Inside

In a situation where a person takes offence by the words or behaviour of others the question arises quite often, was it ego or wasn't it?

That's what gets asked. Was it unfair comment, or was his ego just too great to take the slur?

Well, I'll tell you it's always ego. Every time. No exceptions.

Yeah, I know, you don't like that, but hear me out. It's not a bad thing to have ego. It all depends on what you do with it.

I'm going to tell you about a mistake I made.

I try to be error-free in my work but I'm human.

I received this email from a customer:

"This is just stupid..... you send other item than what is in the picture. if I wanted a the colored beads that would have been in the picture that I would have chosen. I want the purple jade ones look up. I see where now it says beads can be any color. bull crap.. if I want a red car that should be the one in the picture and not a brand new picture then they send a old beat up one, get my point, not getting a blue car instead. And the items are so much smaller than the picture shows, like put a quarter next to the real item,not some other item.
You are the only jewelry seller to pull this junk on me and its very wrong. you need to fix it"

I blinked a few times, with my mouth wide open. I said "HUH?" to myself, inside my head. And then I said it out loud. I tried to rationalize the complaint. I've sent out this particular design a total of 171 times, and it has always been enthusiastically received. The photo is a very good representation of the colour of the bead. And just for a minute there, my ego got the better of me and I thought "silly bitch!"

But then I got a grip, and tried to figure it out. Nobody would be that upset just because a shade of purple was not as expected, that can't be right.

Then it dawned on me. Duh. I do two different styles with a similar name. I'd sent the other one. It was absolutely my fault, sheer carelessness. I'd obviously been busy and not checked the photo when shipping as I normally do, and then I had been completely thrown off by the invective.

So, I immediately sent a reply:

"I understand you received the wrong item. This is our error, and I do apologize. Would you like a replacement, or a refund? "

There is no doubt that the tone of the original communication was part of the problem, if I had received instead a message saying:

"Whoops, wrong item sent."

....I would have connected the dots right away. This is a also a good lesson, then, in how not to complain, because obviously what we have here is an inexperienced shopper, perhaps young, and if she'd sent that to a different seller, well, things could have got ugly. Fascinating situation really. But that's a discussion for another time.

What happens when we feel "attacked" by words, is that our ego is the first line of defence. Comes up like a shield. It's so instinctive that it's extremely difficult to prevent that. So perhaps instead of trying to achieve an impossibility, we can check it before we speak or act. Count to ten.

Let's not pretend we enjoy criticism. We may realise in the fullness of time that it was useful or fair or whatever, but nobody enjoys it. The knee-jerk reaction is to feel slighted.

And because we are wise (we are, aren't we?) we deal with it appropriately, eventually. We still don't like it, but we accept that it was accurate, however crude, it was justified.

But what when it's not justified? When we can't be humble.

Being wrongly accused of something is a very difficult thing to deal with. Being unfairly criticized is a type of wrong accusation. Having just our opinions trampled on is almost as bad. All these are equivalent, in many ways.

There is no way round it, we are wronged.

Does it matter?

The answer to that is going to depend on a number of things. Not least, if you ignore it, will it happen again?

In societies based on an honour system, one is expected to react. One guards one's honour. The slap of the glove demands that you stand up and challenge your accuser or critic. Even in a society where this is all of lesser importance, there is a concept that one must stand up to a bully.

But we also have the concept of sticks and stones, and of taking the high road.

Whether it matters or not becomes a case by case decision.

This stuff isn't easy, and it does matter. It may be our greatest regular test.

I suggest that the following factors impact our decision:

1. Who said it. Somebody who is de facto our superior or inferior (in an employment situation), somebody who we merely consider to be superior or inferior, somebody we like or dislike, somebody we know well, don't know well, don't know at all, somebody with power over us, or none, and so on.

2. Who was listening. Nobody. Few. Many. The World.

3. What we can do about it. Nothing. A temporary solution. A real solution.

4. The effort involved. No reply. Dirty look. Smart reply. Threat. Court injunction.

5. The real harm done. Bruised ego. Damaged reputation. Risk of imprisonment.

Because when it comes right down to it, if it was a stranger, there were no witnesses, and that's the last you'll ever hear of it, then what is the point of getting all bent out of shape?

