I know some manipulative men, some manipulative women, some non-manipulative men, and some non-manipulative women. I also know, from personal experience, that attempting to classify male and female "thought process[es]" (whatever those are) is futile. Difference feminists argue that women do think differently (and, some say, better) than men--women "feel", they see the "personal aspects" of situations, they "care" about and for the people with whom they have personal relationships. There may be some statistical difference between male and female thinking--I don't know, and I'm not sure how anyone would go about finding out for sure. However, since I am a woman and I remember, as a child, being a loner, an instinctive utilitarian, and a social ignoramus who learned to make friends by careful observation, I know that all women do not view life as a web of social interactions--all women do not think the same way. The idea that female and male motivations are fundamentally different therefore doesn't make sense. Using one's status as a female to explain manipulative behavior is the female equivalent of the man who makes lewd remarks about other women in front of his girlfriend and claims to be unable to control himself due to his masculinity. (The difference is, most men wouldn't be obnoxious enough to do that.)

Using your gender to make excuses for your manipulative behavior is insulting to you, your partner(s), and your entire gender. Controlling one's temper is not a masculine, anti-female concept, it's a very necessary component of a healthy relationship. If their stories are true, Susan and Julie (I'm willing to give Kara a one-time stupid-embarrassing-drunken-but-ultimately-harmless-moment pass) should work on their interpersonal skills and perhaps seek counseling before entering into new relationships. The behaviors described are not cute and crazy, they're borderline abusive: if a man was treating his female partner this way, anyone would tell the woman to leave the relationship immediately. Hinting that the man in the relationship was really to blame due to his failure to understand or communicate with his partner sounds like the victim-blaming that often takes place when a woman is abused.

The Fart Knight
Wed Mar 25 2009 10:14
I find it sad that people come on here on a weekly basis just to bash this girl for writing her column. If you don't like it, don't read it. But you shouldn't use it as a weekly stress-release to anonymously blast her in such a cowardly fashion.
Crystal
Wed Mar 25 2009 02:08
Reading this made me feel really ashamed to go to Tufts. There's a difference between writing to get students to think - to experience an intelligent process where they are forced to evaluate current situations - and word vomiting the most misogynistic, anti-feminist, and stereotypical patriarchal writing that only serves to perpetuate the sexism in society in a form of a column. I'm not sure why the Daily is still running this - but it goes to show how even Tufts newspapers are scrambling to try to get readers by printing just about anything that might get a reaction - any reaction. The whole point of a column, an opinions piece, or a piece of social commentary is not only to write with a command for language, but to also write in such a way that rhetorically proves a well-reasoned argumentation in order to persuade the audience. At least, that tends to be journalistic intentions that this column is missing. Crane fails on both attempts. Crane's use of three isolated situations are simply a poorly written biased sample that has more roots in fallacy than reason. Just stop writing.
response to lighten up
Tue Mar 24 2009 13:07
It is inappropriate to make comments about Logan's friends, but as for commenting on the writing style rather than the content, I think we are allowed to critique that. This is the Tufts Daily, we should have some standards for what is published, and this column has been consistently poorly written. Also, just because something elicits response from the student body DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD.
Your name
Tue Mar 24 2009 09:49
I can't believe I just read this crap. An entire piece that merely serves to support misogynist views? Stay Classy, Logan Crane.
lighten up
Tue Mar 24 2009 02:23
As an avid reader of the column, I can't help but notice that every week people are up in arms, regardless of what she writes. Whether it's stupid, offensive, poorly written, embarrassing, wrong, or whatever adjective you choose to use, Logan's articles always invoke a response which is great. What is more discouraging, however, is that readers tend to go to the column looking for it to be whatever they want it to be. Try taking this article with a huge grain of salt and relax. While you may disagree with the content and choose to post about that, but making personal attacks and criticizing writing style is moving beyond the point of these comments. Respond to the content, don't attack the person

also, this article is not defending any of these behaviors, but rather is attempting to explain why some women have behaved in certain ways. By no means does this article say its ok to snoop through your boyfriend's email, it just tries to point out what was going through the detective's mind when they decided to snoop

calm down

Dawg
Mon Mar 23 2009 23:52
Logan, you some kinda irrational, crazy, manipulative bitty!
biwoagbiowa
Mon Mar 23 2009 22:06
I am speechless. This is incredibly offensive, and also completely uninformed. Good job, Logan, participating in age-old misogynist stereotypes of women's manipulativeness and emotionality.
D
Mon Mar 23 2009 19:06
Wow, all your friends are psychotic bitches.

Actually, when a guy stops returning your calls, most girls get the hint and get over it, they don't become deranged stalkers. Your friends must put out really easily or have incredible boobs if they keep getting guys despite acting like this.

The Daily is not your personal livejournal.

Back to square one
Mon Mar 23 2009 17:06
Stop. Just stop.
Dude
Mon Mar 23 2009 15:17
Unfortunately, many societies are based on an inherent sexism. The word "hysterical" for instance shares the Greek root for uterus with the word hysterectomy. Logan's article in short describes the stereotype of women being "hysterical." Describing men or women as "hysterical" thus becomes a sticky subject that offends many and accomplishes little.
kathy
Mon Mar 23 2009 13:47
As a woman, I find this article offensive. It justifies some extremely unhealthy behavior and suggests that men don't deal with complex emotional issues as well. I just don't buy the "women are crazy, but we usually have good reasons" argument.
Mon Mar 23 2009 13:46
As a woman, I find this article offensive. It justifies some extremely unhealthy behavior and suggests that men don't deal with complex emotional issues as well. I just don't buy the "women are crazy, but we usually have good reasons" argument.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 23 2009 12:55
This article sounds like complete misogynist crap, and is incredibly damaging to women. It seems that the point of the article is to explain the motives behind a few extreme cases of women with emotional problems, but Logan puts these stories in a context in which they reflect upon all women. Yes, women are complicated. One way that we are complicated is that all women are different, and are individuals. Therefore, not all women are crazy and irrational. In fact, many are not. Also, there are just as many little stories (where do her stories come from?) about guys who have emotional issues and go to extremes when they are dumped. This article is incredibly offensive, so, as a woman, I guess I will go have a hysterical, irrational fit about it, motivated by my emotionally rocky past. Once again, Logan Crane's article is embarrassing and disappointing.
Anon.
Mon Mar 23 2009 11:00
Regarding "Kara" (I hope real names were not used), if she had such a strong fear of abandonment, why did she "abandon" this guy, and then get really upset? It would be different if he left her, but since she left/rejected him the situation is her fault. It is selfish and cruel to not only reject/dump someone, but then expect them to be miserable and get angry when they have moved on!

Regarding "Susan", sneaking into someone's email, text messages, and Facebook is a blatant invasion of privacy and violation of trust, regardless of what you find. What if she found nothing, and the guy had not been doing anything wrong? In that hypothetical scenario she would be completely in the wrong, and it would be justifiable grounds for the guy to dump her.







log out