The programme is actually not strict and the standards are not high, I just got caught up in Hollywood films that I thought I could bring to life.

Background

I had observed all the girls that were getting chosen in movies and mimicked them before I began analysing media representations and movie tropes. I wasn’t very attractive growing up or so I thought (for context I am a black dark skinned woman in colourist South Africa) so I had to be the smart and funny girl whom the popular guy later considers after realising there’s more to a relationship than good looks, in my previous writing I talk about how problematic the polarisation of these two types of women is and the overall problem there is with the politics of desirability and morality.

Part I: I thought me and him could be Lara Jean and Peter Kavinsky

Classic fakers to lovers/ friends to lovers/she fell first he fell harder trope

So I gained control issues from my love of rom coms. I thought if actors could be casted as a couple with incredible chemistry and live happily ever after, surely I could do it in real life . So I did, and in some instances it worked for me. Playing the smart funny girl role for example: When I knew I wasn’t my crush’s preference in high school and it was clear as day that he’d never choose me first. I opted to act out the cool, smart and funny yet unusually beautiful girl. And it kept him around, well atleast for the time I hadn’t left high school. He’d always want to hang out with me and called me sarcastic and thought I was that smart so he’d show me his results even after I matriculated a year before him he came back to send me his results for my approval (I really think this was the case).

I knew how I had done all of this. It was like a potion I had used to maintain access to him even if he wouldn’t choose me. For context In grade 10, The RCL came up with an idea to break the ice amongst all of us in the school and provided us the opportunity to write letters to our crushes/people we’d like to be friends with. As impulsive as I’ve always been, I wrote my crush a letter. It was meant to be anonymous but by then he knew my handwriting I don’t remember from where since we had different classes. And yes he got plenty of letters from many different girls. Conventionally attractive boys are my curse. I saw him read the letter and keep it.

Playing the role of Lara Jean and casting him as Peter Kavinsky began when he gave me a polite rejection to my advances: a thank you and hug. Whether he was playing the long game or not, is a story for another day but I accepted the “we can be friends” dynamic. This was fun, we weren’t together but we had an undeniable connection, we both knew it. I remember being angry with him and him actually being concerned because we were almost inseparable. The goal was to stick around and wait for the moment that he falls madly in love with me and the story is that I’m the not so attractive girl who ended up with the really fine guy who plays first team soccer and is every girl’s dream boyfriend. The only difference between me and Lara Jean is, Peter Kavinsky actually liked Lara Jean and she was very cute (this is not to self deprecate, I know I’m gorgeous).

Our dynamic already had some of the characteristics of the fakers to lovers/friends to lovers trope. I just hadn’t given him the script to follow. So it took leaving high school to understand that since he didn’t choose me then, he wouldn’t choose me now. And that he didn’t owe me a happy ever after when he made things clear from day one. This was heartbreaking, only I’m the one who broke my heart. I experienced grief for what we would have become and took some time to get over it. Life Update: I no longer check his social media so a step in the right direction there. Plus I’ve developed respect for him as a human being and began to understand that it’s okay that he didn’t want to choose me and never will.

I’ve had many other instances of control but I can’t lay them all out here, this one above takes the reins. The problem here was not my new found friendship with the guy I’m crazy about. It was that I knew he didn’t want me back but still I stuck around and played the long game, convinced that I could make him want me. That is not innocent, it’s crossing someone’s boundaries and not accepting no for an answer. And if I’m going to preach about consent I sure have to confront the ways I’ve undermined it.

The problem with relentless pursuit from both genders is that it is harassment and crosses the boundaries of the person you’re pursuing. Innocent presence on the person’s social media is actually stalking that erodes their sense of safety. So, delulu is not the solulu and before you think you can make someone want you, think about how that’s actually overstepping and infringing on their rights.

Part II: Redeeming the bad boy

I was 15 in grade 10 when I said I could change him. I really meant it. This was my project. My responsibility. I had been called for this. Relax I’m just mocking the person I was at the time. When my first boyfriend associated himself with the wrong crowd and did all kinds of bad boy behaviour, I was sure my gentleness could rescue him. “Maybe he needs a woman’s touch”, echoed the lies of patriarchy. I followed suit. I pursued him and yes he accepted my advances. Very interestingly he was impressed by my efforts to “fix” him. He thought I was the best girl he had ever been with and “promised to keep it a hundred with me” in his words. Ladies this is a red flag, RUN. Physically he was very attractive, atleast at the time. Even one of my guy friends said it himself “he’s the finest guy in the soccer team”. I promise I’m done with soccer players.

Anyway, this in part exploited me because I did a lot of emotional labour for someone who wasn’t even in my life when I was in his but that’s not the point. The point is that because I was sure I had “the tools to fix him” , he had to change during the time we were together, was my expectation. Again this undermines the person’s agency and is a violation of boundaries. When he didn’t follow the script, I left him. I’m the one who also got heartbroken here because he had never really cared, he had his own things going on, but even if he was present in the relationship, it was never my responsibility or role to work on him, this was his duty all along and at the time he must’ve not been ready to take on that responsibility yet. All in all I was hurt by my project not working out. Update: This is the first year I’ve been able listen to Don’t Watch Me Cry by Jorja Smith without bursting into tears, so I’m fully recovered :).