On the other hand, if somebody just called you a pedophile on TV, call a lawyer.

There is no simple answer as to whether or not you should act on the alarm bells your ego sounds. It is protecting you, but it can so easily over-react, like a snappy little dog.

Most importantly, you must not allow the madness to become infectious.

Your ego is a slightly unstable bodyguard. Your executive skills are easily tricked by its hair-trigger responses and this is where your wisdom, your discernment and experience come in. If you sound like a split personality at this point, it's because you are. It's why you can argue with yourself, because the Self is far from homogeneous.

When the ability to discern goes awry it is just as likely to under-react as it is to over-react. It may just do both, randomly.

What often happens is that a person who has been a "doormat" for a long time, just loses it. They can't take the accusations and criticisms anymore and something snaps. They lash out in anger, and this can be dangerous. It's rare, but not rare enough because we've all heard of it or even watched it happen.

To avoid reacting in a way you may regret later, it's a good idea to pause while you think on your feet:

Does this really matter?
What do I do/say now?
Should I wait, and if I do, what should I do/say later?

When you are accused or criticized, pay very close attention to what was said. If uncertain, delay reaction. For now, simply say: "I think there may be a misunderstanding here" and give yourself time to process. If it's text rather than verbal, you have a massive advantage, you need not say anything immediately in most cases.

Take a deep breath. Om.

Thank your ego for alerting you, and send it on its way. Its work is done. Let the rational mind take it from here.

Ask yourself 1-5 above. That may be enough.

OK. What if you decide that, rationally, there is no need to react, really, you can't really say that any real harm was done, and you know it was just that your feelings were hurt, but....damn it....damn it.....DAMN IT! Your feelings were HURT!

Why? Has this happened before? What did you do then? Why is it different now?

I can't answer those for you, but one possibility is that you are being over-sensitive because your feelings were already damaged. http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/more-of-same.html

The solution is obvious. If you find a balance between over-reacting and under-reacting, you won't feel so bad about it later.

Now, I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you worry about having regrets. I'm assuming that if you over-react, and then later on you feel a fool, that this will be worse. I'm assuming you analyse your earlier behaviour. I'm assuming you care. I could be projecting my own preference, which is to avoid having to apologize. I'm assuming you want to do the right thing by all concerned.

Because if in fact all this is, is you wanting to look better than everyone else, then THAT is ego, through and through, and I can't help you.

Just Human

With the announcement that Facebook will now allow you to pick from 50 different genders there is bound to be lots of discussion about gender, what it is, and what it isn't. These will range from "Well, it's whatever you say it is" to "DNA is the difference, choice of two".

Of course some of the latter will be quite cruel, and we'll leave them to it. I just want to mess with your heads for a bit.

What are you? Not what you think, I'll tell you that.

So, you're a man. Why do you say that? Because you were born with male genitalia? So equipment at birth is the key, is it? Do you think that's how it started out?

Hate to break it to you but all embryos' gentials look the same. They are identical for the first two months.

Here they are at about 9 weeks:

This is why doctors can do miraculous things later on in transgender surgery. All the stuff you need is there.

So, obviously the DNA is what directs development after that. The baby "knows" which it is going to be. (Usually. 1 in 1000 babies born are intersexed. Look it up if you don't believe me.)

The problem is, this only really applies to structural aspects of development. Almost all other differences are cultural. Somewhere along the way "we" decided that girls do this and boys do that, and we tend to encourage the pattern.

In a unique and curious reversal of rights, we allow girls to dress, play, and behave like boys, but not the other way around. Presumably because boys are better, right? O.o.

I was that tomboy.

I was a sweet little thing, but I didn't do girl.

I did more interesting things. I dug holes.

Given the choice of buying shoes or digging holes, I would still rather dig holes.

