1 ON BALANCE

I am stubborn. When faced with criticism or argument, I tend to react defensively. Rather than

listening to a point, I immediately try to make a counterpoint, a balanced argument in the opposite

direction. I attempt to neutralize, rather than actually engage. I'm not alone in this trait, and in the

aftermath of "Friend Zone" and "Rigged Game" going viral, it's something I've been thinking about

a lot.

I received many messages, both positive and negative, about "Friend Zone," but two interactions in

particular speak to this point.

A week or so after the poem went viral, I came across a blog post which appeared to be written by a

college-aged man. The post praised certain elements of my piece, but was ultimately negative; the

writer discussed his own regular experiences with unrequited love and was hurt by what he viewed

as an attack on himself, and on others in his position.

After some thought, I decided to message him. I explained that my goal with the poem was to try to

highlight some of the more subtle elements of **** culture—the ways it influences the very way we

think about relationships—and to do so in a way that would hopefully draw in people who might

not otherwise have a dialogue about the issue. I also commiserated with him about my own

(extensive) experiences with unrequited love, while differentiating those experiences from the larger

points of the poem. He wrote me back, and it was an extremely positive interaction.

More recently, I received an aggressive message from a man who resented my points about the

friend zone because of his own experiences. He said my poem came at the expense of "decent guys

who just wanted a chance to date and have a meaningful relationship." I responded with the same

points as before. I have, unfortunately, yet to hear back.

Though the second interaction never had a positive outcome, both of these men were writing from

a place of genuine, personal hurt. The problem is, they were unable to view their personal hurt in a

larger, balanced context. This brings me back to my original point. Often, when I'm in an argument

with a close friend, it goes like this: the friend tells me, "When you do this thing, it really hurts me."

I respond, "Oh yeah, well, I'm also hurt sometimes. And you being hurt hurts me." Rather than

listening to them, I try to neutralize the issue. "Well we're both hurt, so I don't have to change

unless you do."

But not every case of injustice, of hurt, is equal. It's important to think about context when we react

to something we perceive to be antagonistic. Your own hurt may not be the most important factor

in a situation. If there's a car wreck in front of you and you're late for work, making sure everyone

involved in the wreck is okay is more important than clearing the road so you can keep driving. As I

said, I struggle with this in daily interaction, not just in larger political and social arguments. The

realization that not everything has to be balanced, that many issues don't have multiple, equal sides,

is difficult, especially when you have a personal connection to one of those sides. But in order to

move forward, in order to better ourselves and the culture we create and live in, it's important for us