But reducing people to characters and expecting them to follow a script you’ve written for them in your head, is just toxic and obscures reality. Romantic movies are written well and the casting is great but they do not in any way represent reality or nuance and shouldn’t therefore be taken seriously. To wrap this up, my expectations of love and relationships were unrealistic as a result of watching Rom coms all my adolescent years and  while they may have done well in representing romance and just how beautiful love is, the fact of the matter is that the stories are fictional, the characters are fictional hell I recently found out that Titanic didn’t happen in real life, the story was made up based on that ship that sank. I still am very much obsessed with Rom coms I mean I’m due for watching After for the 100th time because it has a special place in my heart. But I now enjoy them with caution because I know they can be harmful to try and mimic. They are just a writer’s great work and ability to empathise with more than one character. Like overall, the writers did their big one. But honestly the tropes are getting boring and predictable now, there needs to be something different.

Am I the only one who was like this?

Remember when Whitney Houston said “I believe the children are our future teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be”

I think children are taught obedience before they’re taught anything else, and that’s the problem. Teaching obedience first, suggests to children that adults are authority figures who always do right and cannot be questioned. This makes children vulnerable and susceptible to abuse, because they learn not to question anything or speak up.

This is why children are one of the most marginalised, exploited, and abused groups in the world. If children were taught to speak their minds without filtering themselves, to speak up when something bothers them or when something happens to them, many more children could speak out about abuse.

The problem isn’t discipline itself. The problem is that children are taught not to speak for themselves and to speak their minds. When a child never learns to speak for themselves, they grow into an adult who will never speak for themself either.

Adults often exploit the power dynamic between themselves and children. This is reinforced by religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, and by schools, because schools are built on authority and discipline. Children are taught obedience and compliance from the start.

The point I’m trying to make is that children’s views should be valued, and that doesn’t undermine the fact that adults are more experienced. Aging comes with experience. We’ve lived life. We know about a lot of things now. This cannot be undermined.

Still, children cannot be marginalised or alienated from making a point. If we pour well into them, I believe children are capable of making better decisions, or at least informing better decisions. Because children don’t know how to be racist until they’re taught. Children don’t know how to be colourist until they’re taught. Children don’t know how to be homophobic until they’re taught. Children do not know how to be misogynistic until they’re taught.

That shows how flawed the adult world is. The world of grown ups is full of biases, discrimination, stereotypes, and “us vs. them” thinking. We look at each other through those lenses. Whereas children just see human beings. They are kind. They are loving. That’s it. We can learn a lot of humanity from children.

It’s still good for us to guide children. Children need to know that one doesn’t have to be impulsive. They need to know that “no” is a full sentence. That they can’t have everything they want when they want it which is a core characteristic of their developmental stage. So of course they need to be taught principles.

But I do not think they should be governed the way they’re being governed now. I do see the slippery slope: if children are taught assertiveness without balance, you can end up with permissive supervision where children don’t respect their elders. Teaching assertiveness might mean children will less easily be disciplined. But I believe children do not have to be controlled. They shouldn’t be.

Instead, children should be encouraged to ask questions. To say “why” over and over. To reject things. Because we are leaving this world behind for them. From a very young age they should be questioning things that do not make sense to them and we should be happy to explain to them and they should be telling us what we need to change. Tomorrow this world will be theirs. That sounds so old age of me but like literally.

The three institutions of socialisation: family, school, and religion are influential in dimming children’s light. Children come into this world with a very bright light, but they encounter norms and traditions at home, at school, and at church that dim that light. That’s why we end up repeating the same type of history. Because no one listens to children.

Take Gen Z for example. If we had been listened to, (not every child has the privilege of having parents or guardians who honour and value their opinions) things would have changed perhaps for the better because empathic dialogue leads to positive outcomes.

As adults, we should be respectful of children, and honestly, a little afraid of them in the sense that we should take them seriously. This world belongs to their years. Tomorrow we won’t be here, and they will carry it on. Everything we teach them, everything they absorb from us, will determine how the world turns out. And I’m only 19 but I also feel this sense of responsibility.

Teaching children obedience through fear or beating is irrational. If a child is too young to reason with, why beat them? And if they are old enough to reason with, why beat someone you can reason with? I don’t think hitting anyone or inflicting fear on them is rational.

Children shouldn’t be taught to fear. They just got here. They want to know about everything. They want reasons. They should be taught with kindness and a lot of patience. They should be given huge space for expression.

We are literally going to die and they will be left with this world that we influenced. So the next time a child says something, do not undermine them, listen to them, validate them and amplify their voice. There is no glory in raising an obedient, compliant child who goes by the very rules that are the reason for many of our problems in society today.

Neither of these women benefit from this performance. Instead, they are placed under constant surveillance. Whether one must ensure her maintenance is done by Monday or the other must maintain a 4.0 GPA and quote Dostoevsky in the English literature lecture, they are endlessly performing for men who get to just exist.

I’ve tried both: to sit quiet and pretty for the male gaze and to be smart and funny and focused on my goals also for the male gaze. All of it works against me because either way, men are allowed to just be.

The deeper problem is that this trope enables men to evade accountability and burdens such “good women” with the labor similar to that of their mothers: teaching them principles, responsibility and discipline. This portrayal and even the existence of such relationship dynamics intensifies the glamourization and sexualization of women’s emotional and intellectual labor. Women are only considered valuable when they extend themselves, when they do the thing that makes them “a woman”, yet they must also remain palatable and desirable. Therefore, the baddies must continue to exist alongside the wifey materials for men to have options. In turn, women are trapped in this endless cycle of performance, surveillance and labor that men are never required to reciprocate.

What examples can you think of