I had cars and trucks and trains and balls and holes. I had a very happy childhood.

Then I grew up, and got married and had babies. Being a tomboy didn't make me a lesbian, and it didn't make me a bad mother. These things are not connected.

So why is it that if a boy wants to wear dresses, and paint his nails, he is discouraged, teased, and bullied? Makes no sense.

What do these things have to do with our biology? Nothing.

300 years ago men wore skirts, high heels, make up, and powdered wigs.

At some point somebody (WHO?) decided that only women could do that. Then, they persecuted men who did it.

If you can find a correlation between fashion and DNA, do let us all know.

There are two ways to look at this. One way is to designate yourself something, and use that word to describe your own individual selection of satorial choices, sexual preferences, and importance to biology.

The other way is to say "female is whatever I say it is".

You'll encounter objections either way, so it really makes no difference.

The Oppression of Women, Subtle or Otherwise

At first glance this blog may appear divisive, but in fact it's just me trying to achieve what I'm always trying to achieve - balance.

Identifying as a feminist I seek equality. I do not believe women are superior. I am just trying to do away with the idea that men are superior.

One of the ways men like to believe they are superior is that they are not afflicted by the unstabling effects of female hormones. They completely overlook how they are afflicted by the unstabling effects of male hormones. Testosterone can lead to aggression. There is no question about this. This is not an excuse, however.

Before we begin, I'd like you to think about why men tend to be the dominant sex. I think it's been conclusively proven that men are no more intelligent than women, or more hard-working, or more ambitious. In fact the usual final excuse given is that men are stronger than women. While there are plenty of women who are stronger than some men, that's not the correct way to look at this. What you have to do is look at who the leaders are. They tend to be older men. They are rarely stronger than their younger counterparts. Some of them are even infirm. Physical strength is not a pre-requisite for leadership.

These older or weaker men lead because the people around them allow them to lead. They could be easily usurped. But they have some characteristic which commands respect. It may be fear of their physically stronger colleagues, relatives, or paid henchmen of course. Fear remains a very powerful motivation to show respect, so it works just fine. But the fact that their supporters exist at all suggests that they exude some kind of charismatic power. In some instances the position is respected rather than the individual and their guards would protect them regardless. Within a system such as a monarchy, the title is all that's required. The King can be a child.

Male strength is not disputed. By the time they reached puberty my sons could lift heavier objects than I could, and in a fist fight I wouldn't stand a chance against a man. But does that make a person superior? Does it give him the right to be cruel to those physically weaker than him? Most importantly does it give him the right to make decisions for those physically weaker than him?

Does it gives him the right to oppress women based on the excuse that they are physically weaker? To reduce her opportunities and freedoms because he is physically stronger? That is the mindset of the bully.

But in fact quite often when men refer to women as the weaker sex, they are not talking about weightlifting. It is a suggestion that a woman's mind is inferior, that her ability to rationalize is impeded by her lack of biceps. It's patently absurd, but unfortunately if she is brought up to believe that her opinions are not valid, that the men in her life are the only people who know what is right for her, there is a risk that she may believe it. If women are taught, and believe that they can't do many things that men can do (despite physical strength not being involved at all) then they can't. It's a self-fulfilling belief.

On the other hand some women do not believe this, no matter how hard it is impressed upon them from an early age. They rebel, they fight back, and after a long struggle, at least western women finally have almost achieved equality in many areas. The fact that I had to use the word "almost" there is telling. There do remain plenty of inequalities, and if you honestly don't know what they are by now, get off my blog. Seriously.

Now then. If we agree that the only real difference between us is physical strength, there has to be some other reason for this type of inequality.The question is: what happens when those who put themselves in charge want to assert their dominance?

Remember the basic idea about hormones:

Female hormones apparently, make women emotional, unpredictable, or even "unstable".

Male hormones lead to aggression.

Here's the upshot of that.

Paranoia?

There are articles published, and then inevitably "memes" drawn from those articles, suggesting that violence by men is the leading cause of death among women, despite "cause of death" data to the contrary. So, this may or may not be true in the long term, depending on how you look at it. Certainly a very high number of women die by suicide (it's the leading cause of death among women in a number of Asian countries) and obviously, this could be linked. It's probably impossible to establish the facts, and I'll leave it to others to argue that one out.

But the WHO does have the following to say about violence towards women:

"Violence against women is widespread around the world. Recent figures indicate that 35% of women worldwide have experienced either intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime. On average, 30% of women who have been in a relationship experienced some form of physical or sexual violence by their partner.

Globally, as many as 38% of murders of women are committed by an intimate partner.

Women who have been physically or sexually abused have higher rates of mental ill-health, unintended pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages than non-abused women. Women exposed to partner violence are twice as likely to be depressed, almost twice as likely to have alcohol use disorders, and 1.5 times more likely to have HIV or another sexually transmitted infection. 42% of them have experienced injuries as a result. Increasingly in many conflicts, sexual violence is also used as a tactic of war."

So "cause of death" isn't always the cause of death.

And like a parasite or virus that doesn't kill its host because it needs it, men who are violent towards women tend to stop short of killing them. They may be very careful not to beat her so badly she can't work or bear more children. They may restrict themselves to verbal or mental abuse, because if enough damage is done to her self-esteem and her will, she's both compliant and still fully able.

Not all men are abusive. Not all men are bullies. But if the society a man lives in defends or encourages such abuse, even a good man will go along with it. Not only does he think it is justified morally, he may not even question it at all.

We don't have to look far away for examples of this. This is not something "ignorant foreigners" do. Western society was built on a solid foundation of wife beating.

One my first date with my husband, I told him what my mother had taught me. If you ever lay a hand on me, you'll never see me again. My husband is not a violent man, I really had no need to warn him, but you don't know that when you first meet a person. I meant it too. No second chances. My boys have been raised in the certainty that it's wrong to hit a woman, and now my grandsons know the same.

Think all boys in the west are raised this way? You know that's not the case. Many learn by example, by seeing violence in the home. They may be told it's wrong a thousand times, but what other messages do they get?

One of the more subtle ways that men are taught that it's OK to oppress women is in music. I will never forget my mother's absolute horror and disgust at this song:

Mick was my idol, you understand, and to hear her disapproval was all the more powerful.

But that was almost 5 decades ago, we've moved on so far since then, haven't we?

No. 

There are more songs promoting or glorifying oppression, coercion, and violence towards women than ever. I am not going to name them or share them, they do not deserve the exposure, but you know they are out there, and I'm sure you've heard some of them.

Thankfully, there are also these:

http://16days.thepixelproject.net/the-pixel-project-selection-2012-16-songs-about-violence-against-women-and-staying-strong-and-positive/

OK, I've rambled on even more than usual. What's my point. My point is that it's still happening. After all this time. After all the efforts that have been made. After suffrage, and women's lib, and post-modern sensibilities. In some ways it is getting worse instead of better. The backlash against women's equality by conservatives aims to put us back 50 years.

It would be so easy if we could turn the blame game around, and just blame men for it, but we get nonsense like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/29/fox-news-host-women-dont-want-equal-pay-they-already-get-exactly-what-theyre-worth/

Women being paid less than men for doing the exact same job is the thin end of the wedge. It is vital that employment equality happens because if it doesn't, the rest of the slide backwards can happen. Either we have equality or we don't.

And this has nothing to do with evil capitalist liberal Western agendas, BTW. Even Tunisia has a new constitution guaranteeing equal rights for men and women. Why? Because it benefits everyone. It raises the GDP. It increases educational levels. It increases stability and improves the standard of living for everyone. It is a win-win situation, and the only losers are the bullies.

But Tunisia faces a problem, as we all do. It's one thing to put it in law, quite another to put it in practice.

Until the desire to oppress isn't there, until men don't feel the urge or need to raise a hand to a woman, we'll never have true equality. This is a grass roots issue. Every parent has a responsibility, and so does every singer. Every employer. Every journalist.

Every single one of us, male or female, in whatever role we have, need to understand that what we do, what we say, and before all of that, what we think, affects oppression. It's a tall order, but it begins at the bottom.

This diagram was created to show how racism works, but it absolutely applies to sexism too.

We are told things are improving. OK. The following survey, presented here to show that atheists are the least trusted candidates in the US, just happens to show something else.

That's right, things have improved. Two minorities are doing much better than they were decades ago. There is even a black president. That would have boggled the mind of a voter in the 1950s. But a black man is still preferred over a white woman. If she happens to be a lesbian, it drops right down. 

I confess to a bias here. I'm a woman, and I have been for rather a long time. I do not feel inferior, and I have conquered every oppression I've ever faced. I married well, and have good sons. Why does this matter to me?

Because it matters. The equality of women will lift all people. It benefits everyone. The only losers in this scenario are arseholes.

If You Remove Your Clothes, I Will Kill You

Clearly you lot are as interested in this whole topic of morality as I am, so I'll share a bit more of what I have been learning, because, gosh, this is cool stuff.

One of the most interesting aspects for me is how morality is carved up by experts. There are different ways to do this, with different numbers of categories (known as foundations), but for the sake of this humble blog, it's good enough to look at it as five, the distinctions here made sense to me and until I come up with a system of my own (and you know I shall) this works.

So, basically you have:

1. Harm.
2. Reciprocity
3. Hierarchy
4. Purity
5. Community

The most interesting thing for me was not just realising that I only ever really thought of the first two as being important, or indeed of having anything to do with morality, but I found out why.

I hope you can read this graph, what it shows is that conservatives (small c, this is mindsets/worldviews, not party politics) place the highest emphasis on fairness, and the lowest on community ("ingroup"), while they place harm slightly below purity. 

Liberals also place fairness highest, along with harm, but considerably higher, and they place purity as lowest, in fact very low indeed. 

But there's also a quick glance broader conclusion. Conservatives consider all five roughly equal, while liberals are interested overwhelmingly with harm and fairness, and aren't terribly interested in the other three.

By this definition, I'm a liberal, which is the accusation I get all the time anyway, and have no objection to.

As I stressed, this is not a party politics issue. This is about what makes you tick, and why you make the decisions you do. It will work no matter where you are from or what is offered as party politics in your location. 

So, what is meant by these categories?

Well, Harm is the area of morality concerned with assault on another person (or animal), and any damage inflicted that isn't purely financial. So it could be physical or mental suffering. This would include murder, rape, violence, assault, bullying, intimidation, care negligence, and so on. 

It is generally agreed by all cultures and all humans that harm is wrong, but they do vary in how wrong it is, what the punishment or compensation should be, and what the exceptions are. 

Reciprocity is about fairness in agreements and transactions, and is not confined to money. Betrayal of any kind, broken promises, not sharing resources, fraud, mooching, tax evasion, and telling lies for gain are all covered under this.

Again, pretty much everyone agrees it's wrong, but just how wrong and what to do about it vary. At the extreme end of both liberal and conservative, fairness is valued above harm, which is obviously a dangerous situation if you are the one who broke the rules.

Hierarchy is all about respect for authority, at any level, from the family to the king or president, and everything in between, but moreover it's respect for the rank and position, not the individual. 

The notable correlation here, while not dramatic, is how this is placed above community at the conservative end, and below it at the liberal end. This is where most people's notion of politics are based. Who is most respected and deemed important - your own friends, family, and neighbours, or the people in charge? 

Purity, as I explained the other day is to do mostly with sex, and is one of the most fascinating areas of all to examine, because it is usually based in religion, and rarely follows any logic. 

If you remember nothing else from this graph (I do hope it's firmly stuck in your head) it's that extreme conservatives place purity above harm when making moral decisions. Because purity "laws" are aimed chiefly at women, you don't need me to tell you that this is where oppression of women in conservative societies comes from. That's a topic I often cover and will do so again soon. 

Community is a double-edged sword. On the one hand a heightened sense of community leads to loyalty to one's own, which we could all agree is a noble thing, and indeed a natural thing. But it also leads to racism and a general ostracism of "other". 

What's most interesting here is where the highest scores of community are on the graph, and that's right in the middle. I would suggest it needs to be further broken down into its effects as just noted, before that can really be evaluated.

It's quite interesting to consider your own attitudes towards each aspect here, and you can rank them in order of importance, in the absence of a full survey. 

Incidentally, while searching for the graphic, I came across a more extreme version, obviously it's a different sampling, but the overall pattern is identical, and that's the important part. 

What happens is clear. When making a moral decision, a person relies on established priorities. When a woman is stoned to death for adultery, there can be no doubt, purity is being placed above harm. 

Your own morality map will then judge the action. 

Morality with God (But Don't Blame God)

Well, the data is in. The research has been done. It has also been published but most people won't see it unless they read the right books or articles. It may drift through into "memes" or highbrow conversations, but will the information hit mainstream and become common knowledge? We'll see.

But we now know, not just surmise, that religion affects morality. The links are clear. The facts are nevertheless shocking.

As the professor introduced it, he said "..but you won't like it," and in my case he was wrong. I loved it. It explained so much.

You see, they have conclusively proven with repeated studies, on a variety of people, right around the world, that religion powerfully and directly affects morality. That's not the part I love.

They've broken it down, and they know why. But even that's not the best bit.

It is not that it affects their morality for the better. 

Before some of you get too excited, it's not that it affects it for the worst either. Both are true.

I wish all of you could watch these lectures and read the associated reports, but I know you won't, so I'll now attempt to explain it as succinctly as I can. I'm not very good at succinct, so please cut me some slack here.

First they broke religion down into 3 key areas:

1. Religious belief.
2. Religious practice.
3. Religious experience.

Religious belief, by all accounts, doesn't affect much at all. That is to say, which religion you follow, and what the specific beliefs of that religion are, really play no important part in your overall morality. And, the simple fact that you have any belief at all, or none, or just a little vague belief, has no real bearing on it either. Just having a belief, any belief, of any level, or none, does not really affect a person's morality.

This is important. I hope it's obvious why, and if it isn't, you need to study this more yourself.

Religious experience even, the most powerful, or the absence of any, has almost zero impact.

But religious practice, that is to say sharing your religion with others, attending places of worship, and being part of a religious community, with all the associated social and instructive aspects of that, has a massive effect.

As we are a very social creature, I expected it to have some effect, this is not all that surprising, but I was not expecting it to be THE effect, and I certainly wasn't expecting to hear that religious beliefs have hardly any effect at all. But, as I said, and wish to re-iterate, this is not the opinion of one researcher, of from one study. This is solid evidence from multiple and varied research, internationally.

What this means is that one's peers and teachers, regardless of who they are, and regardless of what we think, direct (control?) our behaviour far more than any concept of divinity we may or may not have.

I really think you should mull that over for a bit. It explains peer pressure. It explains cultural influence (cultural contamination, if you like). It explains a lot.

Unfortunately, it explains two things equally well.

It explains why charity is associated with churches.
It explains why people become suicide bombers.

The subtle and not so subtle pressures from your religious community can be a force of good or a force of evil. It can go either way.

I could go on about this at considerable length, but a) I'm not the expert, I'm just reporting, and b) I'm sure a discussion will ensue anyway.

There it is. Make of it what you will. Clearly, interpretation is the key here.

I know what Dennis is going to say. He'll quote Shakespeare.

More of the Same

I shared this video on FB yesterday, but in case you missed it, this is a fascinating inslight into the feeling of disgust, and in fact a fascinating insight into the biology of politics, but what I want you to take home from it is how disgust causes more disgust.

But it doesn't end there.

This works for everything. Our brains seem to have a penchant for more of the same, even if it's something negative.

If we are already bored we find things more boring.
If we are already sad we find things more sad.
If we are already frustrated we find things more frustrating.
If we are already scared we find things more scary.
If we are already annoyed we find things more annoying.
If we are already worried we find things more worrying.

There are no exceptions to this rule. Simply, if our coping systems are already stressed, we find things more stressful.

It's a cycle, or really a spiral, downwards. It can be broken, but that requires some delightful stroke of luck, of random intervention, or for us to be aware of what is happening, and pull ourselves together. However, there can come a point where it take a considerable effort to reverse it.

Of course, the good news is that it works the other way too.

If we are already pleased we find things more pleasing.
If we are already excited we find things more exciting.

It takes a lot of the positive to counteract the negative, and the amount required increases the further down the negative spiral we go.

But most importantly, we are deceived by this.

If you are in a bad mood, a very minor irritation can seem like a very big deal. This is why tired, grumpy people "snap". We've all done it. We've all reacted out of frustration at the end of a bad day. It takes quite a lot of deep breaths and counting to ten to tolerate annoying things when we are at that point.

But when we are having a good day, we might take the exact same "issue" in our stride. Therefore, we are deceived by our negativity into thinking something is awful, unbearable, bad, when our rational mind knows it's no big deal at all.

The negative mind is not a rational mind. Grumpy people are not realists, they are suffering.

Mr Right

I apologize in advance for those of you left out of this musing, because it's about finding the right man. It only applies to women (and possibly, gay men). It will not touch on finding the right woman at all (although much of it will apply). I've been a woman for almost 52 years now, therefore that is my area of expertise. I don't like it when men give advice to women about such things, and I am not going to presume to advise men. So there you have it.

Now, it has come to my attention that some of my friends have problems in the area of choosing the right man. Either they have already chosen the wrong one, and may or may not still be with him, or they are single and either looking, or about to make a terrible mistake. Or all of the above.

Don't sell yourself short.

I've seen it so many times.

Listen to me. I did the impossible. I married at 18, little more than a year after I left school, and made it work. We are as happy as pigs in shit after 34 years together. As I type he's lovingly making my breakfast. This is a good man.

He's not a perfect man. Forget that. There is no such thing. Are you perfect? No of course you are not, nobody is. We are all just who we are (and I'll come back to that.)

Based on my self-proclaimed success in a long term relationship I actually started to write a book on how to have a great marriage. The problem was, after I'd written the first chapter, I could see a wonking great problem. You see, the first chapter's advice in a nutshell was "choose the right man." And if you fail there, the rest of the book is useless. Seeing as most people who would read it would already be committed, the whole project was a waste of time.

So, while there are plenty of things you can do right or wrong to make a marriage successful (and I'll come back to that, too) none of it makes a ha'porth of difference (you can look up that quaint saying if you like) if you have not chosen the right person.

It should not be hard to do. It should be obvious whether you've picked the right one or not, but apparently, it's not. So, why is this? Why do millions of people choose the wrong person?

One reason is "settling". People who either have a low self-esteem or have had a hard time finding anyone at all, will take the first willing suitor who comes along. People also do this when house-hunting, and it is always a mistake.

Another reason is superficials. He's handsome, he's wealthy. There is nothing wrong with choosing a good-looking man (it'll save your kids a lot of heartache for a start) and money is always useful, but these are not the right reasons to select a man.

And sex. While it's obviously an important part of a relationship you cannot build a relationship around it.

But I think the biggest problem is a type of blindness that affects infatuated people. Instead of looking at the real guy, they build a fantasy picture up of him, which blots out his temper, his poor money choices, his laziness, or whatever.

I have seen this so many times, if I had a penny for every relationship I saw as doomed from the word go, I'd be living on my own island by now.

What you should be doing during those early dates is evaluating his character. This isn't hard.

You can judge a lot about a man by how he treats waitresses, old people, children, animals, and people he doesn't like. What you should see in all these cases is kindness and good manners. A man who tries to impress a date by bossing serving staff around should really have a big flashing red light above his head. It speaks volumes.

A man who wastes a lot of money on you should also raise a red flag, unless he's very rich. Generosity is one thing but if you hear him say "Oh it doesn't matter, I can pay the rent a bit late" RUN AWAY. That won't change.

It's great if a guy is good looking, and it's great if he compliments you, but if he is very vain, and has very high expectations of how you look too, there will be problems down the line. Shallowness isn't always obvious and you have to look for it. Shallow people belong together, so unless you too are preoccupied with that sort of thing, avoid this one.

His topic of conversation gives clues too. If at any time during your early dates - when a man would be expected to try hard - he actually bores you, that's just the tip of the iceberg. if he's boring for ten minutes now, he'll be very, very boring in years to come. Similarly if he shows no interest in your interests, dismisses your opinion, or tries to change the subject, that is just the start of things to come too. You do not need to share every interest, but your core values must be the same. If he thinks football is more important than justice, peace, and world affairs, and you don't, trust me, that will be a bone of contention later on.

He must make you laugh. Sharing the same sense of humour is critical. There will be times when that is the only thing that gets you through. It isn't enough for you to both enjoy the same comedian. He must be able to amuse you all by himself. He doesn't have to be a comic genius, just pay enough attention to know what you find amusing. If he just cracks lame jokes for his own benefit, he'll be of no use to you.

A wise old man once said there are three entities in any relationship, her, him, and the couple. They all need time. A relationship shouldn't suffocate you. If, in the early days, he demands a lot of attention, and never gives you any time to yourself, imagine how that will be when you live in the same place.

Most of all he should accept you as you are. Not just when you are at your best. And that works both ways, you see, because he won't always be at his best either.

What you should fall in love with is the whole person, not just the best bits. And you must allow for the fact that this person will change. As we age we not only get greyer, wrinklier, fatter, and in the case of men, balder, we change inside too. Our interests and priorities change. While you cannot accurately predict what a person will change into, there are clues.

Sometimes their positives increase, and their negatives decrease, and sometimes it's the other way around. Life is funny like that, but here are a few clues. Remember - at this early stage he should, in theory, be trying to impress you. This may well be the best behaviour you ever see. Therefore, chances are:

A man who is late for dates will probably be unreliable with timekeeping for the rest of his life, and there will be times that this is extremely problematic.

A man who loses his temper with you during a date will probably forever be argumentative, and may even become violent. (It should go without saying that you should never marry or co-habit with a man who shows any level of violence towards you, in fact you should drop him like a hot brick. It should go without saying, but....ay,ay,ay the time this gets ignored....)

A man who is not nice to other people is not a nice man, no matter how nice he is to you. One day you'll suffer it too.

A man who drinks excessively may offer clues to future behaviour, but most importantly of all, watch how he behaves when inebriated. That is his true character coming out. Never use the excuse "Oh, he was drunk". That's the real person, right there. If he's silly and giggly and mischievous and loves everyone, he's fine. If he picks fights or buys a round for the entire bar or tries to drive home, cross him off your list.

While you may be alert to bad behaviour you may not be alert to blandness. If a man is basically ethical and sensible, but is essentially what Billy Connolly calls "beige", and you have a colourful personality, there will be conflict down the line. Beige people get more beige with age. Colourful people get more colouful with age. While opposites often attract they rarely make it for the long haul.

Finally, you two must be able to talk to each other. You've heard all the advice about never going to bed angry, about expressing yourself honestly, about never rehashing historical wrongs in an argument, but people still get it horribly wrong. If I hear "I don't know how to tell my husband" I know the problem is not whatever it appears to be. This is not a marriage of two minds, and that, dear reader, is what you are aiming for. You should almost be able to read each other's mind.

You are both entitled to privacy, and I cannot emphasize that enough. If you are one of those women who asks him what he's thinking? STOP IT. Mind your own business. Just be sure that you have chosen a man who, if it concerns you, he will tell you.

I'm sure I've forgotten a few things here, and of course we all have things that are important to us personally that others are not the least bit bothered by. But I hope I've impressed upon those of you who needed to hear this, that this selection process must not be taken lightly, that it isn't impossible, and that it's vital you don't rush into anything.